I have faith that boobs will save the world.

by Godlessons on February 7, 2010

Faith is a conviction that one holds in spite of lack of evidence.  For many, faith is a conviction one holds in spite of evidence to the contrary.  Does faith actually explain anything though?

Does science take faith?

Science is a method to show how things work in the natural world through experimentation and evidence.  People have different sets of beliefs on science though.  One is that people that believe in scientific theories have faith, another is that it takes no faith to believe scientific theories.  I subscribe to another, third idea, though.  It takes faith to believe in scientific theories, just much less faith.

This is a rather different position for an atheist to take, but epistemically, it is the only position that I can fully support since at some point, you have to believe something merely because you believe it in order to believe anything.

Let’s look at something people don’t seem to disagree with, like gravity.  Do you not have faith that gravity works?  The anti-faith person would say that they see gravity work, and it always works, and it takes no faith to believe gravity works.  Unfortunately, this doesn’t extrapolate the reason for the belief near far enough.

Why do you believe you see gravity work?  This is a bit tougher of a question, but it is a way of getting back to the point I am talking about.  You probably believe you see gravity working because your eyes see an object fall, or your sense of touch feels the weight of an object.  Now, why do you believe your eyes see what you believe they see and your sense of touch feels what you think it feels?  Here you get to the point where you have to have faith.  You have no way to know absolutely that what your senses tell you is an accurate description of reality.  It could very well be that your subconscious is where your senses come from, and nothing really exists outside your own mind.

Now, different things take different levels of faith.  The less information you have available to you, and the less you are exposed to the evidence, the more faith you have to have in order to believe it.  This means that when people say that people that accept evolution have faith in evolution, they are actually telling the truth.

So is faith a good thing?

The idea that everything you believe takes faith seems like it will lend itself to saying that nothing is more reliable than another.  This is simply not the case.  The more things you accept without evidence on the route to getting to the truth about reality, the more likely it is that you’ll be wrong.  It’s not only the number of things, but the magnitude of the thing.  As an example, I like to use an omnipresent coffee pot that steals socks.  Right away, you likely dismiss the idea.  Why is that?  My coffee pot could very well be stealing the socks you think you misplaced.  The evidence is the missing socks.  Don’t tell me that you have never lost a sock.  You might say that you could prove that it doesn’t steal socks because nobody ever sees it move, and if it were omnipresent, you could see it everywhere, not just in one place.  I could say that the coffee pot is invisible every else it is except in the one place in my kitchen.  I could give an explanation for every reason that your tests would come out negative when trying to test the coffee pot, and there would be no way for you to prove otherwise.  Does this make it the most likely explanation of where socks go?  Why would you not believe me now?  The reason is, there is a much less complicated answer, and that answer is much more likely than mine.  You simply misplace socks.  This principle is simply called Occam’s razor.

Is the supernatural ever a good explanation?

The supernatural is actually never a good explanation.  The supernatural is, by definition, the least likely explanation for anything.  The reason something is considered to be supernatural is because nobody can explain how the thing being explained by the supernatural happens in a natural way.  That makes the supernatural the default answer for things we don’t know the answer for.  Lightning, rain, day and night, stars, comets, movement of the planets, and just about anything that couldn’t be experienced directly were at one time or another explained in supernatural methods.  They were all wrong.  Such is the way with supernatural explanations for things.  The sheer number of things we once had supernatural explanations for, that we now have natural explanations for should show how unlikely they are to be true.

This fact, and the fact that so many different deities have been imagined over the millenia seem to have little effect on the beliefs of the majority of people.  People still think that the least likely explanation for something is the most likely.  This seems extremely strange to us as atheists.  Imagine that Christianity taught that a human being must be crucified once a year on the anniversary of the death of Jesus.  It’s not that far from what has been reality in the past.  People have sacrificed humans in the name of their god since prehistoric times.  We find it barbaric now, and wouldn’t tolerate that kind of behavior from any religion, but that’s mainly because the biggest religions believe that is a sin, not because it has less merit than any other religious act.

