I hear it all the time, “it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.” This popular Christian argument claims that in order for atheists to reject the claim that god exists, we must first know everything that there is to know. What those who use this argument are basically saying is that atheists must know the entire set of facts about the universe before we can look and that set as a whole and see that their God is not included in that set of facts. Of course this argument is just absurd.
First it claims that atheists are claiming to know with faith-based, dogmatic, absolute certainty that God does not exist. While some atheists might claim that, this is really just a false caricature or “strawman” of what most atheists think. Most atheists simply see no evidence and thus no valid reason to believe.
Second, this argument assumes that we have to know what is in order to know what isn’t. I’m not a computer expert and so if someone asked me how computers work, I really couldn’t tell them. But if someone told me that there is a gerbil inside running on a wheel which powers the computer, I would be more that just a bit skeptical of such a claim. In truth, I would call such a claim ridiculous and so would you. Even though I don’t personally know how computers work, I am reasonably certain that gerbils are not involved. I would need to see some pretty solid evidence to convince me otherwise. I don’t need to know everything about computers to know that gerbils running in a wheel inside my computer are not in that set of facts. Common sense informs me that gerbils do not power the computer. So the claim that one must know everything that is, in order to know one thing that isn’t, is just absurd.
Third, this argument focuses on the Christian God, but we could really switch that focus to anything or even any god for that matter. What about the God Zeus? Christians would have to admit that if their argument is true and that in order to reject belief in something, we would need to know everything, than they would have to admit that they should also believe in the God Zeus because to not believe would mean that they know everything about the universe and see that Zeus is not in that set of knowledge. It is just such an absurdly ridiculous argument and yet Christians seem to use it all the time. They seem to forget that their particular god isn’t the only god ever imagined. The fact is that it still takes more faith to believe in imagined deities than it does to simply not believe in such absurdities.
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Comments
Exactly. And how much faith or knowledge does it take to not believe in the Tooth Fairy or Goblins?
Sam Harris said it best: an atheist is simply a person who's examined the god claims of various religions and found them all to be utterly unconvincing.
I like this one, but it may lose people who aren't familiar with science-words: since there is no evidence for god, I provisionally accept the null hypothesis, that there is no god, until such time that some evidence is produced.
Not believing is nontheist. I am an atheist for the sole criteria that constitutes one, I believe there is no god. I do not know there is no god, and if I did it would not be a belief I have.
It is a misrepresentation of atheism and a violation of formal logic to say atheism is a lack of belief, or simply not believing.
Rocks do not believe in a god and they are not atheists.
@Greg
Why don't you go rial against those who advocate the use of the words "Jumbo Shrimp" instead. That label is a misrepresentation of shrimp and also a violation of formal logic too!
So what evidence does the author "see" for love and fear? Personal experience? Other people's experiences?
Atheism = faith position, because you are being selective in what you need to "see evidence of" to believe in.
Secondly your analogy of a computer does not work, you can touch and feel a computer, break it down to physical components, you can not do this with what drives humanity to seek perfection, love, hate, etc. The best is non scientific theories like memes proposed by Dennet and Dawkins.
Finally, the argument about which God is only important if you agree there is or could be a God. Your third point does nothing to rebut the position that Atheism is faith based. Your last statement even shows, you know there is an element of faith in your atheistic position, and it is just your opinion that you have less faith (or maybe more) in your position than a theist.
Like all atheists, try making a positive point for once about your position instead of whining on and on.
Like it takes power to keep your tv off and that you have to ante up in a poker game that you're not playing....
Atheism is a denial of the supernatural based on the LACK of EVIDENCE for such things. Love/fear and all other emotions are NATURAL things. The computer analogy would be best extended by a theist stating it was run by a hamster wheel and that if I were to attempt to open it up to prove otherwise, he/she would stop me as it would be offensive to them for me to question their hamster theology
Theism= Faith based position
Atheism= Evidence based position
Like all theists, try making a positive point for once about your position instead of whining on and on.
nigel, like all theists, you have no logic in your thinking. To be a theist, you have to first reject all facts, logic, and rational thinking. Your post proves that point. OK, you pray for me and I'll think for you.
