Godless Wonder

So, I've noticed that in discussions with Christians about faith, specifically if I try to make the case that faith is essentially dishonest, usually involving the suppression or ignoring of contrary evidence, and the willful belief of claims for which there are no evidence -- this is the what I mean by "faith" when I say "faith is essentially dishonest." -- that almost invariably someone will say something like:

"Atheists use faith too, you have faith that you'll wake up tomorrow, that the laws of the universe won't suddenly change, that solipsism isn't true." etc.

Now, does this sort of claim betray that at some level the person saying this knows that there's something not right about faith, that they would try to justify it in this way?

My usual reply to this is to acknowledge that I have faith that my memory is more or less working, and that my mind is more or less working, and that my senses are mostly accurate, but that I recognize that faith is not a good thing, but a bad thing, to be guarded against, and I try to contain my faith to only these few things. But I'm wondering if I can get away with pointing out that their assertion that "atheists use faith too" implies that at some level they recognize that something is not quite right about faith. I think that such a point would probably be accurate, but it seems somehow a bit shaky to try to say something like that, just because I can't see how I could really back it up. Maybe I should do it anyway, on the supposition that even though I couldn't back it up, just as they at some level they know faith is a little screwy that they would also know I'd be right about that. Ok, I'm rambling now....

Symptom

there's a difference between believing you'll wake up in the morning and believing in a god. there's evidence for one, and none for the either.

Godless Wonder

Of course, I'm not disputing that.

However, it does seem to me that I have what I might grudgingly accept as faith in:

The reliability of my memory, not that it's perfect.

That the universe operates now pretty much as it has in the past (my car keys probably didn't dematerialize, so I should probably continue searching for them)

My senses are more or less accurate.

Even these I don't hold with absolute certainty, and beyond that, as far as I know, I try to avoid relying on faith.

Craigart14

GW, these things don't rest on faith, but on analysis and reason. If you went blind tomorrow, would you drive yourself to the ophthalmologist? Your keys didn't dematerialize because keys simply can't do that, and neither can the watch I misplaced a couple of days ago. If you forget something or remember it incorrectly, and someone points out the truth, do you cling to your version of events or accept other evidence?

No faith involved, GW. Get a grip!

Craig

DBT

Faith is completely unnecessary when we have - ta da

deductive reasoning

epepke

I think yes, basically. The believer has faith. Often this faith is a fragile thing. The believer sees other people attacking faith. Saying "you have faith, too" is a way of trying to bring them to the believer's level.

Kaiser_Soze

Don't let them equivocate - one is confidence based on deductive reasoning, etc... the other is baseless BS. Apologies for lack of eloquence and detail, but it's 3:30am here...

WCH

Obvious response is that you must first have faith in deductive reasoning.

More specifically, you need faith that your brain is fairly reliable, and that your memory is fairly reliable, as Godless has been saying this whole thread. If you don't trust in you memory and your brain, deductive reasoning is useless.

Soul Invictus

You're onto something there Godless Wonder. There has to be a maxim out there for this type of defense. Let's see what we have here.

1) You identify the negative attribute/dishonesty of faith
2) They appeal to a sense that atheists have faith also
3) You pick up on their defense mechanism of projecting acceptance onto you by the fact that you utilize it

I can only surmise that you ask them what is their point of making this concession? Does this similarity somehow support the claim that faith is good or commendable, or rather that it is a humanistic trait? The fact that projection is used speaks volumes, but it could also be due to a genuine misunderstanding of basing your decisions on faith vs plausible explanation.

WCH

The problem is the multiple definitions of the word "faith."

Faith can mean "informed trust," ie, I have faith that when I sit where my chair should be, that I won't fall to the floor and hurt myself.

Faith can mean "powerful conviction," ie, I have such faith in the value and dignity of humanity that I would risk death to protect it (that is, I would gladly fight to prevent racial/sexual/whatever persecution).

Faith can mean "treating the unproven as if it were proven," ie, I have faith that humans are capable of explaining all aspects of the universe (I obviously don't know we can, but I believe it anyway, acknowledging that I could be wrong).

Now, the 1st is just a neutral fact of life, the 2nd can be good (depending on what the faith is in, of course) and the 3rd is automatically inferior to, for example, knowledge or proof. As atheists, we generally speak of faith in the context of the third one and Christians generally speak in terms of the second, but then turn around and accuse us of having the first kind when we point out their over reliance on the third.

Stupid language and being so unclear on things...