Saturday, March 17, 2012

ATHEIST FAITH

The Christian, as well as other Theists, sees the evidence of design all around him and recognizes the work of a Creator.  He believes, or has faith that that Creator exists.  In fact, to many, perhaps most people on this earth, God’s (or a god’s) existence is not questioned.

The Atheist sees the same evidence, but for some reasons dismisses the possibility of a Creator.  He doesn’t simply question the possibility; he believes that God does not exist.  This seems to me a strong faith commitment, as strong as that of the Theist.  And yet the Atheist gets quite indignant when this matter is called to his attention.  He insists that this is not so.

My dictionary (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.) gives many definitions for the word faith.

My Atheist friend insists that he does not have faith, while it appears quite clear to me that he does.  Perhaps part of the reason for our disagreement is caused by the fact that he uses one narrow definition of the word, Webster’s #2b(1) “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”  His insistence then would make sense (to him).  He apparently assumes that this definition describes Christian faith, and is the one which is held by Christians and other Theists.

I suspect that my friend assumes an even further definition describes Christian faith.  It’s the one allegedly given by the little boy in Sunday school that “faith is when you believe something even when you know it’s not true.”

However, as a Christian I would hold to Webster’s definition #2b(2) “complete trust,” and #3 “something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp.:  a system of religious beliefs.”  From my communications with my friend, I’d say that this describes not only my, but his faith as well.

So, it is not, as my friend appears to believe, simply a matter of facts versus faith.  He and I both base our understanding on assertions which are supposedly factual.  We interpret the data and rely on these for our world view.  Faith or belief is required throughout the entire process.  We trust or believe in some assertions which we believe are backed by evidence.  *We refer to these as “facts.”  He does this as well as I.  Sadly, we all are often tempted to ignore some facts, those which do not fit easily into our world view.

For instance, my friend, along with other Atheists insists on what I would term “The Constantine Myth,” the view that the 4th Century Roman Emperor Constantine was the originator of Christianity and of the New Testament as we know it.  (See:  THE WORDAND THE WORD.)  To hold this view he chooses to ignore the early manuscript evidence for the New Testament, as well as three centuries of Christian history and writings.  I’ll insist that this is a matter of faith on his part, and it appears to be more like Webster’s definition #2b(1) or even like that of the little boy mentioned above.

Also contrary to my friend’s thinking, Christian faith is based on facts:  the eyewitness’ reports, the works and claims of Jesus, the empty tomb.  My friend may deny the factuality of these evidences, but they are strongly attested.  To deny their factuality requires faith on his part.

The “facts versus faith” argument may appear to be a good way for the Atheist to protect his belief system but it works both ways.

I do not want to sound insulting to my friend.  I genuinely desire for him to open his mind up to consider the inconsistencies of his own position as well as the assertions of Christianity.

9 comments:

gary said...

bill, I think there are several reasons why atheism is so appealing; spiritual-you can be like god. ; we tend to reinforce what we believe to be true with facts that support our believe and disregard others for peace of mind. Confusion creates fear and our tendency is to flee; heard one preacher say about the creator: he either exist or he doesn't. if he doesn’t, all my belief cannot conjure him up like a Jennie, and if he does, all my unbelief can't kill him.

Canadian Atheist said...

Part 1

He believes, or has faith that that Creator exists. In fact, to many, perhaps most people on this earth, God’s (or a god’s) existence is not questioned.----> Are you appealing to a logical fallacy here, my friend? Just because many people believe something, doesn't make it true. The religious had us believing the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe for a long time. Turns out it wasn't true.

The Atheist sees the same evidence, but for some reasons dismisses the possibility of a Creator.----> Not entirely true but a common mistake. There are different sorts of atheists. I'd probably be labeled (jeez I hate labels LOL) as an atheist agnostic. I don't dismiss the possibility of a creator, I just see no evidence of one and even if I did, that wouldn't make your God more plausible than the thousands of other Gods out there. In fact, I find the Christian God highly, highly implausible.

And yet the Atheist gets quite indignant when this matter is called to his attention. He insists that this is not so.--->Not really. But the reason it may seem so sometimes when you encounter an atheist is because religious people are always trying to label us as religious when that just isn't true. It's kind of like when they try to brand us as immoral - after a while it gets annoying to refute.

I suspect that my friend assumes an even further definition describes Christian faith. It’s the one allegedly given by the little boy in Sunday school that “faith is when you believe something even when you know it’s not true.”----> No. I think many religious people believe wholeheartedly in their doctrine.

However, as a Christian I would hold to Webster’s definition #2b(2) “complete trust,” and #3 “something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp.: a system of religious beliefs.” From my communications with my friend, I’d say that this describes not only my, but his faith as well.---> Not really. I have no religious beliefs.

