Christianity as Faith; Atheism as Blind Faith

[JColtrane]

I know that we have discussed this issue before, but I found that debate to be highly interesting and it sparked me to write an essay on the subject. Hopefully this isn't just a rehash of what was said before, I do think it brings some new points to the table that I hope will be worthy of your intellectual consideration. So here it is:


Christianity as Faith; Atheism as Blind Faith
By Tom Millay

For a Christian, evidence of God is everywhere. There is evidence when he or she looks at the sky, inspects a tree, or takes note of the complexity and beauty of the human form. There is evidence when the spirit inside him or her despairs over its rebellion. There is even evidence of God for the Christian when they look at the immorality of the present age (see Romans Chapter 1).

Atheism regards this all as foolishness. Where is the empirical evidence? What real proof do you have? Christianity must concede that it does not have proof of God’s existence (this is not to say that there is not evidence, but no conclusive evidence). Christians reply that they have faith that God exists, and that evidence of Gods existence is present in nature.

Atheism today explains the universe in terms of evolution. Along with the rise of evolution comes the return of empiricism. People in support of evolution claim to have empirical evidence of its truth. Evolutionists see Christianity as a worldview based entirely on faith, whereas on their side they have the hard facts supporting them. A large debate today revolves around if evolution has empirically verifiable facts in support of it. I am not going to enter into this debate; I see it as entirely fruitless, with both sides firmly set in their thinking. I intend, on the contrary, to bring up a point that the evolutionist might not have yet considered. First, it must be clarified what evolution intends to explain. Then, my point is rather concise.

Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the development of the universe into what it is in the present day. It must be noted that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of matter. It does not claim to explain how everything started—just how everything came to be the way it is. Now since atheists necessarily believe that it was not God who created matter, they must place their faith in science to uncover the mystery of the origin of life. As of yet, there is no evidence that science has the possibility to uncover this mystery. Therefore, the atheist places his or her faith blindly in the power of science.

The problem in atheism does not lie in the evolutionary theory. The problem is that the atheistic worldview places a high emphasis on the empirically verifiable, and yet at its core atheism also requires blind faith. As one can see, in atheism there is simultaneously an emphasis on two opposite sides of the spectrum. Atheists must throw out either evolution, or blind faith in science—usually it is the blind faith that is discarded of. Then, everything they know may truly be empirically verifiable. However, this leaves their worldview incomplete. It has no explanation of the origin of life. Atheism has its history in evolution, but this history has no beginning. In this contradiction, atheism annihilates itself.

 

[Demiurge]

Let me clarify that atheist indicates a skeptical decision(or indecision) regarding the matter. Atheist means lack of belief in a deity, not the dogmatic assertion that there is no deity(let us use the word very loosely so as to include non-anthropomorphized entities). So, an agnostic is an atheist. I have not researched the etymology to discover why atheism has come to have a dogmatic meaning, however.

For me, "soft" atheism or agnosticism is the only solution. I feel no calling to faith and have the strength to persist without omniscience. I hold pure contempt for some religions as a result of my dislike of their tenets. Additionally, religion is "blind faith," too. There are a bunch of fantastical stories one can put his faith in or he can continue to seek the truth as best he can while remaining a skeptic. My judgment is earnest and thoughtful. I don't pass it on anything just for the sake of alleviating the "problem" of not having the solution.

I am opposed to the teleological argument as well, as I see it is manipulative pseudo-philosophy.

 

[Hypnos]

Let me clarify that atheist indicates a skeptical decision(or indecision) regarding the matter. Atheist means lack of belief in a deity, not the dogmatic assertion that there is no deity(let us use the word very loosely so as to include non-anthropomorphized entities). So, an agnostic is an atheist. I have not researched the etymology to discover why atheism has come to have a dogmatic meaning, however.

For me, "soft" atheism or agnosticism is the only solution. I feel no calling to faith and have the strength to persist without omniscience. I hold pure contempt for some religions as a result of my dislike of their tenets. Additionally, religion is "blind faith," too. There are a bunch of fantastical stories one can put his faith in or he can continue to seek the truth as best he can while remaining a skeptic. My judgment is earnest and thoughtful. I don't pass it on anything just for the sake of alleviating the "problem" of not having the solution.

