Skip to main content

Faith is not just an assumption

By Paul So ~

It is pretty common among religious apologists (as well as lay believers) to argue that we have faith all the time. A common argument they would use is the skeptical argument. They that if anything requires justification then so does reason and evidence, but to justify reason and evidence we have to provide a justification that is not from reason or evidence otherwise it would be circular. But we cannot find any justification for reason or evidence we simply have faith in them as much as someone might have faith in God. This argument is pervasive among lay believers who insist that we often have faith in many things such as our parents, airplane service, and law enforcers (although that one is questionable in some circumstances). They might go so far as to say that I have faith when I assume that my chair is not fragile so I sit on it.

The problem here is that they are equivocating the meaning of faith with making assumptions. While it is common between both believers and non-believers to see faith as a way to making assumptions I personally don’t think this is true. Faith does involve making assumptions but it is also more than that. Faith also involves commitment to the imperative that you cannot change certain assumptions under any circumstances because the assumption must be true. In that case the equation of faith is Faith = Assumption + Imperative that tells you not to change that assumption because it must be self-evidently true (notice that the relation between assumption and imperative are circular; Imperative says that the assumption must be true because it is true, and the assumption must be true because the imperative says so). The thing is that we all make assumptions many times in our lives; it’s usually the first step we take when we try to solve problems or learn something new. However in some of those times we learn that our assumptions are faulty or false in the face of new information so we change our assumptions in order to come closer to the right answer (or right solution). Making an assumption and then changing that assumption is fairly common in how we solve problems or find the right answers; we often do this when we realize that a certain approach in thinking does not help yield the right solution or answers so we realize the problem isn’t with reality but rather ourselves. This is how science also works: it starts with conjectures (i.e. hypothesis) about the world and then it tests those conjectures, if those conjectures are shown to be falsified then we change the conjecture in the face of new evidence.

My problem with faith is obviously not the first part which is making assumptions; again, we all make assumptions. My problem with faith lies more in the second part which is the commitment to the imperative to never change that assumption. It’s fine that we make assumptions as long as we are willing to change it in the face of new information but there is something wrong with intransigently holding unto that assumption in spite of new information. The reason is obvious: if we do not change our assumptions especially when evidence and arguments show that the assumptions are untenable then we won’t get close to the truth.

We learn that our assumptions are faulty or false in the face of new information so we change our assumptions in order to come closer to the right answerThe believer might argue that even if the definition of faith I presented is correct it still remains the case that we have faith in things like the existence of reality, that laws of nature cannot be violated (such as conservation of matter), reliability of induction, and existence of other minds. We not only assume that these things are true but we often treat those assumptions as if they are self-evident and we often make it an imperative not to change them. We also cannot take our trust off of reason and evidence; we often make it an imperative to trust in them. A response that can be given is that there are some assumptions we make about the world that are indispensable, in other words we cannot do without them. That the assumptions are indispensable should not be confused with the imperative not to change those assumptions. The reason is because the indispensability of that assumption is itself the reason not to change those assumptions, to change them we lose more progress in understanding the world than we gain. So to assume that the external reality exists, other minds exists, and induction is reliable are really indispensable because without them we cannot make any inferences, implications, and conjectures about the world and ourselves any further. The believer might argue that this is begging the question since to say that the assumptions are indispensable is to assume that the assumptions are self-evidently true. However this is not the case: for an assumption to be indispensable is for us to be able to make wide range of possible conjectures about the world which if otherwise we could not have done; we need the assumption in order to make more progress but that does not say that the assumption is therefore self-evident but rather something that we need in order to make sense out of the world. It could be the case that our world is essentially a simulation of an alien supercomputer; perhaps that’s the case but our assumption that the external world exists has helped us make conjectures that accurately describes and explains how that simulated world works. If we did find out that the world is simulated then we can change that assumption into something.

Faith is unwarranted not because it merely makes assumptions but because it makes it an imperative to not change that assumption even there are evidence and reasons that says otherwise. There are some ancient old assumptions that we never give up such as the existence of the external world but such an assumption is not something which we make an imperative not to change but rather it is indispensable to our understanding of the world. So no, we do not live by faith, we live by making assumptions yet allowing ourselves to change it when situations calls for it.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not