UPDATED & CLARIFIED
I thoroughly confused as to why theists try to argue against atheism by saying that atheism is just another brand of faith. I find it odd, annoying, and either completely cynical, or just plain stupid - either that, or one has stretched the definition of the word "faith" to be so broad as to have become completely synonymous with belief in general, and therefore useless.
I am personally offended when someone tells me that I "really" do have faith. To me that's an insult because faith is totally unwarranted and ridiculous. To say that my atheistic, rationalist, secularist, naturalist belief-system is in any way faith-based is to tell me that I'm 1) a giant hypocrite and 2) I'm an idiot. Obviously, those things are offensive.
First off in order to be able to discuss this coherently I need some definitions. To me religion and faith are nearly interchangeable, in that all religions are to one degree or another fundamentally based on faith. Faith is a non-reality based belief or set of beliefs.
An organisation which doesn't use faith I don't think is truly a religion - though I don't have a word yet for historicially religious traditions which have now rejected faith and dogma. (Most UU congregations fit into this - while historically religious, are more like community groups than a religion.) An organisation which originally wasn't a religion but adopts faith does, I think, become at least partly a religion (the American conservative Republican party is an example of this in many ways - especially in the past few years.)
Atheism is technically only the lack of belief in gods. In my own writing and philosophy, I generally use it a little more broadly - to me it is also a belief that there are no gods, nor anything supernatural. Though I do try to make it clear that I'm not speaking for all atheists, everywhere, and that some atheists believe to varying degrees in the supernatural and even religion, for example Buddhism, a religion, is technically mostly atheistic. There are no gods, but it makes supernatural unverifiable non-reality based claims.
So, to the topic at hand.
Over on Mind on Fire, one of my favourite blogs, a commenter said the following as a way to (as I interpret it) argue that theism is just as valid as atheism, and just another side of the faith-coin, or something like that.
As a former atheist, I’ve seen that humanism is just another faith system that is as prone to insular thinking, subjectivity, agendas, moralizing, etc.
There were so many things which bothered me about that statement that I didn't know where to begin, and ended up writing a long response which I decided would best be posted here, highly modified - despite the fact that I've reiterated these thoughts here a few times. Mostly I just thought it would be a shame to delete hours worth of writing and thinking.
First off, it seems he's trying to use the argument from authority - he was an atheist, so he can make valid judgements about what atheism is. Well, he's wrong. If he truly was an atheist, then he totally missed the entire point of both atheism and even more so of secularism. Right after saying "I don't believe in gods/I don't believe there are gods", the second inherent part of secularism is that faith is just so much nonsense.
Atheism is (most often) coupled with a complete rejection of the entire concept of faith. I find it odd when religionists try to characterise atheism or secularism or any other belief or belief system which is not religious as just another type of religion or faith. That is just simply not the case. Faith is fundamentally based on the idea that there are truths which are not objectively verifiable through any natural, observable, or scientific means. Atheism & secularism reject the concepts of religion and faith as being inherently false and unverifiable. The truth claims of every single religion, ever are either in contradiction with reality, and are therefore false, or cannot be backed up with any sort reality or facts.
Atheism, especially atheism as it exists in our society (as contrasted with the technical atheism that some Buddhists and sundry others follow), is a total rejection of religion, faith, all non-reality based beliefs, and the supernatural. If a belief is in conflict with reality, or cannot be supported with any evidence, then it is a useless and potentially harmful one.
The commenter went on to try and say that while he admits that religionists are judgemental, so are atheists, and while Mormons are admittedly guilty of "pious absolutism", so are humanists, secularists, and atheists. He went on to compare atheists' critique of religion as invalid because of the "whole pot/kettle and mote/beam thing".
In his attempt to characterise atheism as just another brand of faith, he seems to be arguing that the atheist critique of religion is further invalidated because he thinks atheists are guilty of the same kind of blind belief that religionists are. Unfortunately for him and his argument, that doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny, nor indeed, reality.
First of all, those proverbs have to do with hypocrisy on the part of the criticiser. I, as an atheist, criticise beliefs which are not based in reality, especially when those beliefs motivate people to harm others, infringe on other's rights, or cause people to ignore or otherwise discount reality and science. That is not hypocritical because I substantiate my beliefs, and if I'm shown that I'm wrong, and given convincing evidence, will change that belief. That is, to me, the essence of atheism's critique of religion - that even when a belief is shown to be wrong or harmful, or both, it is often impervious to scrutiny, critique, or change.