I am opposed to the teleological argument as well, as I see it is manipulative pseudo-philosophy.

right

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Interesting, but I also disagree with your classification of atheism to be in a stance against Christianity.

 

[NeverIsForever]

agreed. I doubt the existence of God but I can't prove there's no such thing as God. you'll never hear me claim that God doesn't exist, only that I don't believe God exists.

on the other hand, christians believe in God but they can't prove for sure that there is a God, just as I cannot offer evidence refuting his existence.

so either way, one's beliefs are going to be a matter of faith to at least some degree.

 

[Demiurge]

I must add that I'm not so naive as to think that religion should be done away with. Not everyone can join me in the abyss. People need to be ordered and told which values to espouse. Religion is an apparatus for ideological control. Religious books are words on paper. They can be interpreted in various ways. Additionally, peoples' faith is in social institutions, not just the texts(mostly the institutions, actually). Look at all the different sects and theories that have arisen(calvinism, arianism, occasionalism, etc.). We don't even need the goddamn book to control. I say use Christianity to manipulate believers. What the preachers say becomes Truth and that is a very powerful thing.

 

[no country for old wainds]

"Evidence" is what's used to prove the existence of something. It can be argued that very little can be "proven" to exist thus rendering evidence void of value, but then you mustn't use a term in any circumstance - certainly not when describing Christian faith - Atheism is certainly no less conclusive. Let's not have double standards.

The history of humanity proves to us that there have been many, many religions in the past, all with belief as strong as one another, most contradicting one another. They can't all be right. This is a reason why every argument for one's own belief in a deity is already less respectable - the same arguments are given by people who believe in all sorts of different things which can't exist simultaneously.

Psychology appears to show that such faith benefits believers greatly in that it provides safety and answers to the previously frightening unknown, whereas an atheist/agnostic appears to have more courage in that his/her beliefs don't dispell the things that people tend to fear the most. This again suggests the latter is more sound in that the majority of humanity appears to be wholly lazy and cowardly (the majority aren't necessarily consciously religious now, but it took the consensus of the majority of people considered "intelligent" and their numerous doubts over Christianity to force people into questioning it). Religion also benefits leaders in that it is a successful method of controlling people - this is another reason why men are likely to create it.

Even if there is a first cause, the idea that it is the Christian moral God is very doubtful taking these things and more into account. But as there is seemingly no way of proving for certain either way, focus should primarily be shifted onto the values certain religions instill into societies. Part of why Christianity continues to hurt the world is because it's been made so that people are so busy moaning about the apparent flaws in faith in God that they don't see all the problems the values themselves cause. The Christianity I'm in opposition to doesn't require conscious faith in a deity these days, so I don't consider it one of the things most worth tackling.

 

[JColtrane]

Thank you for all of your responses. Demiurge brings up an interesting point, I have always taken atheism as strictly saying that there is no God, and agnosticism as something totally seperate. I think that in saying that there is no God you are claiming to know something about God, namely that he doesn't exist--and this fundamentally opposed to agnoticism. This is how I was using the term atheism in my essay. I think that possibly your reason for using the term "soft atheism" is that in this you don't claim that God does not exist, rather the concept of God has no effect on your life or thoughts. It is more of a subjective atheism. Maybe I'll right an essay on agnosticism and subjective atheism soon, but this essay simply focused on strict atheism--people that claim to know that there is no God.

 

[SoundMaster]

As of yet, there is no evidence that science has the possibility to uncover this mystery. Therefore, the atheist places his or her faith blindly in the power of science.

Most atheists I know - and those I've conversed with - lend to prove your theory false.
They do request/demand evidence, as rational beings tend to, but where answers are NOT YET learned, they simply leave it at that and admit "we simply don't know".

Admitting that you do NOT know the answer is the true beginning of wisdom.

You'd be well served to spend some time browsing at this site:
www.infidels.org. You'll learn much at their forum.

May the scales fall from your eyes.

 

[speed]

Most atheists I know - and those I've conversed with - lend to prove your theory false.
They do request/demand evidence, as rational beings tend to, but where answers are NOT YET learned, they simply leave it at that and admit "we simply don't know".

Admitting that you do NOT know the answer is the true beginning of wisdom.

You'd be well served to spend some time browsing at this site:
www.infidels.org. You'll learn much at their forum.

May the scales fall from your eyes.

Spoken like Socrates--the admitting you dont know comment that is.

