The Permissibility of Faith

[spetey]

Hi folks!

In my experience, when debating with those who believe in God, my interlocutors will inevitably appeal to faith as their justification for belief. (Some don't call it "faith"--some call it "intuition", or "trust" or some such.) I'm very wary of such appeals, because I hear it as "I will continue to believe despite lack of evidence or argument for my position (at least, of the kind that I can share with anyone who disagrees)." I think such behavior is impermissible. Faith to me is just dogmatism, and to me, dogmatism of any kind is very dangerous.

For comparison: imagine, for example, that you met a rabid racist. You give a carefully reasoned argument to the effect that skin color doesn't matter to who a person is or what rights they have, etc. The racist responds: "Although I have no answer to your argument, or arguments that I can share with you for my own position, I just believe; I have faith that my race is superior." You would be at an impasse, right? Should you come to disagree over some important social policy measure, there is no way to reason out your disagreement. Instead you have to see who has more money for PR, or who has more tanks, or what have you. I assume that in these cases we all agree that "faith" is in an important sense impermissible. We think the racist is being dogmatic, and we think that it's destructive not to be open to reasoning.

So why might appeal to faith be permissible when it comes to discussions of religion? Or have I somehow misconstrued what it is to appeal to faith?


spetey

[ST88]

So why might appeal to faith be permissible when it comes to discussions of religion? Or have I somehow misconstrued what it is to appeal to faith?

Faith is such a personal thing that it is the social equivalent of opinion. And I don't know about you, but it was rammed down our throats in elementary school that opinions are never wrong, only different.

I think there is a biological aspect to faith that has yet to be explored. I think there is a neurological imperative to believe in something, anything, larger than oneself. I think this is a survival strategy that was bred into humans from very early on in their evolution & can be thought of to make sense in just those terms. I recognize this in myself as "awe of nature," but unlike Christians, I had no such exposure to a Christianity that would help explain this feeling in terms of God. I don't know if this is provable or not, but it sure explains a lot.

[spetey]

Faith is such a personal thing that it is the social equivalent of opinion. And I don't know about you, but it was rammed down our throats in elementary school that opinions are never wrong, only different.

I did get some of that in elementary school; luckily I later fell in with the philosophy crowd, who won't have truck with such relativism. The opinion that 2+2=5 isn't just different, it's wrong. The opinion that the earth is flat isn't just different, it's wrong. The opinion that blacks are fundamentally inferior as a result of skin color isn't just different, it's wrong.

To say there are beliefs that are right and beliefs that are wrong is not to say that I always know what's right or wrong. It's important to be open-minded and tolerant, and to be willing to revise one's beliefs in the face of reason. As I suggest above, the opposite position (dogmatism) I consider the ultimate epistemic sin.

But look: of two contradictory beliefs, (at least) one is not true. I believe there is no God (in any traditional, super-natural sense of the term). You perhaps believe there is. If so then one of us must be wrong. Right?! This forum is premised on the idea that it's worth trying to find out which. If opinions are just "different", but no one opinion is better than any other, than why bother changing them, or thinking about them, or discussing them?

I think there is a biological aspect to faith that has yet to be explored. I think there is a neurological imperative to believe in something, anything, larger than oneself.

Could be. But even if so:

1. this "something" doesn't have to be a supernatural entity of any kind, and
2. even if we have a genetic predisposition toward faith, this doesn't justify it. We may also have a genetic predisposition toward murder, or eating lots of fats. That doesn't justify either behavior (in today's environment).

spetey

[chrispalasz]

Hey spetey!

This is a good question! I must admit that I'm a little intimidated talking to one who is in with the philosophy crowd... let's just say I've known too many irrational philosophy students and teachers. (Maybe we're even, though. I'm sure you know a few irrational Christians, as do I. )

Spetey wrote: So why might appeal to faith be permissible when it comes to discussions of religion?

Here's my view and opinion:

Appeal to faith exists because the supernatural exists. Some people appeal to faith because they are deceived by the supernatural. Christians have Faith because the Holy Spirit resides inside of us and testifies to the Truth.

God Himself communicates to Christians in the form of the Holy Spirit. He varifies what He says through the fulfillment of His promises that He has written in the Bible and through other events in our lives and in this world.

Finally, I can begin to address your question. Faith is permissable for Christians because it is the proof that we have that God exists and is Jesus Christ. It is verifiable proof. All anyone needs to do is seek Him and receive the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately... most debate forums are filled with big words and zero action. Nobody seems to want to take the challenge.