Canadian Atheist said...

Part 2

He and I both base our understanding on assertions which are supposedly factual. We interpret the data and rely on these for our world view. Faith or belief is required throughout the entire process. We trust or believe in some assertions which we believe are backed by evidence. *We refer to these as “facts.” He does this as well as I. Sadly, we all are often tempted to ignore some facts, those which do not fit easily into our world view.---> Sort of but not really. Your source of truth is the Bible. While I don't deny there are some truths within the Bibles pages, I don't see them as uniquely Christian and a great deal of it has been debunked by actual science. For example, DNA and fossils show us we didn't just pop into existence in the Garden of Eden. We know you need more than two people to have enough DNA diversity to keep a species alive. There are many, many more, but that's just one.

To hold this view he chooses to ignore the early manuscript evidence for the New Testament, as well as three centuries of Christian history and writings. I’ll insist that this is a matter of faith on his part, and it appears to be more like Webster’s definition #2b(1) or even like that of the little boy mentioned above.---> Even if I conceded that you were correct about Constantine, there is no denying that the Bible is cobbled together from books by different authors at different times and that there is a very high chance none were direct witnesses to what they describe. The book seems to me obviously a work of man.

Also contrary to my friend’s thinking, Christian faith is based on facts: the eyewitness’ reports, the works and claims of Jesus, the empty tomb. My friend may deny the factuality of these evidences, but they are strongly attested. To deny their factuality requires faith on his part.---> No, not really. There's no proof that there were witnesses and you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. That's a logical fallacy. I think it's probable that Jesus lived but I don't believe he was the son of God, sent here to scapegoat himself for humanity. I don't believe in the miracles or many of the bad moral teachings described in the Bible. I think we're outgrowing it and finally admitting that it's a flawed book that gives us some insight into ancient man. However, it's the work of man, not God.

The “facts versus faith” argument may appear to be a good way for the Atheist to protect his belief system but it works both ways.--->Atheism isn't a belief system.

I do not want to sound insulting to my friend. I genuinely desire for him to open his mind up to consider the inconsistencies of his own position as well as the assertions of Christianity.---> I'm certainly not offended. I enjoyed reading your post a great deal. In fact, I enjoy reading all of your posts.

Canadian Atheist said...

Gary, atheists don't think they're like God. We don't worship ourselves either. And really, there are no profs that prove there is a God, no matter how much the religious want that to be different. And if belief can't conjure him and unbelief can't kill him and you have no proof he exists, what's the point of worshiping him constantly and why is one of his main requirements for being a Christian to do so? Does that sound like an all-powerful, loving God to you? One that needs your constant admiration or he'll punish you for eternity? I think if there is a God, he would be above such pettiness.

gary said...

hello CA. i would suggest you look again at the evolutionary tree. who is the greatest? man! that is what i mean-no one higher. it totally does away with god. now even evolution is looking at intelligent design. we all want a just gov't. where do you think this originates? the bible says you can know god not just know about him,paul says this god is not far from us,look for him, you will find. most christians i speak with don't believe this either. you're in good company.what do you think worship means? Jesus said the bible is true.that is a good place to start being teachable.

Canadian Atheist said...

> Hi Gary. :) ,

Intelligent design is creationism in fancy packaging. It's not science. It's wishful thinking. But even so, it doesn't negate my basic point that any power, energy, creator or something we'd term a God, wouldn't waste its time wanting us to worship it or what foods we eat or who we slept with and so on. These are obviously human concerns.

gary said...

CA, just as your friend bill urges you, I also urge you to think about the definations of words you use. worship,for example? I think wisdom would also tell you not to catagorize yourself with a group. do your own thinking and weigh the source of your knowledge,(true and false facts) and the process the you determine which is which.jesus said that the prophet moses spoke the truth about Him as the creator. He is the only way to be saved. If jesus is right and you are wrong,you are going to end up in a world of hurt when your heart beats the last time.i am not a thinker myself. however,einstein,who is, believed without any doubt in a creator. i am sure i can't convince you so i will not try anymore.

Canadian Atheist said...

Gary, fear of hell is not a good reason to believe something. Also, if you use Pascal's wager, you will find that you too could be in for a world of hurt because maybe your God isn't the correct one. What would you have to say for yourself if you got to the gates and there was Ra or Odin standing there? There are thousands of Gods throughout history. Thousands of Christian sects even.

But your post does reinforce the idea I put forward sometimes that Christianity at its heart is based on fear. The fear of death and the fear of the unknown.

Bill Ball said...

Okay guys. That's enough.