On Faith, Evidence, and Prejudices

The act of accepting a proposition is not one of belief, or faith, if we have sufficient objective evidence for doing so. We nonbelievers proportion our conclusions on the strength of the evidence, per David Hume. We think in terms of the probabilities, not faith.

The way nonbelievers think of these terms is to equate the words belief (or faith), with blind belief (or blind faith).

This is not just a semantical argument. The way believers actually use these terms leads nonbelievers to this conclusion. That believers define them as involving some sort of trust, based on some level of evidence, is not how they actually use them in practice. If however, faith is trust, then there is no reason to trust in faith​.

Faith is hoping your god will rescue you, help you, answer your prayers, and\or save you based on insufficient objective evidence.

We must follow the objective evidence wherever it leads, regardless of the consequences for our current faith, prejudices, worldviews, religions, and moralities. It is irrational to reject objective evidence in favor of our current faith, prejudices, worldviews, religions, or moralities.

Objective evidence showing there is no free will must be accepted, regardless of the perceived consequences about us as choice-makers, just as it shows we must accept evolution, regardless of the supposed consequences for morality.

One thing every informed person should agree on is the following: If we have any free will at all, our choices are so limited, so constrained, so restricted by our generic make-up and social conditioning that at best, we might as well have none at all.