People like to ask how Christians know that our Faith is Truth while also knowing that another person's faith is not. The answer is because God has deposited the Holy Spirit inside of us as an assurance that He is truthful. God clearly guides us through His written word (The Bible). We use the Bible as our roadmap, while the Holy Spirit is our navigator, telling us where to go and how to read it.

Faith can be used to determine moral issues. Many Christians use faith to do just that. By Faith we know that what Jesus Christ says is the Truth, and He states plainly our morals.

[spetey]

Hi GreenLight311, welcome to the discussion!

Appeal to faith exists because the supernatural exists. Some people appeal to faith because they are deceived by the supernatural. Christians have Faith because the Holy Spirit resides inside of us and testifies to the Truth.

But this is not a reason you can share with others who don't already share that faith, and that's what I'm seeking. Instead you're "begging the question"--assuming what's to be argued for in your argument.

Imagine the racist saying "I believe other races are inferior because they are, and my belief is correct." (Let me make it clear that I'm not calling you a racist--I'm just making a comparison to an obviously bad case, and asking for a disanalogy.)

God Himself communicates to Christians in the form of the Holy Spirit.

Belief by personal communication is different from belief by faith. But it's similar in that it apparently can't be shared with those who haven't been spoken to personally by God.

Finally, I can begin to address your question. Faith is permissable for Christians because it is the proof that we have that God exists and is Jesus Christ.

Why can't the racist similarly say "faith is permissible in my case because it's proof that the other races are inferior"? Presumably you'd want to say: "it doesn't count as proof unless it can appeal to others who don't already share your view!"

All anyone needs to do is seek Him and receive the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately... most debate forums are filled with big words and zero action. Nobody seems to want to take the challenge.

If by "take the challenge" you mean "start believing in God" or "seek God" or some such, then no, of course not. You see we atheists genuinely believe there is no God to seek. And we could similarly say that no Christian is "taking the challenge" of believing that there is no God. Changing beliefs doesn't work that way. You can't just stop believing, right? You have to be given a reason. Well, it's the same with us atheists.

Faith can be used to determine moral issues. Many Christians use faith to do just that. By Faith we know that what Jesus Christ says is the Truth, and He states plainly our morals.

It is exactly this part that worries me most. When ethics relies on a tenet that cannot be shared with others, but is just held dogmatically (as religion too often is), then I think it is fantastically dangerous.


spetey

[harvey1]

In my experience, when debating with those who believe in God, my interlocutors will inevitably appeal to faith as their justification for belief. (Some don't call it "faith"--some call it "intuition", or "trust" or some such.)

As I mentioned in the sub-forum "The Argument from Diversity" (see http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2512#12512 ), intuitive argument is not an appeal to faith. In fact, if everyone held the same intuitive approach to an issue, there would be hardly any firm disagreements! Once an individual was just given the 'facts' involved, anyone having the same intuitive bent would be bound to agree.

I'm very wary of such appeals, because I hear it as "I will continue to believe despite lack of evidence or argument for my position (at least, of the kind that I can share with anyone who disagrees)." I think such behavior is impermissible. Faith to me is just dogmatism, and to me, dogmatism of any kind is very dangerous.

There's a touch of irony here, and I don't mean to offend you. Your argument that only the 'scientific method' is capable of producing truth (a term which hasn't been substantiated, btw) is not a valid argument. But, you still take a dogmatic stand on the issue nonetheless. I don't fault you for that dogmatic stand since I understand that your bias is based on your own intuitive standards - by which you judge other people's intuitive standards as sub-par (even though you cannot show that your intuitive standards are any better). This is the true meaning of being dogmatic.

Dogmatism, though, is hardly a harmful thing. Without it, we would never be able to have an public education system since every group would insist on equality in teaching (e.g., creationism). Since people are dogmatic with their intuitive standards, we simply get a majority to agree with us, and then this becomes so much of a standard that we think anyone who disagrees with it to some extent, is exhibiting dogmatic beliefs. It's almost comical, but it's serious business in the world, so I'll try not to laugh.

For comparison: imagine, for example, that you met a rabid racist. You give a carefully reasoned argument to the effect that skin color doesn't matter to who a person is or what rights they have, etc. The racist responds: "Although I have no answer to your argument, or arguments that I can share with you for my own position, I just believe; I have faith that my race is superior." You would be at an impasse, right? Should you come to disagree over some important social policy measure, there is no way to reason out your disagreement. Instead you have to see who has more money for PR, or who has more tanks, or what have you. I assume that in these cases we all agree that "faith" is in an important sense impermissible. We think the racist is being dogmatic, and we think that it's destructive not to be open to reasoning.