I think I posted something by Karl Popper on here awhile ago, but anyway, Mr. Popper suggested that Science is actually based on blind faith, not fact etc, as every advance, every hypothesis, theory etc, can never be entirely proven, and even if it is, it takes a step of faith to prove it. Thus, under these premises, being an atheist involves the same amount of faith as being a Christian. So, I am basically trying to back up what the soundmaster said here.

 

[JColtrane]

Most atheists I know - and those I've conversed with - lend to prove your theory false.
They do request/demand evidence, as rational beings tend to, but where answers are NOT YET learned, they simply leave it at that and admit "we simply don't know".

Admitting that you do NOT know the answer is the true beginning of wisdom.

You'd be well served to spend some time browsing at this site:
www.infidels.org. You'll learn much at their forum.

May the scales fall from your eyes.

May I state that the last part of that is not good humor and is not appreciated. That kind of stuff holds no place in this forum. I hope that it was unintentional and if it was I apologize for being so harsh.

You obviously do not understand my argument. Read this sentence again: "Atheism has its history in evolution, but this history has no beginning. In this contradiction, atheism annihilates itself."

 

[the alumnus]

For a Christian, evidence of God is everywhere. There is evidence when he or she looks at the sky, inspects a tree, or takes note of the complexity and beauty of the human form. There is evidence when the spirit inside him or her despairs over its rebellion. There is even evidence of God for the Christian when they look at the immorality of the present age (see Romans Chapter 1).

why is looking at the sky evidence for god as opposed to evidence for not a god? i don't see what the immorality of the present age bears on faith. i personally don't see the present age as immoral at all.

Atheism regards this all as foolishness. Where is the empirical evidence? What real proof do you have? Christianity must concede that it does not have proof of God’s existence (this is not to say that there is not evidence, but no conclusive evidence). Christians reply that they have faith that God exists, and that evidence of Gods existence is present in nature.

nature is not the only way christians find evidence for god. some christians argue that looking for evidence is the anthithesis of faith. in actually, faith comes without evidence at all.

Atheism today explains the universe in terms of evolution. Along with the rise of evolution comes the return of empiricism. People in support of evolution claim to have empirical evidence of its truth. Evolutionists see Christianity as a worldview based entirely on faith, whereas on their side they have the hard facts supporting them. A large debate today revolves around if evolution has empirically verifiable facts in support of it. I am not going to enter into this debate; I see it as entirely fruitless, with both sides firmly set in their thinking. I intend, on the contrary, to bring up a point that the evolutionist might not have yet considered. First, it must be clarified what evolution intends to explain. Then, my point is rather concise.

a misleading sentence to begin your paragraph. for some atheists, atheism explains nothing, and set no terms. evolution is a trivial bit of science, nothing more. instead, empiricism is all. additionally, many christians embrace the science of evolution (as well as all other sciences).

Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the development of the universe into what it is in the present day. It must be noted that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of matter. It does not claim to explain how everything started—just how everything came to be the way it is. Now since atheists necessarily believe that it was not God who created matter, they must place their faith in science to uncover the mystery of the origin of life. As of yet, there is no evidence that science has the possibility to uncover this mystery. Therefore, the atheist places his or her faith blindly in the power of science.

for many, there is no need to uncover the mystery of the origins of the universe. rather, they find other proofs for the non-existence of god in just the same manner that others find proof of god.

The problem in atheism does not lie in the evolutionary theory. The problem is that the atheistic worldview places a high emphasis on the empirically verifiable, and yet at its core atheism also requires blind faith. As one can see, in atheism there is simultaneously an emphasis on two opposite sides of the spectrum. Atheists must throw out either evolution, or blind faith in science—usually it is the blind faith that is discarded of. Then, everything they know may truly be empirically verifiable. However, this leaves their worldview incomplete. It has no explanation of the origin of life. Atheism has its history in evolution, but this history has no beginning. In this contradiction, atheism annihilates itself.

atheism does not require a beginning, nor does it require faith. furthermore, everything they believe does not require empirical verification. only that they have examined the empirical evidence, and found none supporting god.

 

[Demiurge]

May I state that the last part of that is not good humor and is not appreciated. That kind of stuff holds no place in this forum. I hope that it was unintentional and if it was I apologize for being so harsh.

