What's Faith Got to Do With It?
George H. Smith tells us in Atheism: The Case Against God, that “The conflict between Christian theism and atheism is fundamentally a conflict between faith and reason. This, in epistemological terms, is the essence of the controversy. Reason and faith are opposites, two mutually exclusive terms: there is no reconciliation or common ground. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason.” (pp. 96-98) As such, “For the atheist, to embrace faith is to abandon reason.” (p. 100) I have come to agree with Smith. Let me explain.
Let's just take the following propositions:
1) The moon is made of green cheese.
2) Aliens have visited earth from a far away galaxy.
3) The Holocaust never happened.
4) A trinue incarnational atoning resurrecting judging God exists.
5) A God who has forever existed created the universe from nothing at a certain time.
6) The Bible is God's inspired word.
7) A virgin had a baby boy named Jesus.
8) Jesus will return to earth in glory.
When it comes to these propositions I'm reminded of the title of Tina Turner's song, "What's Love Got to Do With it?" However, here I'm arguing "What's Faith Got to Do With It?"
Either 1-8 are improbable or they are not. What's faith got to do with it? What does faith add to the improbabilities of any of them? Nothing that I can see. Nothing at all. Again, either 1-8 are improbable or they are not. If they are improbable, as we must reasonably admit, then faith is irrelevant, unnecessary, unhelpful, and can lead people to believe in absurdities against the probabilities. Hitchhiking on a line from Tina Turner's song, "faith is a second hand emotion."
Christians try to muddy the waters here so people cannot see clearly. They claim atheists have faith too. No. We are non-believers. What does that mean except that it means what it means? We have concluded that religions all share a foundation in faith and we reject faith as a foundation. We only want to accept what the probabilities allow. That goes for everything we accept as true. And we've concluded that the best way to know the probabilities comes from science.
Christians try to muddy the waters here as well. They claim science is based on faith or that science cannot tell us the whole truth. But all they need to do is think about it. You will never hear a scientist say to others after providing evidence for a hypothesis that, "the rest you must take on faith," or, "where the evidence is lacking you must have faith." A good scientist will never claim more than what the evidence shows, and if he does, others will show him wrong. Furthermore, if science cannot tell us the whole truth then what can? Faith, as I've said, has no method.
These are ongoing debates. Deluded people cannot be expected to see this for what it is until after leaving their faith. But it is the crux of the debate. And should they ever leave the faith they will come to agree that faith is irrelevant, unnecessary, unhelpful, and can lead people to believe in absurdities against the probabilities.
Until then they will kick against the goads all of the way.
Let's just take the following propositions:
1) The moon is made of green cheese.
2) Aliens have visited earth from a far away galaxy.
3) The Holocaust never happened.
4) A trinue incarnational atoning resurrecting judging God exists.
5) A God who has forever existed created the universe from nothing at a certain time.
6) The Bible is God's inspired word.
7) A virgin had a baby boy named Jesus.
8) Jesus will return to earth in glory.
When it comes to these propositions I'm reminded of the title of Tina Turner's song, "What's Love Got to Do With it?" However, here I'm arguing "What's Faith Got to Do With It?"
Either 1-8 are improbable or they are not. What's faith got to do with it? What does faith add to the improbabilities of any of them? Nothing that I can see. Nothing at all. Again, either 1-8 are improbable or they are not. If they are improbable, as we must reasonably admit, then faith is irrelevant, unnecessary, unhelpful, and can lead people to believe in absurdities against the probabilities. Hitchhiking on a line from Tina Turner's song, "faith is a second hand emotion."
Christians try to muddy the waters here so people cannot see clearly. They claim atheists have faith too. No. We are non-believers. What does that mean except that it means what it means? We have concluded that religions all share a foundation in faith and we reject faith as a foundation. We only want to accept what the probabilities allow. That goes for everything we accept as true. And we've concluded that the best way to know the probabilities comes from science.
Christians try to muddy the waters here as well. They claim science is based on faith or that science cannot tell us the whole truth. But all they need to do is think about it. You will never hear a scientist say to others after providing evidence for a hypothesis that, "the rest you must take on faith," or, "where the evidence is lacking you must have faith." A good scientist will never claim more than what the evidence shows, and if he does, others will show him wrong. Furthermore, if science cannot tell us the whole truth then what can? Faith, as I've said, has no method.
These are ongoing debates. Deluded people cannot be expected to see this for what it is until after leaving their faith. But it is the crux of the debate. And should they ever leave the faith they will come to agree that faith is irrelevant, unnecessary, unhelpful, and can lead people to believe in absurdities against the probabilities.
Until then they will kick against the goads all of the way.
0 comments:
Post a Comment