There is a fundamental difference between religious "truths", which are more accurately described as faith-beliefs and scientific, reality-based truth - in that one is based on reality, and the other on conjecture, subjective emotional experiences, and often complete and utter fantasy. That is something which is simple fact, it is provable, it is scientific, it is real.
I think there are, objectively, four categories of things/beliefs:
1) things which have proven to be true or have significant amounts of evidence supporting them
2) things which have been proven false, or have significant amounts of evidence contradicting them, or supporting a conflicting view
3) things which have yet to be sorted into either category #1 or #2 but are verifiable
4) things which are not verifiable as either true or false, real or imaginary
Science - the thing most (but unfortunately not all) atheists believe is able to describe reality because it has proven itself able to, you know, because of REALITY - is about finding the difference between category #1 and #2, examining #3 to try and sort it into either #1 or #2 and ignoring everything in #4. There is some seeming overlap between categories #3 and #4, as we gain more knowledge and are more able to analyse our world, our perception of what was in #4 shrinks. #4 seemed to be a much larger category just a few centuries ago. While it has shrunk considerably, I do think there will likely always be some things in category #4 - things like whether there is an afterlife, whether gods exist, whether there are magical and secret handshakes and passwords which allow one into heaven, etc.
Religion's claims - i.e. those which are unique to religion and aren't found secularly - fit either into #2 or #4- which means according to science they are either completely wrong or useless ideas. Ideas in religion which happen to be verifiably true aren't there not because of religion/faith but in spite of it. Now, that's not to say the claims aren't or haven't been useful for some (unfortunately many) people - some of those uses arguably good, many bad, but there is just no way to determine if any particular claim is indicative of reality or not - which makes it absolutely useless to me as well as most atheists.
In addition, there is no way to discern the difference between the claims of one religion over another because there is no objective difference between religions. Mormonism's claims are fundamentally in conflict with Catholicism's for example, but neither can be verified, neither is more correct because neither are based on anything real or measurable in any useful way.
There is no way to find out if god really did speak to Joseph Smith as the Mormons claim, or whether it was "really" Moses or Jesus or Mohammed.
Or perhaps god(s) spoke to Moses, Joseph, & Jesus, but not Mohammed, or Mohammed, Jesus & Moses but not Joseph, or Jesus and Moses but neither Joseph nor Mohammed, or just Moses, or (and this scenario is most likely of all) none of the above because there is no such thing as gods, and all those men were either lying, crazy, and/or never said anything close to what is now attributed to them, and may not even have existed.
As I've discussed previously, the ways in which Mormonism gives to find spiritual "truth" are the exact same ways nearly every other religion give: read our holy writings, pray to some deity, attend our fellowship, and have a subjective emotional and/or psychosomatic experience which (inexplicably) means our truth-claims are true.
The problem (as if there were only one) is the verifiable and verified fact that one can (and many have) get the same promised result from any religion. Which means either that they're all equally true - which is impossible because one of the truth claims of most religions is that all others are false - or that indeed all religions are equally false (ding, ding ding!). None of them have objective truths, and all offer certain subjective and, obviously for many, rewarding experiences, but are not, in any way, true or indicative of reality in useful ways - which are the ways which atheists and secularists care about.
I do not discount the fact that many people find important things in religion, find solace, comfort, hope, community, etc., but it is entirely, utterly and wholly false to argue that religion offers "truth" in any way that is comparable to non-theism and science.
Atheism is not faith in any useful definition of the word. To water it down enough to have it include the type of belief atheists have, it would have to become completely synonymous for all types of belief, which would make it a redundant and useless word. Atheism is, rather, a logical, rational, scientific stance which, while not 100% proven, is by far the most likely scenario. It is supported by the fact that scepticism is scientifically the default stance, (that gods are, for example, no more likely than invisible pink unicorns or invisible tea-ware), by the ability of science to more than adequately explain our existence without positing the existence of any religion or gods, and by the fact the chance of gods existing ever, at all, is so infinitesimally small to make the chances of life arising on our planet look like the most boring and every day of common occurrences.
Finally, and to sum up,
ATHEISM IS NOT A TYPE OF FAITH AND IT IS NOT ANOTHER KIND OF RELIGION!!!