Nigel, if atheism is a faith then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
BTW, there is a mountain of observable evidence for "fear" and "love", including physiological and neurological, even if you choose to discount personal experience.
God is not necessary to understand why humans have emotions or seek to improve themselves. Evolutionary psychology has done a wonderful job of explaining human motivations, both virtuous and despicable, and has begun to build an impressive library of empirical studies to back up their hypotheses.
It takes zero "faith" for me not to believe in unicorns or leprechauns. As the saying goes, we are all atheists when it comes to all the gods ever believed in, we simply believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you do not believe in Zeus, Isis, Odin, Yuanshi Tianzun, or Shiva, then you will begin to understand why we do not believe in your deity.
Atheism is not an assertion, it is a conclusion based on a lack of evidence where we would expect to find it.
I don't have "faith" there are no leprechauns, rather I conclude it is so because of the overwhelming lack of positive evidence for leprechaunism!
Ash;
Evolutionary psychology has done a wonderful job of theorizing human motivations. You blabber with not one citation (not that one is impressive at all) of this empirical evidence.
Just like your mountain of observable evidence statement. This is the same type of unfounded assertions Atheists accuse theists of all the time. Either play by your own rules or forget the rule all together you can't have it both ways.
BTW - Zeus, Isis, Odin, Yuanshi Tianzun, or Shiva are all "Gods" that are to be feared show no love towards humanity and no positive direction for life, only worship of said Gods - why? Becuase they are all "Gods" created by man.
So, not understanding why I do not believe in these Gods does not lead me to understand why Atheists do not to believe in God.
Of course all of this is of little consequence as Atheism continues to fail to offer any positive direction or advice on life.
nigel, please stop trying to compete in the rational thinking sweepstakes. You simply don't pack the gear. Every time you post, you sound more ridiculous and expose your total lack of intellect.
Atheism does offer far more direction and advice because we do not need a system of threats and rewards to justify being decent human beings. Those that do, such as yourself, are clearly very weak in their personal morality.
Nigel,
Your argument fails the "Leprechaun Test" and therefore is irrational. Here's why:
1a. You claim "Atheism = faith position, because you are being selective in what you need to "see evidence of" to believe in."
1b. Of course one needs to be selective of what evidence we accept! If we weren't we'd believe in all sorts of crazy things like Leprechauns!
2a. You would like atheists to "try making a positive point for once about your position instead of whining on and on."
2b. Yet you do not make positive claims about the non-existence of Leprechauns. How do you believe that God is NOT a Leprechaun? Can you please make a positive statement to support this position?
One more for Nigel...
3a. You claim that "Atheism continues to fail to offer any positive direction or advice on life."
3b. Even if this were true (and the answer depends on what type of atheist you are, just as your christian morals depend on what kind of christian you are), what would this prove? Not believing in Leprechauns may not make me a better person, but I think we can both agree it is true nonetheless.
The point, Nigel, is that when faced with a lack of evidence for something, the proper response is skepticism, not "faith".
SWEJ
Firstly, the point was not in regards to evidence accepted it was in regards to things you accept without evidence.
Secondly, I don't need to make a positive point about non-existence of Leprechauns as the myth behind Leprechauns does not speak to how we are to relate to each other or why we are any more important than any other animal.
Finally, by lacking to make any positive direction or advice on life as an Atheist, yet at the same time rail against a system that does, shows Atheism for the flawed position it is. Why don't you complain about any one of a million other social ills (schools, security, care for elderley, sick, broken families, poverty, etc.), also without offering any positive alternative. It would have the same contribution to society, nothing. As I said - whiner.
Nigel:
"...not one citation..." I recommend "Evolutionary Psychology" by David Buss as an introduction. Others include: "The Adapted Mind" by Barkow, "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins, and "The Moral Animal" by Wright.
If gods that are love-based are real, then you must believe in Venus, Eros, Freyja, Xochiquetzal, and Oshun. Ganesha also...he is the patron of the arts and education, removes obstacles, and is a lover of intelligence and wisdom. Do you then believe in him?
