On faith

Faith is a term that, by and large, is accepted to be a positive thing. I vehemently reject that claim. Faith is never used for anything in our daily lives except those things for which there are no evidence. At any point when there is evidence, faith is not used. In the most basic of examples, if you are buying a used car and the salesman tells you that this car has had no accidents whatsoever, would you still want to see the Carfax or other history? Moreover, if there was a Carfax and he said don’t look at that, listen to me instead, how would you feel? Faith would clearly not be the better path to knowledge in this case. Faith is, by definition, NOT a path to reliable knowledge. That is what science is for. I do not take anything on faith. Ever. Nor do I believe, to a certain extent (depending on nuance of definitions) in anything.

Here is where a critical distinction comes in that most theists, especially apologetics, fail to understand or outright reject because it compromises their position. ‘Believing’ in science is not the same as believing in anything that requires faith. There is demonstrable evidence of scientific phenomena. The pathway of the scientific method produces predictions which can be verified to be true. Drop a pencil and you will demonstrate gravity. Nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated. The lack of demonstration goes so far as to the point that it is nearly impossible to actually define something that is supernatural. As far as the supernatural goes, I do not accept the claim of its existence in any form, ghost, spirit, soul, voodoo, magic, god, whatever.

Faith is a useless construct. The famous saying goes: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Furthermore, god is often claimed to exist based on nothing but faith. By those same merits, you could claim anything exists. Yoda is real because I saw him in a movie and I have faith that he exists. Prove it? I don’t need to, I have faith. No religion has any more going for it than that right there.

A quick side note hat ties into the previous post. Burden of Proof. Anyone making a claim has the burden of proof. No atheist ever has to defend what proof is there that god doesn’t exist because the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If I said bigfoot is real and you say you don’t believe me, fine. But then it is ridiculous for me to assert that you need to prove to me why bigfoot isn’t  real. That isn’t how logic works. If you make the claim or assertion, you must provide the evidence. It is the default position to not believe any claim that has not met the burden of proof. This is the fundamental logic behind rejecting a god claim, or any other claim, and people adhere to it for nearly everything else in their lives. Do you believe in Thor, Bigfoot, that I am actually invisible, a teacup orbiting Saturn? Why? Truly think about why you don’t accept those claims and you will know why your claim cannot be accepted.

Next time: I will take a look at the cosmological argument and tell you why it is flawed and fundamentally fails, as well as discuss a few of the basics of logical thought and fallacies. As Smoky the Bear said, Only you can prevent logical fallacies.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s