Benjamin Blade Speed Watkins On Faith and Reason

Benjamin Blade Speed Watkins, Host/Producer at Real Atheology - A Philosophy of Religion Podcast, posted something for discussion: "Faith without reason is blind, but reason without faith is impotent. I’m came up with this little gem, or at least I like to thing I did. Who have I unknowingly ripped off? How unoriginal am I actually being? Philosophy friends, ASSEMBLE!" [For my response see below. For a more robust defense see this on Facebook].

Loftus:

There is only blind faith, that is, faith without reason. So reason doesn't need faith at all. *Why do I bother* There is reasoning based on faith, but that's equivalent to reasoning based on the conclusions of delusions and wishful thinking. By contrast, reasoning about the nature of nature, its workings, and origins is based on logic and objective evidence.

Watkins:

There is almost certainly more than one sense of the term faith, and at least one of those senses is intimately related to reason as I argue here: LINK

Loftus:

Without yet reading what you wrote, there is a trivially true definition of faith, which means holding a proposition as true. When it comes to substantive, important definitions there are the many incoherent and contradictory ones believers say they hold to when it comes to their religion, but don't in fact follow in practice. There is also their religious "Faith" itself, which is a body of unevidenced and incoherent doctrines.

The best way, the most consistent way, the coherent way to understand what believers actually do is to hold to their religious propositions without sufficient objective evidence blindly due to wishful thinking, which is best described as "faith." It's the conclusion of nonbelievers as I write about in the 10th chapter in this book: LINK. Cheers!

Loftus:

After reading your essay you have been infected with the very virus that keeps you from recommending Plantinga's book in your top three books. Read mine for the antidote, or David Eller's, or Peter Boghossian's, or Jerry Coyne's or Victor Stenger's, or Matthew McCormick's, or James Lindsay's, or George Smith's.

Watkins:

I would recommend Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein. You are clearly beginning with a conception of faith that theists are going to object to. A more robust understanding of faith would be the “leap of faith” described by Kierkegaard. We can argue for this concept this using Wittgenstein’s ideas of a language game and family resemblance.

Loftus:

I reject Kierkegaard's definition of faith, for instance, as one of a multitude tht Christians have put forth. For the record, I did some work on Kierkegaard as my master's thesis was on Karl Barth, who adopted his theological epistemology.

Let me just ask you to think about the following claim, which is from David Hume. We should think exclusively according to the strength of the probabilities when it comes to the nature of nature, its workings (miracles?) and its origins. If we do that, there is nothing to leap over, unless we leap over the probabilities, and if we leap over the probabilities then it's an irrational leap over the probabilities.

Now you say his definition is one everyone can agree to agree upon, but why? Why should we accept for the purposes of argument something that is plainly false? Why begin a discussion based on a falsehood?

Watkins:

I’m not suggesting we leap over any probabilities. I am saying there is a sense you and I both have faith in a probability calculus and this sense of faith or “belief in” is not contrary to reason. I’m not merely repeating myself. I’m arguing for a specific concept of faith and a substantive claim about that concept ie it’s the one we should use.

Watkins:

I’m also be as charitable as possible to theism. These have to be methodological virtues in thinking. Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.

Loftus:

You should only be charitable to the truth. Why do otherwise? For the sake of argumentation? It's gets their attention, sure, but then you're not being honest with them, or being consistent in my opinion.

You say faith is confidence or trust in a person...From whence do you arrive at this so-called confidence or trust?  This is one of the many definitions believers offer that make no sense upon closer examination.

Loftus:

Believers are making you and others play by their rules, even some atheist philosophers, as I wrote about in "Unapologetic." You oblige because otherwise they would ignore you and move on to someone else. They make you feel important, worthy of respect. You are being played, sorry, and I'm also sorry you'll reject what I just said. 

Watkins:

There seems to be a lot of psychologizing going on there and little in the way of arguing for or against certain concepts of faith while dialoguing. I’ll rest my case here.

Loftus:

Okay. Research into it. Don't settle for what you've argued until you look, uh, deeper. I've made my case in my book and blog posts. Based on the soundness of my reasoning the psychologizing might be wrong, but my case isn't. Cheers!

Loftus:

In this meme of mine I want you to think of "blind faith" whenever you see "faith" used. You cannot doubt its rhetorical force when you do. This is, again, how Christian believers use the word faith IN PRACTICE, especially of the more conservative and fundamentalist sects.

For when exposed, even though Christians disagree vehemently, this is all they do: