it takes more faith to be an atheist
By diana on Jun 29, 2010 | In the atheist files
huh?!
I've been thinking about this again since I saw Bill O'Reilly "interviewing" Richard Dawkins. When O'Reilly made this comment, I was interested in Dawkins' response to it, but frankly, O'Reilly made so many standard anti-atheist comments in each breath that Dawkins had to choose which comment to respond to (and O'Reilly still wouldn't let him complete a thought, which makes me wonder why he bothers to host people who present a view he finds unsavory at all). O'Reilly pretty much read straight from the playbook in that "interview," so if you're interested in seeing a good example of the standard anti-atheist rhetoric, by all means...click the link.
Anyway. I've heard this many times in the ten years I've been out as an atheist, and the remark never fails to confuse me. By that I mean, I'm not sure what motivates anyone to utter it, what they mean by it, how I'm supposed to take it, whether they've considered the implications of their own words, or how to begin to respond to it. The comment has so many disparate problems that it makes my mind rip off in several directions at once and thus go nowhere. If there's anything more annoying than encountering a stupid comment, it's encountering a comment so stupid that it defies response in the moment. This is one of those comments ("There are no atheists in foxholes" is another).
I am not saying that the comment is unanswerable - only that any worthwhile response requires some exposition, and people make such comments are generally only interested in sound bytes that support what they've already chosen to believe.
I suppose that those who say "It takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe" think it deeply ironic that, since no one can prove God doesn't exist, believing that there is no god requires more faith than believing in one. (I'm guessing here, but being as charitable as I can, as no one who has said such a thing has explained his reasoning to me.) This is probably mixed in with an unexamined assumption that 20 million Chinese can't be wrong (so to speak). That is, most people believe in a god, so not believing in one must require more faith than simply accepting the predominant belief. Mixed into this is the assumption that morals are impossible without God, and various other, dare I say, also unexamined beliefs which bolster one's belief in God.
Assuming I'm on the right track, at least, let's examine this a bit closer. First, I can't prove God doesn't exist. I mean, I can use logic to prove that all characteristics that make a being a deity are logically impossible - in the same way that square circles and married bachelors are logically impossible - but I cannot prove a universal negative. (And neither can you.)
So...I'm conceding, yeah?
Of course not.
Let's apply the "you can't prove God doesn't exist" logic to Christians (who I imagine to make up most if not all of my theist audience): You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist. Or the Loch Ness Monster. Or Bigfoot. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But you probably have no problem simply stating one or more of them don't exist. But you don't know that, right? Is your judgment an act of faith, then?* Or is it based on a basic understanding of how our language works combined with simple logic?
* A number of people I've talked with over the years would take this opportunity to try to circumvent my argument by saying YES! IT'S AN ACT OF FAITH! Which is bullshit, of course, because what do you base that "faith" on? What the first person who had an opinion about Nessy told you? Or what? You got your belief from somewhere, and if you believe everything you're told "on faith," I have some oceanfront property in Arizona....
My point, of course, is that taking things on faith is actually pretty stupid. It makes you a sucker, and you more than likely don't do it except for religion. I'm just more consistent than you are in that I don't take religious claims on faith, either.
Perhaps the aspect of the "you have more faith than I do!" accusation that baffles me the most is that it is said mockingly, as though faith is a bad thing to have too much of. Yes, I do believe this, but when a religious person says this, I suspect they are projecting. Or...something. Frankly, I don't get it. The comment comes across as an accusation, like atheists are even stupider than believers because rejecting the ridiculous requires more faith than simply accepting it, nyah nyah nyah. Do you see what I mean? This is the bit that leaves me mumbling incoherently and picking madly at my sores. Because...seriously? Are you listening to yourselves?
Talk with Christians without saying anything about their faith or your lack thereof, and they will remark occasionally about how wonderful faith is, about what a virtue it is. The accusation that we (atheists) have more of this virtue than believers suggests to me that such accusers don't know their bible very well. A quick skim through bible verses having to do with faith suggest that the greater your faith, the more God approves of you. Faith, to the religious, is the ultimate virtue.
So..."You have more faith than I do" means "You are more virtuous than I." Right?
Of course, they don't mean it like that. They mean it as an attack, an insult.
To an atheist, it is an insult to accuse her of the sort of "faith" you claim, of course. And perhaps that is the goal. But at the same time, the Christian who accuses an atheist of being a person of greater faith than himself simultaneously mocks his own gullibility.