12 wisdomy word(s):
Generally I agree. I certainly don't think atheism is another type of faith. But I also think you need to examine your argument a little more.
1. While not another faith system, atheism can be insular, subjective...and atheists can moralise and may have agendas. When you equate science with atheism, as many do because of the evidence-based practice both embrace, then doubly so.
2. Non-belief in gods does not rule out belief in other supernatural phenomena. I have a friend who is a medium. I believe her when she tells me that we exist after death, based not on what I have seen with my own eyes, but based on my and others' knowledge of her. (She actually is an atheist herself.) Some atheists may reject the supernatural as a whole, but they are a subset.
3. Beliefs unproven are not useless. They are often what leads people to seek proof and, when reasonable, are useful in creating efficient hypothetical theory. I understand where you're coming from and that for you this is about religion, but when you speak in absolutes babies get thrown out with the bathwater.
4. Similarly, I think your list should be:
- things that have been proven to be true (a dicey business, but still)
- things that have been proven to NOT be true (again)
- things that are not, at this time, verifiable as true or not true.
Because as the list stands now, lots of things religions claim COULD be in #1. They're either true or they're not. But faith-based claims haven't been PROVEN to be true. Doesn't necessarily mean they aren't (and obviously doesn't mean they ARE either). Lots of things we have now proven (to the extent we can) used to be considered crazy beliefs.
Atheism is not a religion, but I think sometimes people treat Science like one.
1)You're correct, I should be more clear. I'm not equating atheism with science, but I am saying that most atheists are also rationalists, secularists, naturalists, and that believing in science is NOT a type of faith because it is a belief which has evidentiary support and is malleable when new information is presented.
2)I am also aware that some atheists believe in the supernatural. That is why I tried to qualify it. The majority of western atheists also reject the supernatural, and that is the subset I am talking about (namely the subset I fit into).
3) Again, I agree. In my head all these caveats are being applied, I just didn't spell then out completely when writing this :)
4) Yes. It should.
And to me, those who treat science as religion, who refuse to change their beliefs when new evidence is presented, are just as wrong as religionists.
Update: I changed the categories to better explain my ideas. There are now 4.
I think that's clearer now. To say that atheism is a faith or religion is ridiculous. Belief system at best, but so are other philosophies that have no religious underpinnings.
Yeah, I agree both with you and witrh Chosha for the most part. I'd add that atheism itself is not insular, subjective or moralizing; but atheists can be.
Atheism is simply a lack of faith (indeed, if one argues that "atheism takes as much faith as Christianity," then what would a lack of faith be?), But atheists are people like anyone else, and people like to organize into self-selected groups, and every person has their own strengths, weaknesses and experiences that play into our worldview.
And yes, atheism does not rule out belief in supernatural phenomena precisely beacuse it is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods. I remember being aghast and awestruck when I heard one of the most prominent athists in the state of Utah (I'll refrain from naming names) express a belief in the power of homeopathy. It's actually part of why I started Salt City Skeptics.
You know, I should probably stop typing now. My brain is wondering what the hell I'm doing up, and I'm not entirely sure I'm being coherent here. Great post, though. :)
I think the issue comes because GKB is possibly confusing the issue.
Atheism is not a worldview, belief system, morality code, etc., It is simply lack of belief in deities. So, it makes no sense to say it takes faith. The only claim one is making is...well...one isn't even making a claim. One is failing to believe in a claim some other guy is making.
(I could see how strong atheism: that is, "I believe there are no gods" as opposed to "I don't believe there are gods" might have a different case to make for itself. As much as you will hate me for it, I think it does take a brand of faith to make this statement. It takes faith that, for the entire universe, the statement, "Absence of evidence = evidence of absence" is true.)
But GKB seems to be talking about atheists individually. And atheists as individuals, unfortunately or fortunately, do not exist in a vacuum. We DO have other beliefs and belief systems, and these belief systems do involve subjectivity, moralizing, etc.,
For example, the pure merely atheist position is a lack of belief in gods. From here, we go nowhere. But as soon as you start adding things to that. Like, say, "People should not be religious because religions cause harm." That's when you add subjective moralizing beliefs that are not included in atheism. As soon as you say, "We should be secular and rational," that is adding a subjective moralizing belief that is not included in atheism. Of course, YOU believe these beliefs and positions to be justified...but the same is true of any person with a position.
