All too often I will hear from theists (but not exclusively), that there is plenty of evidence for what they believe. And sometimes there is. In that case, well bravo! Now we have something to talk about. But inevitably, somewhere along in many discussions, the dialog comes down to their faith. That is, when the evidence that they demonstrate either has not convinced someone else or they are shown why the evidence is insufficient, they pull out the faith card.
But what is faith? It is the believe in things despite the lack of evidence. It actually may be, in some cases, the belief in something despite contradictory evidence. Creationism is a prime example. Despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection, some people still think that magic man done it.
And, of course, creationists don't have any evidence of their own, just lame apologetics. But the same goes for gods in general. What's worse is that the evidence pointed to, even if reasonable, points to some vague higher power rather than their very specific deity with all of its personality. But they believe anyway.
There is a very short and quick response to such faith and the attempt to show such evidence.
If you had evidence, you would not need faith.
That's right, folks, faith is what is pulled out because you have insufficient evidence. The whole idea of faith is that one believes something despite the lack of evidence. So if one actually did have evidence (as theists, creationists, birthers, etc do not) then their belief would never have to appeal to faith because they would have something demonstrable to point to and then we could all take a look at their evidence and deal with it.
Pulling out faith is akin to admitting that one has no rational reason to believe in what they believe. They have admitted that they have no evidence to bring. Sure, they will trot out apologetics, but these are only brought out either in some ironic sense (they are putting us on, perhaps?) or or because they don't see the extreme irony of being people of faith trying to provide evidence. It's almost like saying that one does not need evidence (faith, after all, is better in many of their minds) but insisting that they show evidence anyway because they know, deep down, that evidence is how the rest of the world (including themselves for every other belief they hold) is how the world makes decisions. It's a beautiful little display of compartmentalization and irony, unfortunately not intended to be funny.
It's quite adorable to watch. It's almost as adorable as watching a small child pour tea for their imaginary friends while introducing you to them. It is play, so you say hello and drink some pretend tea (perhaps its supernatural or transcendent tea--what is the difference between the transcendent and the non-existent anyway?).
Except they are adults, which makes it a little weird.
So, the next time someone tell you that they have faith AND evidence, perhaps you could stifle your laughter at the joke, because they might not get the irony.
Comments
As a honest seeker of truth it is impossible for me to believe the theory of evolution (we have nothing but theories by the way) when it cannot answer where everything came from in "the beginning" or whatever you want to call it. Big Bang? Interesting idea. Where did the initial matter come from no matter how small it was? If you cannot have a conclusive and uniform theory of the origin of existence then it is not a viable worldview.
And when you attack an entire worldview about having no evidence its helpful to present some persuasive evidence for or against either your worldview or the other.
This is a lame article that is only good for fellow believers in a particular worldview to pat each other on the back over how dumb the other guys are.
Your definition of "faith" is interesting. No-one can conclusively know anything outside of their own experience. How can you claim to scientifically KNOW that natural selection is true when its never been observed once in nature? No species has ever turned into another species conclusively. And no matter who you are you have to have faith in one idea or another concerning the origin of existence.
If you are implying that you can somehow live life without have faith in some part of our existence you are being intellectually dishonest.
Daniel is quite right when he says that this is for the fellow believers to pat themselves on the back. But then again, I doubt that examiner.com's pay (do they pay?) is going to attract any serious thinkers.
Some of the most interesting aspects of human existence have been spiritual, religious, and philosophical beliefs. That you can point out hypocrits is hardly an intellectually rigorous task. It's been done by Socrates, Buddha, Jesus, Augustine, and Luther. But they had much more to offer than this slop. So why should I read Mr. McGonigal when I have them?
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!