Of course you don't because they are not real. The same underlying reason you do not believe in them is the same underlying reason we do not believe in your god.
"Atheism continues to fail to offer any positive direction or advice on life. " That's because atheism is not a system, but a stance of religious skepticism. Many atheists adopt ethical systems, such as humanism. Others develop their own direction in life and simply look to the example of others about what works or not. Belief in god is unnecessar
Nigel,
I think your resort to ad hominem attacks reveals an insecurity in your position.
Nigel, it seems that your argument against atheism is that it doesn't provide a model for how people should behave and relate to one another. Atheism doesn't claim to provide any such system; it merely states that there exists no evidence for the supernatural.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your religion does offer a beneficial system of ethics. That alone is not evidence for the existence of the supernatural. And in reality, many atheists do not see your religion as beneficial, which often seems to promote irrational, regressive, intolerant, and even barbaric behavior.
Belief in a god is not necessary for a beneficial system of ethics. Humanism is but one example, which promotes social justice and fairness, scientific knowledge, personal dignity and well-being, and environmental stewardship. Whether humanist or not, atheists sometimes "whine" *because* we are ethical, and see theism as ultimately detrimental to human advancement.
Swej - that's all you have?
Ash - you say that "atheists sometimes "whine" *because* we are ethical, and see theism as ultimately detrimental to human advancement." - now we get to the crux of the issue with your position. Why pursue human advancement? For what purpose?
Further, why consider theism detrimental to human advancement? Are you really that completely arrogant that you believe an "evolutionary by product" that some of your fellow Atheists claim belief is, is detrimental to human advancement, that you know more than your "selfish genes". Really?
As for "christian ethics", an oxymoron if I have ever heard one, I can state this:
Every time I have ever been cheated, abused, taken advantage of, or misused in any way, it has always been by a "Good christian". So, in my 60+ years of experience, christians are the most untrustworthy, evil group of people on earth.
Here's another fact for you. Yes, I know that facts and rational thinking are fatal to any religion, but this is one you should consider. "Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion. Mankind will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth ad rational thinking."
Nigel (part 1)
"Why pursue human advancement? For what purpose?"
Because it is the ethical thing to do, because it gives meaning to our lives, and provides fulfillment and joy. Because it is ultimately in our best interest to do so...it is better to live well than to live poorly, to be healthy than to be sick, to have knowledge than to be ignorant, to care for the planet than to abuse it, to expand opportunity and fairness rather than limit them. Ultimately, the purpose is to continually make the world a better place for our children, so that every generation can more completely fulfill their human potential.
"Further, why consider theism detrimental to human advancement?"
The answer you get depends on which atheist you ask. Strictly for myself, I see two main problems: anti-rationality and intolerance. In the former, organized theism (e.g. Christianity) often insists on explaining the workings of the world according to scripture rather than science. For example, that nearly half of Americans believe that the world is only 6000 years old is appalling to us. The current anti-intellectualism movement stems primarly from theistic religion, and continues to prevent the advancement of science and technology that can improve our lives.
The latter, intolerance, leads to things such as holy wars, hostility against homosexuals, harassment or even murder of abortion doctors, and flying planes into buildings. Not all theists are participants of such movements, of course, but maintaining the fiction of scripture nevertheless contributes to them. I could go on, but there is too little space here
I like your Gerbil enalogy..because I think that's just what Christians believe... There IS an "invisable' Gerbil running everything...Common sense and reasoning tell you this is impossible. Somewhere in a book someone told them the Gerbil WAS there so it must be true. Don't ask questions. The Gerbil will get upset. Just believe the Gerbil is real.Just don't open up the computer or your Gerbil will get out and your computer will stop working.
Staks, perhaps you could eventually address another common argument made by our friend Nigel here. He seems to be arguing that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is necessary to have motivation for human progress or a model for developing caring human relationships. The essential argument seems to be: "Without faith in [my] God, why bother doing anything? You atheists offer nothing in the way of values, ethics, or principles."