You can't say that your fundamentals (reason, logic, etc.,) are "more sound" than others' (spiritual experiences, etc.,), even though your fundamentals can "reduce" theirs. If you do (which people do), then you will others will be justified in saying that you are making claims based on subjectivity. As much as you try to show that your fundamentals are superior, true, etc., the problem is that this is what EVERYONE does with their fundamentals. So, if no one is convinced, then you get nowhere.
Continuing with what GKB said, he is wrong when he says "they share core similarities when it comes to derived moral conclusions." No. atheism doesn't derive any moral conclusions. The ONLY thing you could say of all atheists' moral conclusions is that they are not driven by god...because the only thing common to all atheists that is necessary for the term atheism is that we all do not believe in gods.
Well, Chandelle on Mind on Fire basically said everything I would say to GKB :3.
I'm in academic mode, so I can't help myself.
Religion, no, but faith? Yeah, atheism (like almost every aspect of human *reality*) requires faith. At least according Merriam Webster's definition 2b of faith. i.e. "Faith (noun): firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
I firmly believe that I *exist* but can I *prove* it? No. Is there evidence that I exist? Yes. But evidence isn't the same as proof, much to the chagrin of all of us who are supposed to be working on our dissertations right this very second. ;-)
Now, the *other* Merriam definitions of faith, on the other hand, those definitely do not apply to atheism.
All great comments, thanks!
@Greenish Blue,
Yes I agree. I ought to make an even clearer distinction between atheism and atheists. I do tend to generalise about atheists based on my own experience and beliefs.
@Andrew
I do admit to subjective moral judgements, and the belief that scientific reasoning, data, and logic which mimics reality is simply better than religion's claims about "ways of knowing". I suppose there isn't an overarching purely objective reason for that, but I do think that religious claims simply aren't real in any useful way. My subjective morality is based on the ideas that suffering is bad, that oppression is bad, that discrimination is bad, that humans inherently deserve to be equal to each other. That is a subjective judgement, but one which I think is defensible and has roots in observable reality - human do and can suffer.
@Kerry
This is where we run into problems with definitions. The difference between proof and evidence is important, I agree. I think faith does not only not have proof, but it also doesn't have evidence (in the scientific sense). Faith is a belief with zero substantiation. That I think might be the difference between our definitions. I also separate out faith as a specific type of belief that is specific to religion.
Atheism is certainly far from proven, but there is defensible logic to the position, as well as certain degrees of evidence.
I think the biggest problem is that our society puts the unverifiable concept of gods into a different category than other unverifiable and absurd, and easily rejected ideas. It is my contention that in fact, gods are in the same category as every other ridiculous notion which cannot be proven either way, and is a waste of time to even worry about.
Well, here's what I would say in response.
Religious claims aren't real in any meaningful way to me, but I cannot deny others' experiences (even if I may believe they are misclassifying them as "spiritual" when they may not be.)
What I argue for is that...even if I can acknowledge that religion can be meaningful to someone (as far as they have experiences they see as being spiritual -- whether they are or not), this for me is a markedly different standard than objective. Because it is simply subjective, rather than objective, I don't think people should make decisions and judgments meant to apply to *everyone* based on them. Rather, subjective experiences should only be applied to people who have those particular subjective experiences.
And of course, what is subjectively felt can be completely at odds with objective reality. So, no matter what is found regarding the Book of Abraham papyri or Book of Mormon historicity or any "objective" claim from Mormonism, this will be ineffective against TBM's subjective experience of the spirit. (However, the same is true the other way -- no matter how much someone feels what they think is the spirit, that doesn't establish that what isn't, is.)
I can agree with you on your positions on suffering, oppression, discrimination, because subjectively, humans are on the same level on this. Suffering feels bad for *all* of us (OK, so maybe not all, but let's discount people immune to pain or people who derive pleasure from it). Oppression and discrimination feel bad to all of us. It sometimes shocks me to see that Mormons team up with religious groups who have oppressed and discriminated against them to gang up on another group. It just doesn't make sense, until I realize the whole "religious" thing.
I can safely say I agree with you on all those points.
This reminds me of the "Church of Liberalism" statements I hear sometimes.
iWonder, Is it any surprise that the supporters of an un-arguable belief system would offer an un-arguable argument?
They're only doing it to annoy you.
Post a Comment