What do I mean by "the sort of faith you claim"? I'm glad you asked. "Faith" is one of those words with meandering interpretations, to say the least. When a Christian talks of his faith and how wonderful it is etc, he speaks of the belief in a god or gods definition, usually. (Oddly, most do not seem to use the bible's own definition: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen," or more colloquially, "Faith is your reason to believe in things for which you have no evidence," or Mark Twain's short and sweet "Faith is belief in what you know ain't so."). Anyway, a Christian might also use "faith" to refer to the subsidiary belief that the god he has faith in will reward his behavior.
So when a Christian accuses me of "having more faith than he does," what definition is he using? Here's the irony: the biblical one.
What's the flaw? He misunderstands how reason works. Where is the burden of proof - with the person who insists garden fairies make the lilies bloom, or the one who rejects the assertion?
The answer is pretty obvious when I put it like that, isn't it? :D
Then why do people think the rules change when we bring GOD into it? Because they've never heard of Special Pleading, I'm guessing. (And why do the rules change for God? Because those who believe are willing to do anything, to defy and ignore reason, in order to maintain their superstition. At the same time - ironically - they will apply that same reason ruthlessly to all other belief systems.)
So the next time you want to accuse an atheist of having greater faith than you - the believer - just remember that you insult yourself more than him when you say it. But...you'll forget, probably, but that has more to do with your ego and lack of education than intelligence - or righteousness - of any kind.
d
4 comments
Diana,
I’d always heard that “it takes more faith to be an atheist” line as an attempt to make the atheist look like a hypocrite.
I think we all have faith (of the “evidence of things not seen” variety) in something, whether it’s a benevolent or vengeful deity or the logic of science. We believe that someone or something made, or at least understands, the rules of everything. Science still has a long way to go to gain that complete understanding, but those who follow it believe it will eventually. Otherwise why try?
But how do you even tell if one person has more faith than another, if it’s a different faith? You can tell what a person believes by his actions, but it’s hardly quantifiable.
I think you have the right idea - that isn’t really an argument, it’s an attempt at an insult. If you really need to respond to it, I suggest changing the subject; ask your accuser if he’s ever been cured of sexual immorality. (Grin)
Dave
I agree with you that the statement is a silly one and that people don’t really know what it means when they say it. And also that people who say it are usually more interested in sound bytes than the truth.
However, I want to contest your definition of “evidence of things not seen.” I mean, “things not seen” I always took as abstract concept type things, rather than something with no evidence at all. For example, most people have faith that love is real, or that all humans have a consciousness just like they do. I mean, there’s no way I can prove that you are your own person just as I am my own person; here enters “the Matrix” argument that we really can’t tell what’s real and what isn’t. We do take it on faith, in a way, that our experience of the world can be extrapolated to tell us that other people experience the world in a similar way; namely, by being sentient and self-aware, etc. We also take it on faith that our spouse loves us, for example, based on their behaviors and words and things, by extrapolating from our own feelings and behaviors and words. It is impossible for us to really know what is going on in said person’s head… but it is perfectly reasonable to guess that it’s not too different from what’s going on in ours. Likewise it is reasonable to assume that the human experience is multi-faceted and comprised of more than just ourselves.
Likewise, other abstract concepts, like God, can be considered reasonable to believe in. It’s up to the individual to decide whether it is reasonable or not, based on the evidence they have before them in their lives, but I really think that abstract concepts like God, love, consciousness, and so forth, are all interrelated. To believe in god, or the supernatural, is not somehow different and uniquely irrational, imho.
Hi Diana,
You sound pretty bothered by all the atheist-believer debates. I tend to look on them as flat versus round earth debates. Why debate at all? It is a matter of belief, unless you are a scientist and can do the scientific proof to prove the earth is round, whether there is a round earth or whether there is a deity.
Do all people have to believe the same thing? Nope. As far as the earth’s shape goes, there are times it really matters that we treat it as round but otherwise, no ones life is any different.
Lest I get anyone off track to start debating the worthy or worthless-ness of my analogy, how about just respecting the diversity of beliefs, on both sides?
I doubt it is possible to argue someone out of an emotional decision using facts. In journalism anyway, we are told the facts only support the emotions, that it’s all about theemotions. Many of our big decisions in life are made for emotional reasons. We may support these decisions with arguments of facts but that’s not what swayed us and not what will sway others. But why do we need to sway others in something as personal as religious belief?
Perhaps the issue is people using their beliefs to subjugate others. If subjugation is the issue, then tackle that. If the issue is respect or lack of it, then perhaps the time is better spent learning to treat each other decently rather than trying to persuade or force others to believe as we do.
Just my musings from this distance.
L.
| « why do i bother | what is it about cooking programs » |