The fact is, people take their supernatural beliefs so seriously that there are cases where parents let their children die, and even where parents have killed their own children.  This is dismissed as insanity by other people that believe differently, but in reality, what separates those people from any other religious person?

Conclusion

The fact is, people accept different things as evidence, and all of those things take faith at some level.  Letting your imagination run wild to determine reality is simply not the most viable way to come to the truth.  When you get into supernatural explanations of things, you are not proposing a more likely scenario, you are proposing the least likely explanation by definition, and doing so can and does lead to some pretty horrible acts.  It doesn’t however stop me from saying that I have faith that boobs will save the world.  The evidence is that they make people of all ages happy, especially me.  Any argument?

Related posts:

  1. Faith Requires not Questioning
  2. When is God the most Plausible Answer?
  • http://www.finden.tumblr.com/ Andrew Finden

    Faith is a conviction that one holds in spite of lack of evidence. For many, faith is a conviction one holds in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    This is the very same strawman argument that Dawkins makes in the TGD, and which he has been ripped apart for making. It's probably pointless to point this out to you, for if you refuse to acknowledge in other posts that your assertion of Christian doctrine regarding sin is completley fallacious, I doubt you'll do the same here.

  • Godlessons

    Not sure that I'll do a thing here since I can make no sense of what you're saying. Apparently someone has gotten on Dawkins case, and because they disagree with Dawkins, that somehow makes what I am saying absolutely wrong. If you are saying that my definition is wrong, Webster's Dictionary says faith is (pertinent definition) firm belief in something for which there is no proof. So, since my definition and that one are virtually identical, I guess I still see no point you have made.

    Also, you seem upset about something I am saying about sin, but who the hell knows what you're talking about.

    How about trying to make sense?

  • http://www.finden.tumblr.com/ Andrew Finden

    Apparently you have a short memory – remember how you've asserted, based on the testimony of your friends on paltalk, that born-again Christians (which is a tautology actually) don't sin – and remember how this is completely the opposite of every mainstream, orthodox, evangelical denomination, creed and confession?

    My point was that you are saying exactly the same thing as Dawkins, and thus making the same bad argument. However Mr Webster or Prof. Dawkins wish to define faith, that simply isn't the Christian faith that he, and you, refer to. As Dawkin's former colleague, Prof. Lennox rightly points out:

    “mainstream Christianity will insist that faith and evidence are inseperable. Indeed, faith is a response to evidence, not a rejoicing in the absence of evidence. The Christian apostle John writes in his biography of Jesus: 'These things are written that you might believe…' That is, he understands that what he is writing is to be regarded as part of the the evidence on which faith is based. The apostle Paul says what many pioneers of modern science believed, namely, that nature itself is part of the evidence for the existence of God: 'For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.' It is no part of the biblical view that things should be believed where there is no evidence. Just as in science, faith, reason and evidence belong together. Dawkins' definition of faith as 'blind faith' turn out, therefore, to be the exact opposite of the biblical one.

    I could probably end the quote there, but he continues on his quintessentially Irish wry observation (Of course, he's writing about Dawkins, but he could very easily be writing to respond to what you've written):

    Curious that he does not seem ot be aware of the discrepancy. Could it be as a consequence of his own blind faith?
    Dawkins' idiosyncratic definition of faith thus provides a striking example of the very kind of thinking he claims to abhor – thinking that is not evidence based. For, in an exhibition of breathtaking inconsistency, evidence is the very thing he fails to supply for his claim that independence of evidence is faith's joy. And the reason why he fails to supply such evidence is not hard to find – there is none. It takes no great research effort to ascertain that no serious biblical scholar or thinker would support Dawkins' definition of faith. Francis Collins says of Dawkins' definition that it 'certainly does not describe the faith of most serious believers in history, nor most of the those in my personal aquaintance'. Alister McGrath points out in his recent highly accessible assessment of Dawkins' position that Dawkins has signally failed to engage with any serious Christian thinkers whatsoever. What then should we think of his excellent maxim: 'Next time that somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: “What kind of evidence is there for that?” And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say'. One might well be forgiven for giving in to the powerful temptation to apply Dawkins' maxim to himself – and not believe a word that he says.