While I do not think that atheism is itself a system of ethics or values, at least not in the way Nigel means, it certainly does not preclude one (as I tried to point out to Nigel below). I do think, however, that atheism is built upon some foundational values, the key principle perhaps being fidelity to truth, whatever the truth might be, and I suspect that most atheists value knowledge. Another principle might be respect for reason. I'm sure others can be articulated.
Anyway, nice essay and a good answer to a typically ludicrous argume
Does atheism require faith? Lets see. Faith (in this specific context) is belief with out emphirical proof. There is no emphirical proof that God does not exist so to believe God does not exist is logically speaking a matter of faith. You can't prove you're position you simply believe in it. There fore logically it does take faith to be an atheist. The only position that requires no faith at all is agnosticism since agnostics make no claim to belief or non belief they simply don't know.
I'd also like to point out that since some one's bound to bring it up the lack of evidence of the existence of God is NOT in fact evidence that there is no God. After all that's the fallacy of arguement from ignorance. That we haven't proven (or disproven) something is evidence only of the fact we haven't proven (or disproven it).
Some 'clues' and the alternative faith assumptions of theists and atheists: www. examiner.com/x-26772-San-Francisco-Apologetics-Examiner~y2009m12d7-Reasons-for-faith-101--What-are-some-clues-to-Gods-existence
Maryann, you aren't even trying to relate your article to the actual article you are commenting on here. Did you even read the article first? Or did you just spam away. That's just rude.
it's not that i support "atheist have more faith" argument, but i can see where the people are aiming at. they say atheism takes more faith, because they have to go against the most of the society, which requires courage and determination. living in a group of fish that give you security and safety but where you don't fit is not the same as leaving that group of fish to search for other fish that would back you up.
KevinM -
I never thought of it in those terms, but maybe atheism does require faith. How about faith in fellow-humans? But then I hear they are not very reliable, so this is not good enough for Christians :-)
Absolutely LOVE the gerbill-analogy. I also love the whole Atheism 101 series. I'm halfway through now, good reading. Thanks.
Staks says:
Maryann, you aren't even trying to relate your article to the actual article you are commenting on here. Did you even read the article first? Or did you just spam away. That's just rude.
January 18, 3:48 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Could you even expect anything different from people like Maryann? I wouldn't put any mount of faith in such an idea of a person reading the post then trying to put into context relating to what the or any original poster was talking about. When a post is posted; instead of reading it they go straight to the preaching or supposedly look to point towards clues to their god. They just want more people to fall in line.
In essence all religion is and was, is the first cognitive attempt of controlling the general-mass. As humans we naturally look for answers (need answers) and also try and find patterns were none exist. You'll notice in advanced countries such as America and parts of Europe, religion is on the decline; while in lesser developed countries it is on the increase. This is most likely due to advances in tech. and the knowledge that the answers do exist without the involvement of 'magic' or religion. In a word, the disbalief in a god/gods doesn't require faith, or as stated above the nessecity to know everything to disprove one thing, but the common sense to understand that gaining knowledge is in our capacity and yes one or many gods may exist but that doesn't make it absolute. No faith is required to not believe in a deity. In fact, this nearly borders on the same absurdity shown by people who claim that atheism is a faith just without a being/beings to believe in.
I have to disagree with the article-when someone makes the claim that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer, they base it on the reason that the universe is full of the proof of god's existence, activity and power. Refer to the Intelligent Design Theory proofs-the bottom line, for believers, especially fundamentalist believers (of any religion) is that they see the evidence for and proof of god in everything they see. Consequently, to not believe in god you must deny that the existence of any and everything proves god exists. Because you are denying the proof of god evident in life, the universe, and everything, you are doing so based on faith. Therefore, being an atheist requires more faith than believing, and atheism is a religion.
Of course, as some of the comments above show, when that fails, they make the 'argument from ignorance' analogy. What they refuse to understand, is that without evidence to believe god, why should you believe in god?
Christians do not claim to know everything but the point of reference is a God who knows it all. We put our faith in His abilities and live by that, relying completely on Him is a process where He personally teaches us as we go on our journey of faith in Him.
He deals with our unbelief through the Holy Spirit though unseen but His presence is felt.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!