16 February, 2012

In Defense of Attacking 'Faith'


Introduction
 
Those of you who don't already follow Grizwald Grim's blog (the link is in my blogroll) really should. His posts are well-thought-out and very well written. In fact, one of his most recent posts, entitled "Atheism in 2012 - The Faithful Deniers of Faith," is the subject of my own blog post here today.

In his post, Griz delineates a subset of atheists who become abraded when they hear things like the accusation that they have as much faith as any religious group, or that atheism is itself some sort of religion (however interpreted) He goes on to compare this group, which he describes as a disproportionately vocal minority of a minority (as it were), with the various 'Occupy' movements, inasmuch as he claims that they both sense a problem but that they also both lack a coherent answer for how to solve it.

I won't go into great detail here summarizing his excellent article,  but I recommend that you read it immediately after finishing this post in order to retain an understanding of context.

Just What IS Faith?

As Griz, and many other commentators on the subject, have quite accurately noted is that the word 'faith' is, like many words in the English language, one with multiple meanings. If quoted from Dictionary.com (like so many people are wont to do), the definition of faith is:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

Key to the discussion here are the slight differences between the various definitions provided. But before we go any further, I would like to interject with what I think is a rather more complete definition of the word, this one taken from the Oxford English Dictionary online. The OED defines faith briefly as, "belief, trust, confidence," and then goes on to say,

"
[faith is] confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colors the wider use,"
and,
“[faith is] b
elief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.”

This definition, which also provides some of the context of etiology, is more instructive in the correct meaning of ‘faith’, however it may be used colloquially today.

The point that I wish to make here, in my own rather obtuse way, is that precisely what a word means is in constant flux, and any word’s precise meaning at any one time is highly dependent upon the context in which it is used.
 
The Functional Definition is the Important One

That having been said, I think that the definition that is most germane to most discussions about the relative merits of faith is the last one, provided by the OED. Discussing the merits and demerits of ‘having confidence and trust in a person or thing’ would be daft, and a waste of almost everyone’s time and effort.
It is also a rather sneaky red-herring, or perhaps a poor attempt at a straw-man, to try to draw the discussion away from the (presumably) generally understood meaning of faith (that is to say, from faith as a ‘confidence… in the truth of a doctrine… [often] with reference to religious objects’ or ‘a belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority’) to a rather unrelated definition of faith as some benign confidence or trust in another. Clearly, the readers understand which meaning of faith is intended, and germane, and to draw the discussion away from this definition by proffering another that is technically correct but contextually incorrect is fallacious at best, malicious at worst.

For the purposes of this discussion, as well as any other that I participate in on faith, I think that it is no great leap to assume that you, dear reader, will know quite well which definition of faith that I am referring to, and which I am not.

The Fallacies of Defending Faith

Since it flows rather conveniently from my above point, I would like to take a moment to outline some of the more egregious fallacies that I have found often come up during a discussion of faith, address them each in turn, and then proceed to dismissing them altogether.

Usually, the first objection proffered when I criticize faith is a decidedly droll comment along the lines of, “You criticize it, but you yourself have faith. You have faith that you won’t fall through the chair when you sit down in it [et cetera, et al, ad infinitum…].” Whilst this objection may or may not be true (for a further discussion on the issue, please refer to my blog entry entitled ‘Do We Need Faith?’), it nevertheless commits the fallacy of tu quoque, itself a subtype of the ad hominem fallacy. Essentially, this fallacy is committed when, instead of addressing my argument, the respondent addresses my person; in this case, specifically when they cry ‘yeah, well, you do it too!’ For those not fluent, ‘tu quoque’ transliterates into ‘you too.’

I mentioned it above, but I think that the red herring fallacy deserves a bit more attention, since it is at once subtle and prevalent. Briefly defined, a red herring occurs when the respondent attempts to ever so slightly divert the argument (and discussion) away from the issue at hand and onto a related, but distinct, issue in an attempt to divert the argument away from the point they wish to defend. It gets its name, illustratively, from the practice of dragging a reeking herring fish across a scent path to throw off a bloodhound.

This fallacy occurs all the time, but in the scope of this post, it tends to crop up when I attempt to pin down precisely what faith is, and is not. In order to really criticize something; in order to really attack it; one must first immobilize it. One can far more easily direct the artillery of argument at a stationary target than a fluid and moving one. The defenders of faith seem to know this, consciously or instinctually, and so they consistently resist my attempts at defining faith in general, or their faiths in particular. This is a red herring, and nothing more, and should rightly be dismissed as such.
The final fallacy which I will address specifically here, but by no means the only other fallacy committed in the course of discussions about faith, is the fallacy of the straw man. Time and time again, my arguments are intentionally misrepresented in a rather grotesque and exaggerated manner in order to present a better target for response. 