    Lennox, 2007 God's Undertaker, pp15-16

    Now you might very well be referring not to Christian faith, but I think we both know that you are. And if you are, then this critique applies to you. And it certainly applies to your other claims of Christian doctrine (and let it be noted again that I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence for that claim, and you've not provided any – apart from saying some dude on paltalk said so). It seems, like Dawkins, you have at times a tendency to avoid interacting with serious Christian thought (WLC seems to be the extent to which you have).

    Oh, and by the way proof is not synonymous with evidence. There is no proof you won't get hit by a car as you cross the street, but hopefully there is evidence. You can't prove history, but you base belief about it on the evidence.

  • Godlessons

    Apparently you have a short memory – remember how you've asserted, based on the testimony of your friends on paltalk, that born-again Christians (which is a tautology actually) don't sin – and remember how this is completely the opposite of every mainstream, orthodox, evangelical denomination, creed and confession?

    Apparently you have a short memory. I didn't say my opinion was based on that, I said that if you want to find Christians that say that, go to Paltalk. On top of that, you never have shown how your opinion of what mainstream evangelical teaching is where the evangelical movement is not centralized at all.

    Now, the guy claims that faith goes along with evidence, he cites no evidence for God. He cites unknowns that he has faith God is responsible for, but there is no evidence.

    So, he and you can protest all you want, but without showing evidence, the claim that faith is evidence based is moot.

  • http://www.finden.tumblr.com/ Andrew Finden

    Apparently you have a short memory. I didn't say my opinion was based on that, I said that if you want to find Christians that say that, go to Paltalk.

    You wrote:

    The reason they are in prison is because they sinned, according to Christians, and if you sin, you are not Christian. This is an idea gotten partially from John 3, where many Christians get the born again doctrine. When you are born of the spirit, you are supposed to be unable to sin, because only the flesh sins.

    I then challenged you on this – pointing out that this is not Christian doctrine, to which you responded:

    Any day you can go to paltalk and talk to Christians that will say all of these things. Usually if you find one that says one of these things, they will hold true to the rest.

    So don't try and wriggle out of the fact that you used anecdotal evidence of a Paltalk conversation to back up your claim that this is real Christian doctrine.
    I challenged you to provide real evidence, from creeds, confession, sermons or doctrinal statements of any of the major, mainstream or orthodox denominations, and the only link you provided in fact refuted your claim.

    On top of that, you never have shown how your opinion of what mainstream evangelical teaching is where the evangelical movement is not centralized at all.

    Well you obviously weren't paying attention. Not only did I link you to http://www.theopedia.com/Salvation but I also provided links to http://www.nae.net/ & http://www.eauk.org/ and in case you want more, try http://www.europeanea.org/ http://www.worldevangelicals.org/ or http://www.ea.org.au/
    But in fact, I didn't ask for any kind of centralised statement – I asked for anything from any of the major mainstream evangelical denominations.. baptist, anglican, presbyterian, methodist… but you've shown nothing – and the reason is obvious: your claim is simply false. What you claim Christians believe may very well be true for a fringe group you speak to on Paltalk, but none of the mainstream evangelical denominations hold to that belief. If you want to say some Christians believe that.. fine, but of course, there's no point to the argument you make with that claim then.

    What this makes me, and perhaps any reasonable person reading this, question is that if you're too stubborn to even admit that you've got it wrong regarding a Christian doctrine, then how obstreperous will you be on bigger issues?

    Now, the guy claims that faith goes along with evidence, he cites no evidence for God.