It's only dogmatic because we are a majority who see it that way. If people of racist bent were a majority in our society, then surely they would see our equality of individuals as a dogmatic stance.

So why might appeal to faith be permissible when it comes to discussions of religion? Or have I somehow misconstrued what it is to appeal to faith?

Well, people's intuitive bent will have them justifying it no matter how they see fit. The solution to the demise of their worldview is that they eventually die of old age and that society becomes part of our past (which is largely what happened to extreme racism in our society - I doubt many racists were converted to equality of races), or an intuitive argument is made which appeals to those of a particular worldview, and they change or convert (which is largely what happened to early Jewish-Christians when they were converted by the teachings of early Christians).

Be careful of dogmatism. It's easy to identify dogmatism in others, it's much more difficult to detect it in yourself.

[juliod]

Belief by personal communication is different from belief by faith.

This is a good point. Christians who claim personal communication with god are not making a faith claim, but an evidence claim. And as such we can verify whether it is genuine or not.

The atheist position is that these people are listening to their own voices and calling it god. That explains almost all such claims. God likes the things you like, hates the things you hate, and approves of the things you approve. Hence all theological debates are between people.

You can tell that this "communication" is bogus because god is never capable of telling you something you don't already know. (For anyone who thinks god can tell you things you don't know, I have 7 coins and 6 other objects on my keyboard right now. Ask god to tell you what they are. I will immediately convert to your religion.)

DanZ

[youngborean]

I will propose this question for discussion.

Is it logical to say that a percieved lack of evidence for God necessarily equals empirical evidence against (2+2=5) that world view?

Faith to me is outside the realm of empirical evidence where people from all worldviews frequent.

[harvey1]

This is a good point. Christians who claim personal communication with god are not making a faith claim, but an evidence claim.

Not necessarily. An evidence claim is something that can be verified, not everything that occurs in the world can be verified or treated as evidence. Very few events, in fact, leave evidence of their having occurred, it doesn't mean the event did not occur. In other words, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

And as such we can verify whether it is genuine or not.

I would consider that wishful thinking. Even science with its strict rules as to what counts as evidence cannot possibly meet that criteria. There will always be theoretical predictions that are outside the scope of being examined as evidence. This is what creationists do not understand about evolutionary science. It's not enough for them for science to produce tons and tons of evidence showing evolution as a fact, they only consider whatever is 'missing' from the evidence, and that's how they misconstrue the evidence that is available, and hence mislead the sometimes naive fundamentalist public.

The atheist position is that these people are listening to their own voices and calling it god. That explains almost all such claims. God likes the things you like, hates the things you hate, and approves of the things you approve. Hence all theological debates are between people.

I don't think it is just an atheist claim. It could well be a Pastor's claim against one of his parishioners who believes Jesus is telling them to leave their church. Of course, no one can say with any certainty about any ontological matter (i.e., what someone heard, what someone saw, etc). We can only deal with the aftermath of such claims, and that's entirely a decision that is made in the context of culture, beliefs, etc of the society in question. Our society is naturally prejudiced against such possibilities because of our history. Had we had a different history (i.e., as a whole), the issue might be entirely reversed.

[harvey1]

Is it logical to say that a percieved lack of evidence for God necessarily equals empirical evidence against (2+2=5) that world view? Faith to me is outside the realm of empirical evidence where people from all worldviews frequent.

No, a perceived lack of evidence for God is in no way empirical evidence against God's existence. The issue is not that there is a lack of evidence for God's existence, rather the evidence that exists does not jive with most atheist's worldview, hence they reject it out of hand. The atheist worldview is what is mistaken, not the existence or non-existence of God.

As for faith, to me this term is perhaps one of the most abused, misconstrued terms in religious history. Faith does not imply, and should never imply, a lack of evidence. Faith is what you exercise in response to overriding evidence.

The epistle to the Hebrews states it best in my view:

"Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see." (Heb. 11:1)

In other words, faith is just having confidence in the things you cannot prove are true. In case of religious faith, it is having confidence in the things you also hope for are true. Faith by itself is not evidence or a reason to believe. The reason to believe as Paul said is:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20)

In other words, the reason to believe is because it is intuitively obvious, and if you lack the intuition to see such an obvious (or common sense) thing, then you are without excuse. Faith is the conviction that comes from seeing the obvious, and acting on it without waivering in that conviction.