You obviously do not understand my argument. Read this sentence again: "Atheism has its history in evolution, but this history has no beginning. In this contradiction, atheism annihilates itself."

If I wanted to quibble over this for philosophical reasons, I'd say causality is a synthetic judgment which can only be applied to possible objects of experience, which creation not. Therefore, it's not a valid critique to assume a beginning and demand one be explicated.

 

[JColtrane]

(In response to the alumnus)
As I said, for the Christian nature is seen as evidence of God. I did not say it was the only evidence that a Christian has of God's existence. I do not mean to say that their faith comes from the evidence of nature, but that nature gives history and validity to the faith that they already have. And it is a history with a beginning.

Obviously, I was not dealing with all different views within atheism in this essay.

As a worldview, atheism is lacking an explanation of the origin of matter. I consider this a very essential element in a worldview.

Also, no where in this essay did I discredit the theory of evolution, which you seem to think I have.

 

[JColtrane]

If I wanted to quibble over this for philosophical reasons, I'd say causality is a synthetic judgment which can only be applied to possible objects of experience, which creation not. Therefore, it's not a valid critique to assume a beginning and demand one be explicated.

There is a typo here so I'm not exactly sure of your meaning, but I seem to gather that
1)You think judging the causality of an object is possible by experience only.
2)I assume a beginning of matter in my argument.

I do think that matter is something of nature and therefore must have had a beginning, as all other things in nature have had. However, even if I do 'assume' a beginning to matter, evolution still requires that matter exists at the beginning of the evolutionary process. Atheism cannot explain where this matter came from, even if it did not have a beginning. The beginning of atheism is still void of meaning because matter, which evolution begins with, cannot be empircally explained.

 

[Majesty]

I believe that invisible men masturbate in everyones bathrooms when noone is looking,I read it in a 2year old book I wrote and I see it´s presence in the sky,complexity of humans and shit like that.
Prove that it doesn´t exist!

 

[Demiurge]

There is a typo here so I'm not exactly sure of your meaning, but I seem to gather that
1)You think judging the causality of an object is possible by experience only.
2)I assume a beginning of matter in my argument.

I do think that matter is something of nature and therefore must have had a beginning, as all other things in nature have had. However, even if I do 'assume' a beginning to matter, evolution still requires that matter exists at the beginning of the evolutionary process. Atheism cannot explain where this matter came from, even if it did not have a beginning. The beginning of atheism is still void of meaning because matter, which evolution begins with, cannot be empircally explained.

1) No, I was saying causality can only be assumed in the case of a possible object of experience. Creation is not a possible object of experience.

2) You complain that atheists have no beginning, no first cause. The point here is that the observation of causes and effects do not allow one to assume a necessary cause(of the world, universe, etc.). Such a consideration goes beyond possible experience into a realm of nebulous nature where causation need not apply. That there is a cause is an assumption.

 

[Demiurge]

(In response to the alumnus)
As I said, for the Christian nature is seen as evidence of God. I did not say it was the only evidence that a Christian has of God's existence. I do not mean to say that their faith comes from the evidence of nature, but that nature gives history and validity to the faith that they already have.

Okay, this is the sort of argument that will appeal to a believer, but it's by no means a formal proof. I mean, it's not going to convince a skeptic.

 

[SoundMaster]

"Atheism has its history in evolution, but this history has no beginning. In this contradiction, atheism annihilates itself."

Again, as others have pointed out here already, atheism is defined simply as "without belief in god(s) or deities". Period.
You may define it otherwise, but it is what it is. Atheism does not imply any particular political leanings, any breadth of knowledge in the sciences, level of intelligence, etc.

With that said, atheism doesn't "annihilate itself". Heck, one can be an atheist without an ounce of knowledge pertaining to evolution. It's not a prerequisite.

Overall, it appears as if you're posing an attempt to bring science down to the level of religious belief.
Science is evidence, testing of theories and discarding those that are proven wrong.
Does your particular religion or faith test itself? Do you revise it when areas of it are proven false?

 

[SoundMaster]

As a worldview, atheism is lacking an explanation of the origin of matter.

But is it TRULY a worldview?
Or, does it simply imply that one has found no reason whatsoever to believe in or accept another's theory that an immortal super-being exists?
Is not believing in the Loch Ness monster a world-view?

I hope you're not now going to posit that atheism is actually a religion, as well?
As so many seem to think...