Claiming that I advocate the repression of religious freedoms, that I intend to abolish religion, or that I find faithful people to be evil (as has been done) is just a rather obvious attempt at redefining my argument as something which it is not. At no point have I made any of the above (rather absurd) arguments; I have only claimed that faith itself is a detrimental mental process, and one which ought to be avoided.

Critique of 'Atheism As Faith' 

Related to each of these fallacies is the counterclaim often posited by the fine folks whom I am often at-odds-with over the issue of faith. This counterclaim comes in two distinct subsets, each of which I will deal with in turn.
The first is that it requires more ‘faith’ to ‘believe’ in atheism than it does to believe in (insert your pet religious dogma here). This is patently incorrect for two independent, yet mutually damning, reasons.

The first reason is rather quotidian, so I need not enter into a long elaboration. The definition of atheism, when one breaks down the word syllabically, is ‘without a belief in god.’ It most emphatically does not mean a belief in the lack of a god, or any other perturbation of those words. It means, quite literally, to be without a belief in god. Therefore, an atheist is one who lacks a belief in god.

I understand that I am repeating myself a bit here, but that is only because the point is so important. Atheism is not a positive statement of belief, it is rather a lack thereof. Consequently, one cannot have faith in atheism, since atheism is not a belief in which faith could be placed.
The second reason that claiming that atheism requires more faith than religion is so absurd is that observational, experimental, and logical evidence all lines up in favor of one and in denial of the other. The simple fact is that faith, the confidence in an idea based upon testimony or authority, is simply not necessary to deny religion, yet is absolutely necessary to accept it. It is religion, not atheism, which requires the buttressing of faith.

Which brings us right along to the second counterclaim; that is, that one must have faith in atheism, as one must have faith in any idea that one holds to be true.

The error this statement commits should now be obvious to you. This is a blatant attempt to use the wrong definition of faith. Clearly, yes, one must have confidence in the efficacy and truth of one’s ideas as a matter of course in holding them to be true. This much is a tautology. But the definition of faith that one would commonly understand to be the one in use when discussing religious issues is the confidence due to authority or testimony and a belief that is not based on truth

To use any other definition of faith, explicitly or implicitly, is to not only miss the point, but is also to derail the discussion from productivity to mere point-and-counterpoint semantic quibbling.

Moving Toward a Better Understanding of Faith as a Whole

Obviously, the issue of faith; the question of whether or not it is a good thing; is one which is not to be resolved definitively anytime soon. There is a lot at stake on either side, and each side has a vociferous and committed advocacy.
I think that in order for us to genuinely move forward constructively on the issue, both sides must be willing to approach the discussion with a modicum of decorum and maturity. Part of that decorum must include a mutual willingness to avoid ad hominem attacks of all kinds, and part of that maturity must include a mutual willingness to understand which meaning of a word like faith, which has so many different meanings, is being used.

Clearly, the word ‘faith’ has a different meaning to different people. It also has a different meaning depending on the context in which it is used. Approaching each discussion with the time-honored dictum of seeking first to understand and then to be understood will go a long way toward healing some of the misunderstanding that has regrettably taken place on all sides. 

Uniting Under a Common Banner 

Within the atheist circle, there is a related split; one which Grizwald so clearly delineates in his own blog posts of late. Summarily, there is a widening gulf between atheists of a more benign tack who simply disbelieve in god, and those of us with an admittedly more caustic approach to religion- not simply disbelieving it, but refusing to draw parallels between it and ourselves.

Each has its own validity, and refereeing between them is a role which I don’t intend to take with this post. However, I think that whilst there are very key differences between all atheists (just as there are among all theists), I likewise think that our similarities outweigh these differences.

If we come together as a confederation of reason, and agree that whilst our specific ideas regarding the role of faith in belief, and the goodness or badness of faith itself, may differ widely, our common commitment to reason and skepticism as a means toward understanding the universe will surely serve to bridge those (largely semantic) chasms. 

Why I’m Still Going To Attack Faith

All of that ecumenical rhetoric aside, I would like to make it clear that I intend to continue to decry faith as an outmoded, unnecessary, hugely inaccurate, and potentially very dangerous method of attaining truth. I see faith as a detriment to our modern society, and as I would any other detrimental poison, I intend to criticize it and publically denounce it.

Faith, in the religious sense, is an evil, and the sooner that we recognize it as such and begin the long, uphill battle toward replacing it with reason, the better off that we will be.

Coda

This blog, while not specifically intended as a criticism of faith, has certainly laid the groundwork for such an assault. I encourage you, reader, to begin thinking critically about every idea that you hold to be true, and ask yourself a few questions:

1. Why do I hold this idea to be true?
2. Do I hold this idea to be potentially falsifiable?
3. What would it take for me to abandon or modify this idea?
4. What process led me to this idea- reason? Intuition? Faith? Some other process?


In doing so, I think you will find that there are ideas that each of us hold true that we shouldn’t; ideas which we hold true that need more support of some kind or another.

