The Comparative Faiths of Theism and Atheism

This is a post written by Matt (display name SullyKay) over at the Richard Dawkins Foundation forums.

By: SullyKay
In view of a discussion put forward by nn23 on the Religion of Science, I wanted to make an observation about the faith of atheism. I have noted, in the reading of the many debates between the supporters of religion and the proponents of science (on this site and others), that the discussion frequently breaks down at one common point. Theists, acknowledging their own perspective is faith-based, demand that atheists accept the position of science is also one of faith. This is something atheists resolutely refuse to do, and so the discussion generally can proceed no further. Atheists accuse theists of projection, theists accuse atheists of delusion.

So the question is posed: Is atheism a faith?

In answer, I would say that yes, there is certainly a significant element of faith in atheism. It is a faith in science and reason, and by extension a faith in humanity. However, to consider that this puts atheism on the same footing as its erstwhile foe would be a serious error. Their guiding methodologies are fundamentally opposed; they proceed from diametrically opposite starting points. Religion asks its supporters to believe its tenets regardless; science only asks you to believe what it can demonstrate to be true and nothing more. Science, in contrast to religion, has no agenda, bar that of describing the universe in which we all live. It does not care whether the tenets of religion are proven right or wrong, only that they are proven. There are some questions science doesn’t have an answer to yet, or may never have an adequate answer to. For some reason theists believe this proves they are right, when in reality all it means is there is more to learn. It no more proves them right than a missing lug nut proves the existence of gremlins. Whereas religion has a very specific construct of world that the faithful must believe or be imperiled, science changes as new discoveries are made and theories are validated or debunked. People are encouraged and respected to hold differing viewpoints, as long as those viewpoints are scientifically justified. Perhaps one thing that theists fail to understand is that if evidence of God were discovered, God would then become a part of science. Science has no problem with gods per se, only with undetectable ones.

Perhaps to use an analogy will illustrate the difference I describe, appreciating that analogies can at best only describe facets of an argument, and can frequently railroad discussions into bizarre and futile debates on nuances.
My analogy is that of two bridges spanning a vast, deep chasm. The leap of faith, as it were, will be represented by the stepping onto these bridges, one of science, the other of religion.
The first is of science. It is a huge bridge made of metal and stone, with thick cables and reinforcing columns. It has been built up, via trial and error, over many years with many hands. You can see of its sturdy construction, you can feel its strength beneath your hands. You have seen similar constructions like it before, and know that they are reliable. You do not understand all of the computations and knowledge that has gone into its construction, but you understand some parts of it, parts which make sense to you and you have verified yourself (such as metal being strong). You can perform tests on the bridge, such as rolling large stones onto it and observing they do not plunge into the abyss. There are a group of people gathered around the bridge, encouraging you to get on. You ask them if the bridge is safe. They say that they have tested it very thoroughly, and it passes every test they can think off. There are some parts of its construction they do not yet fully understand, but they are very confident it is strong and secure. What’s more, they say that they are constantly checking for problems, and fixing them when they are found. They happily recall some of the mistakes that had been made in the past, and enthusiastically describe how they were corrected. If you’re interested and have the time, they say, you’re welcome to stay and help them work on the bridge, to make it even better.

To step out onto a bridge like this is a matter of faith, as you do not know for sure it will support you, but it is a faith well justified by reason and knowledge. Few would disagree with the wisdom of trusting such a bridge.

The second bridge is that of religion. It also has a group of people standing by its base, beneath a huge, ornate archway, but the bridge itself if radically different from the first. It is completely insubstantial; you cannot see, touch or feel it in anyway. In fact, if it were not for the people standing at its base, you would have never known there was a bridge there at all. As there is no way to see or test this bridge, you ask the people there for help. They say that the bridge is perfect in every way and it was made by a perfect being. You ask them if they have ever seen the bridge, or the person that made it. They say they have not, but it is described to them in a book, and they believe the book, so you should too. You ask them if they have ever tested the bridge, and they say they have not, but if you believe in the book as they do, then you understand that the bridge is perfectly safe. You ask if they would like your help in working on the bridge to make it better. They tell you to stop being silly - how can you improve on perfection? But they would be delighted if you wanted to help them convince others to step onto their bridge.

The people make fantastically improbable claims. They say that if you use their bridge then you will reach a place of such wondrous beauty it will surpass your wildest dreams. Not only that, but if you use the other bridge instead you will plunge into the abyss, not to your death, but to an eternity of pain and misery. They point to the massively opulent arch that they have erected over the entrance to the bridge, and say they believe it reflects the glories on the far side of the bridge.
You look hard at the point where you believe the bridge is for a very long time. Every now and then, you see something twinkle in the sky, and you wonder if you maybe had caught a glimpse of it. Whenever you try to check you can never find anything, but you still can’t help but wonder… the people under the arch seem so very sure the bridge is there…

Stepping out onto this bridge is also a matter of faith, but appreciably different from the first. You cannot verify the bridge can support you, you cannot even verify if it there at all. You have no tests to confirm its strength or understanding in how it was built. In fact, everything you know tells you that the bridge does not exist. All you have is the word of those gathered around the arch, and their bewildering claims. To step onto a bridge such as this requires blind faith, a step taken not only in the absence of any rational justification but in complete opposition to your understanding of the world.

To say that there is faith required in both viewpoints is true, but to equate these faiths in any capacity is patently wrong. To insist that both atheists and theists are starting from the same platform of faith is vexatious and demonstrates, at the very least, a profound misunderstanding of scientific reasoning. I am not arguing either is right, but this discussion of faith is a fruitless sideshow to the true issues. I do not believe it should be entertained any longer.

Just my thoughts on it at any rate

Cheers,

Wiersbowskie


I enjoyed that post and I wrote the following reply later on in the discussion thread which I think is important to also include here for some clarity on my position.

By: bcortens
It requires faith only in that we have faith that we can understand the world, and since we seem to be able to understand it I would say that faith is justified.
Its not what most people define faith to be however as most people don't usually have evidence as a part of faith.
I mean, we can't know for sure that we are not the dream of a supernatural entity, but since we have no evidence to hold that position it makes more sense and is a much more useful position to take that we are in a real and existing universe.
So at a very low level there is a faith, but its a well reinforced faith, things do appear to work as though we can learn about the universe, and the day they don't is the day we need to worry about our naturalistic assumptions being wrong.


The thread can be found here: Richard Dawkins Forum

You will need to have an account in order to view the forum.