    No you mean, I didn't cite him citing any – it's a quote! And it's a quote from the first chapter of a book.. you can get it and read it, and see him do precisely what you claim he doesn't do. And 'the guy' just happens to be a Professor of Mathmatics and the Philosophy of Science at Oxford University.. I know, not Paltalk..

    He cites unknowns that he has faith God is responsible for, but there is no evidence.

    Are you suggesting that Collins and Mcgrath are 'unknowns'? Your sentence isn't constructed in a way which helps me to understand what you mean.

    So, he and you can protest all you want, but without showing evidence, the claim that faith is evidence based is moot.

    And yet you miss the point… the claim that faith is not evidence based, or is held in spite of evidence (i.e. that's what defines it as faith) is not supported by the evidence either. Once again, like the declaration of Christian sinlessness as a widely held doctrine, the declaration that Christian faith is by definition not requiring evidence simply doesn't square with what any serious Christian thinker would say. Now the fact that you don't find the evidence persuasive is irrelevant – as we've already said before, that doesn't mean there is no evidence, it only means you don't find it persuasive, they are not the same thing. If the Christian definition of faith is evidenced belief, and that's how virtually any serious Christian thinker would argue, then your own assertion is simply bunk, a strawman.

    But the track record gives little hope that you will acknowledge faulty assumptions. It seems to be the perennial mistake that anti-theists make: assuming their knowledge of doctrine and the bible is by default better and unable to be incorrect.
    Frankly, until you admit that your idea of born again sinlessness is wrong, there's not point in any further discussion.

  • Godlessons

    So don't try and wriggle out of the fact that you used anecdotal evidence of a Paltalk conversation to back up your claim that this is real Christian doctrine.

    Huh? You were saying that no Christian holds that view, and I told you to go to Paltalk. When I said it holds true to the rest, I was talking about on Paltalk, so you have yet to show that I said that all Evangelical Christians are like the ones on Paltalk.

    I challenged you to provide real evidence, from creeds, confession, sermons or doctrinal statements of any of the major, mainstream or orthodox denominations, and the only link you provided in fact refuted your claim.

    It did not refute my claim. I showed you how it didn't, but you refused to admit it as always.

    What this makes me, and perhaps any reasonable person reading this, question is that if you're too stubborn to even admit that you've got it wrong regarding a Christian doctrine, then how obstreperous will you be on bigger issues?

    If you want to consider me wrong, that's fine, but from my experience, the majority of Evangelicals, when the subject comes up, will say it. So, does that mean it's taught to all of them? No, I never said it was. The problem is, it is there, and it is more prevalent than you want to admit. If you are that intent on finding out who's teaching these people, go find one and ask them. They are certainly prevalent enough that you shouldn't have trouble.

    As far as the assumption that born again is sinless, it means that you are resurrected. I can make a very good argument for that, and I know it goes against generally excepted belief. The problem is, you won't understand or believe that might be what it's talking about either.

  • http://www.finden.tumblr.com/ Andrew Finden

    Apparently you have a short memory. I didn't say my opinion was based on that, I said that if you want to find Christians that say that, go to Paltalk.

    You wrote:

    The reason they are in prison is because they sinned, according to Christians, and if you sin, you are not Christian. This is an idea gotten partially from John 3, where many Christians get the born again doctrine. When you are born of the spirit, you are supposed to be unable to sin, because only the flesh sins.

    I then challenged you on this – pointing out that this is not Christian doctrine, to which you responded:

    Any day you can go to paltalk and talk to Christians that will say all of these things. Usually if you find one that says one of these things, they will hold true to the rest.

    So don't try and wriggle out of the fact that you used anecdotal evidence of a Paltalk conversation to back up your claim that this is real Christian doctrine.
    I challenged you to provide real evidence, from creeds, confession, sermons or doctrinal statements of any of the major, mainstream or orthodox denominations, and the only link you provided in fact refuted your claim.

    On top of that, you never have shown how your opinion of what mainstream evangelical teaching is where the evangelical movement is not centralized at all.