It is only through this sort of introspection that we can begin to systematically and categorically eliminate the bias of faith from our beliefs and begin to reach a reasoned, rational understanding of the universe.

5 comments:

  1. On the first read through, there's only one part of this I take issue with - but the response is such it might as well be a post of it's own.

    I will say this though, it's clear you don't agree with the 'faith as an inherent faculty similar to intelligence' stance I took in the article.

    I have little evidence to believe otherwise. So, before I agree to disagree on this matter, I want to put forth one last piece of evidence in favor of the notion:

    Stereotypically, the believers are less intelligent and/or less educated than the atheists. This supports that faith is a mental faculty similar to imagination. The more advanced minds are more capable of applying higher standard criteria in deciding whether or not they apply faith to an idea and make it a belief.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just what IS faith: I still reject that faith IS a belief. Faith is necessary for there to be belief, but it is a separate thing from a belief. Idea + Faith = Belief, Belief - Faith = Idea.

    Functional Definition: To limit the definition of faith one uses to: "confidence… in the truth of a doctrine… [often] with reference to religious objects’" is to do oneself a disservice. Confidence in the doctrine or religious object stems from a different application of faith - faith in the divinity of the Bible. You can't undo the faith in the truth of the Bible without first undoing the faith in the divine origin of the Bible. While the Bible may promote faith in the divine origin of the Bible, the actual faith is supported by faith in the accuracy and truthfulness of parents, peers, religious teachers, and faith that mass adoption of a belief over centuries or more indicates accuracy and truthfulness.

    For a horrible metaphor: If you don't drop the photon torpedo in a manner that it reaches the heart of the death star, it won't explode.

    The Fallacies of Defending Faith: It's not 'tu quoque', it's the argument that you're using the term faith wrong. The person, perhaps not elegantly, is informing you that you're not using the same definition of faith that they are - that you aren't on the same page.

    Robert was too vague for me to be sure, but I think it's another Deathstar issue he's interpreting as a red herring.

    Faith as a Detrimental Mental Process: That's rather absurd. Confidence due to authority or testimony is terribly necessary to function in today's culture. How could it be detrimental to have confidence in one's mother's testimony that drinking bleach will kill you, or that fire will burn you?

    If one tries to apply "but I only mean religious doctrines and such" then one misses the target. A better one would be to only mean "the unverifiable," and the problem becomes what one chooses to apply faith to, the criteria used before applying faith - that is the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am almost sorry to stumble across this blog but I must say this statement "I have only claimed that faith itself is a detrimental mental process, and one which ought to be avoided" makes void your whole blog. In what way is it a mental illness? Seriously, if I thought only on a horizontal level then, yes, I would agree. Even the Apostle Paul states, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." 1 Corinthians 15:19-20 (NKJV)

    You can argue and try to convince people to turn from faith until you are blue in the face but it will never erase from your mind or the mind of others this one truth, that it is Christ who has risen from the dead. Because of this, you, as well as I, and all others are accountable to God. He defeated death and He did it for us as an act of love to redeem us from this fallen world, a world which you are staking your life on and not only yours but the lives of others as well, by trying to turn them away from the future hope that is in Christ. You see, your hope is static, futile and empty because it is here on earth alone. I too live here and enjoy the world that God created and the love of life that I am blessed with. But I also desire the love of life found here through Christ, to continue throughout eternity. My eyes are not fixed on this world because it is passing away. Indeed, I look for a future home whose builder and maker is God. Therefore I freely accept that it is Christ who has substituted His righteous life in place of my fallen life. It is not by any works of righteousness that I have done that guarantees me a place in heaven and on earth for the Millennium, but solely His righteousness alone.

    By the way, the word "Muse" in its verb form means "To think or ponder" on something. The verb "Amuse" in its most literally sense means to "function without thought." If your musings are tied only to this life, than maybe you should rethink your mental capacity that you must believe gives you the right to state that those who function not only in the horizontal (earth) but also the vertical (heaven) have mental issues.

    Jesus loves you whether you want to accept it or not. Instead of attacking our faith, why not try to muse upon disproving the resurrection? Or why not spend your time trying to create life from nothing. If you can beyond the shadow of a doubt do these things then you can say we have mental issues. Until then it seems those with faith are the true thinkers and those without are not.

    Michael Henderson,
    Sr. IT Architect and Process Engineer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mistake that you make is to think that the burden of proof lies on me, or on anybody for that matter, to disprove the claims of your faith, rather than being on you, the claimant. You are precisely backward in your thinking when you treat any of the claims your faith makes (the existence of Jesus, his divinity, his resurrection, the atonement, etc) as being true by default unless disproved. The truth is the opposite: the default position is to deny those things until and unless they are proved.
      You haven't proved them; nobody has.
      If you wish to have faith in those claims, that's your business (as I say here, I think that is wrong, but it's your brain, do with it as you will). You have a long way to go before you can even say that your faith is rational, let alone that that the things you have faith in are real.

      Delete