"Only religious belief requires faith because only religious belief postulates the existence of entities which we have no good evidence to believe exist. It is a simple error to suppose that just because atheist beliefs are also 'unproven' or 'uncertain' that they too require faith. Faith does not plug the gap between reasons to believe and certain proof. Rather it is what supports beliefs that lack the ordinary support of evidence or argument. And that is why, as the traditional religious texts tell us, faith is not as easy as ordinary belief. Or, as atheists tell us, why faith is foolish".
Julian Baggini, Atheism: A very short introduction
I think there is some truth here. I think that both religious and atheist 'faiths' (if they can be called like that) are quite different in that they do not both argue for the existence of something but rather one of them argues against the existence of that which there is not enough 'good evidence' to believe in. As some atheists keep telling us, we are all (or most) atheists with respect to Zeus, and we all know what it means to be so. I certainly am an atheist with respect to divine cats with two heads that fly and answer my prayers - I have no 'good evidence' to believe in them.
However I wonder what kind of evidence would count as 'good evidence' for atheists to start believing in any God. I don't think that all the believers around the world do not have any evidence at all that could count as 'good evidence' to believe in the God they believe in; I don't think they are just blind people who happened to choose one God they heard about and that's why they believe.
I find it hard to make sense of discussions like this because sometimes people talk about 'good evidence' but they don't make clear what they mean by it. I recently heard a debate between a woman believer and Richard Dawkins in which he admitted the possibility of the existence of 'emotional truth' (as a kind of truth different to scientific truth), for which 'good evidence' would not need to be scientific but rather 'emotional'. In fact he himself is aware of parts of his life where that kind of truth applies. However, if this is so and both truths are based on 'good evidence' (although different kinds of evidence), is it not possible that religious faith is based on 'good (religious) evidence'?
I am wondering if each believer in the World thinks that he has to be a believer just because all the other believers can't be wrong. That scares me a bit.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, we can accept that -so called- 'emotional truth'. But why haven't I heard any truth of that kind yet? Why are we so afraid of sharing the reasons for which we believe in God? Maybe because we are not so sure that those reasons exist.
No... I wasn't saying that (although I admit it may have sounded like that). I think that you are right in that you don't have to believe because other people believe (no matter how many); however I still find it quite hard to assume that because some believers can't explain why they believe with the arguments of science and logic, then it must be because they are wrong or deluded. And that's where I find the fact that there are millions of believers in the world (scientists among them) an interesting fact. It's not that atheists have to believe because so many people believe; but the fact that so many people believe cannot be dismissed just because there are no logical arguments behind those beliefs. I'm inclined to think that at least some of them might have had 'good evidence' of other kind.
ReplyDeleteI am not so sure that you haven't heard (or at least experienced) that kind of 'emotional' truth yet. I don't think you have based all your relationships, the way you speak to people or the way you trust in them, on logic and reason alone (although I might be wrong and you have). Certainly many of us human beings choose to trust that the people we love, love us back, and we don't need to keep getting scientific evidence that they are not cheating us, nor need to keep creating logical arguments that reassure us of the truth of these relationships.
Well, I am inclined to think so (that among all the believers there are some with good evidence). What I meant to say is that, in general, those reasons are too random and abstract. Maybe I am looking for some scientific truth where I should not. But I find an interesting fact too, that we do not hear those evidences as much as others. I was just wondering why. It is easy to hear someone explaining something say 'for example', and then give an example of some situation or fact. It is not that easy when you talk about beliefs. Maybe you are right and, as I said before, I am looking for evidence in a scientific way but, anyway, how can you argue any emotional truth? Can you prove them? Can't they be explained? Is there ANY typical example?
ReplyDeleteNot too long ago I read a book called What We Believe But Cannot Prove, with over 50 essays by several thinkers (many atheists among them) who shared some of such beliefs. I have some things in my life that I believe but cannot scientifically prove (e.g. my wife loves me) and that doesn’t make it less important or less truthful. In fact I think we sometimes build our lives upon many assumptions (not necessarily random) that we cannot actually prove; however that doesn’t imply that we don’t have any evidence for them or that we are necessarily deluded people (although we of course might be).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I share your discomfort about that kind of conversation where people tend to disguise their beliefs with much more certainty than they really have and make the rest of us believe that their opinion is actually the same as God’s. I understand, for example, that some people want to believe in God and perhaps they have good enough evidence to have that belief. However I would prefer them to say their real reasons why they believe in God rather than just saying: ‘Look at nature… Isn’t it obvious that God must exist?’, as if all those who look at nature and can’t see the obvious are somehow blind to such good evidence. The fact is that many people look at nature and it isn’t that obvious, and that phrase only shows that they perhaps haven’t looked at nature close enough.