    Well you obviously weren't paying attention. Not only did I link you to http://www.theopedia.com/Salvation but I also provided links to http://www.nae.net/ & http://www.eauk.org/ and in case you want more, try http://www.europeanea.org/ http://www.worldevangelicals.org/ or http://www.ea.org.au/
    But in fact, I didn't ask for any kind of centralised statement – I asked for anything from any of the major mainstream evangelical denominations.. baptist, anglican, presbyterian, methodist… but you've shown nothing – and the reason is obvious: your claim is simply false. What you claim Christians believe may very well be true for a fringe group you speak to on Paltalk, but none of the mainstream evangelical denominations hold to that belief. If you want to say some Christians believe that.. fine, but of course, there's no point to the argument you make with that claim then.

    What this makes me, and perhaps any reasonable person reading this, question is that if you're too stubborn to even admit that you've got it wrong regarding a Christian doctrine, then how obstreperous will you be on bigger issues?

    Now, the guy claims that faith goes along with evidence, he cites no evidence for God.

    No you mean, I didn't cite him citing any – it's a quote! And it's a quote from the first chapter of a book.. you can get it and read it, and see him do precisely what you claim he doesn't do. And 'the guy' just happens to be a Professor of Mathmatics and the Philosophy of Science at Oxford University.. I know, not Paltalk..

    He cites unknowns that he has faith God is responsible for, but there is no evidence.

    Are you suggesting that Collins and Mcgrath are 'unknowns'? Your sentence isn't constructed in a way which helps me to understand what you mean.

    So, he and you can protest all you want, but without showing evidence, the claim that faith is evidence based is moot.

    And yet you miss the point… the claim that faith is not evidence based, or is held in spite of evidence (i.e. that's what defines it as faith) is not supported by the evidence either. Once again, like the declaration of Christian sinlessness as a widely held doctrine, the declaration that Christian faith is by definition not requiring evidence simply doesn't square with what any serious Christian thinker would say. Now the fact that you don't find the evidence persuasive is irrelevant – as we've already said before, that doesn't mean there is no evidence, it only means you don't find it persuasive, they are not the same thing. If the Christian definition of faith is evidenced belief, and that's how virtually any serious Christian thinker would argue, then your own assertion is simply bunk, a strawman.

    But the track record gives little hope that you will acknowledge faulty assumptions. It seems to be the perennial mistake that anti-theists make: assuming their knowledge of doctrine and the bible is by default better and unable to be incorrect.
    Frankly, until you admit that your idea of born again sinlessness is wrong, there's not point in any further discussion.

  • Godlessons

    So don't try and wriggle out of the fact that you used anecdotal evidence of a Paltalk conversation to back up your claim that this is real Christian doctrine.

    Huh? You were saying that no Christian holds that view, and I told you to go to Paltalk. When I said it holds true to the rest, I was talking about on Paltalk, so you have yet to show that I said that all Evangelical Christians are like the ones on Paltalk.

    I challenged you to provide real evidence, from creeds, confession, sermons or doctrinal statements of any of the major, mainstream or orthodox denominations, and the only link you provided in fact refuted your claim.

    It did not refute my claim. I showed you how it didn't, but you refused to admit it as always.

    What this makes me, and perhaps any reasonable person reading this, question is that if you're too stubborn to even admit that you've got it wrong regarding a Christian doctrine, then how obstreperous will you be on bigger issues?

    If you want to consider me wrong, that's fine, but from my experience, the majority of Evangelicals, when the subject comes up, will say it. So, does that mean it's taught to all of them? No, I never said it was. The problem is, it is there, and it is more prevalent than you want to admit. If you are that intent on finding out who's teaching these people, go find one and ask them. They are certainly prevalent enough that you shouldn't have trouble.

    As far as the assumption that born again is sinless, it means that you are resurrected. I can make a very good argument for that, and I know it goes against generally excepted belief. The problem is, you won't understand or believe that might be what it's talking about either.

Previous post:

Next post: