Bill Gnade's Argument in Support of Faith

Since Bill Gnade has visited and commented here at DC so often, I thought I would return the favor and comment on a Blog post of his….

In 2006 Bill made a particular religious argument on his Blog. Recently he said this about it: “I have asked dozens, perhaps hundreds of atheists to reply to my ‘Letter to Christopher Hitchens.’ Not one has done so.”

Okay, I will. Here is Bill’s argument.

Now there is a great deal I could say about it, but the whole point of his argument is what he said in the comments section where he wrote:

I would first point out that I have not argued for or against the existence of God. You see, I am not interested in showing whether God exists; what interests me here is showing that religious belief and non-religious belief are both based in faith: therefore, one is not more or less reasonable than another. My argument, really, is that faith is the only viable epistemological foundation. Mr. Hitchens is in the same boat as any atheist or any theist: he cannot begin to know anything without beginning with a first axiom, premise or step reached by faith. I believe that since faith infuses both the believer's and the sceptic's position, then I can safely conclude that the question is something of a wash.

I believe I have shown that the rational bases for religious and secular beliefs are identical, born in uncertainty. Epistemologically speaking, I…hold to the idea that religion and secularism are "religious" in essence, i.e., based in faith.

I really don’t need to engage the specific examples in his argument to show why it is a wrongheaded non-sequitur, although I could do so. The bottom line is that he’s correct to say we all begin with some sort of faith, since nothing can be proven with apodictic certainty, irrespective of his examples. I must trust my five senses in order to act in this world. I believe I exist as a human being and that the arm in front of me is mine, for the same reason. But I cannot apodictically prove these things. I believe these things. I believe I’m really typing these words in the year 2007, too. Conversely, I do not believe I’m merely dreaming in 2010 about typing these words in the year 2007.

Okay so far? Faith is an essential aspect to knowledge claims. I agree. Without some faith we cannot claim to know anything…anything. Even the Cartesian Cogito ergo sum can only lead us to believe that “doubts exist,” not that there is an “I” who is doing the doubting. And even that meager claim gets us nothing much at all, nor does it lead to any other truth claim, contrary to Descartes’ argument.

One way to phrase Bill’s argument (using some of his very words) goes something like this:

1) Knowledge claims that are based upon faith have no empirical evidence for them.
2) All knowledge claims that are based upon faith with no empirical evidence for them are in the same epistemological boat, in that one of them is not more or less reasonable than another.
3) All religious and non-religious knowledge claims are based on faith without empirical evidence for them.
.: Therefore, religious and non-religious knowledge claims are in the same epistemological boat, in that one of them is not more or less reasonable than another.

After I learn from Bill that I’ve construed his argument properly, I will proceed. If I've misconstrued it, then it would be a waste of time to deal with something that isn't his argument, and I humbly request he specify exactly what his argument is that I've missed.