RESPONSE: Do Atheists Have Faith?
January 12th, 2007 by 
drunkentune
The late U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan once said that if you began using terminology created by your political adversary, the battle was over. I care how words are used, and their implicit messages that shape the debate. Thus, I begin a short story: Some time ago, a young man spoke privately with a philosopher. He asked the philosopher the first action he would take if he became the king. The man scratched his beard for a minute in thought, then spoke clearly: Rectify the names.
The young man was startled, but regained composure to scoff: This is your first action? Absurd!
The philosopher answered, correcting the young man: When the names are faulty, speech is not reasonable; when speech is not reasonable, actions are not conducted properly; when actions are not conducted properly, society begins to falter; when society begins to falter, the punishment does not fit the crime; when the punishment does not fit the crime, the people are at a loss. ‘The thing about the gentleman is that he is anything but casual when speech is concerned.’ (Confucious, Analects, Book XIII)
I. Atheism as ‘faith’
The word ‘atheist’ today has far more than its classic definition. Atheism does not exist, just as a disbelief in the Brother’s Grim classic tale of the Frog-King is not
Maybe the words ‘faith’ and ‘religion’ are themselves nothing more than white elephants, but I think they describe as best as we can. As for soulster’s post, I will now give my thoughts.
Unfortunately, ‘faith’ in West has been corrupted and hallowed out as a concept as much as ‘love’… think such insistence cheapens the meaning of faith and plunges us into an ambiguity that makes dialogue nearly impossible. …Simply thinking something or holding an opinion with some certainity does not mean you have faith. Faith is relational trust, at least in the original Judeo-Christian tradition, defined from Abraham who believed the promise given by God face-to-face and in so doing became “the friend of God.â€
I take a counter-stance to soulster’s definition of faith as ‘relational trust’, but agree with him that the word has been co-opted to apply to far more than necessary. When it’s made all-inclusive and is watered down so much, it is essentially meaningless and will lead to confusion. The word ‘trust’ implies that there is already evidence for - not just the existence of the supernatural - a particular version of how the supernatural is supposed to operate. Instead, I use the definitions present in dictionaries. Otherwise, I think, we grasp the camel’s nose and drag him to chaos.
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (Merrian-Webster).
belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof (MSN Encarta Dictionary).
belief that is not based on proof (Dictionary.com).
I define faith as so, and have done so in the past as: belief in some thing, even when there is an absence of evidence, or conflicting evidence.
Atheism, as I define it above, will crumble if there is conflicting evidence. Can atheism therefore be a faith? No.
II. Atheism as ‘religion’
We’ve had a few believers at this site label atheism as a religion on occasion, and in the general culture at large, I hear this often. However, whenever I hear this, I think of it as slander. It’s as if believers are saying, ‘Look, you atheists are just as irrational as we are!’ It’s a perfect stalking horse that does not advance the argument, and intends to, I think, benefit those ready for a fight. I like giving definitions, just as Confucius did, so will continue to do so. Religion is:
1.Belief one or more supernatural beings.
2. A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
3. Ritual acts focused on those objects.
4. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the god(s).
5. Religious feelings (awe, mystery, etc.), which tend to be aroused by the sacred objects during rituals.
6. Prayer and other forms of conduct concerning the god(s).
7. A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
8. A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
9. A social group bound together by the above. (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Atheism as defined above, more or less fits several of these definitions, specifically #7, 8, and 9; however, so does professional bowling. Can atheism be a religion? No. The claim that atheism is a ‘faith’ or ‘religion’ is nothing more than a paper tiger.
(Edit: A more detailed definition of religion)
1. Belief in one or more supernatural beings.
2. A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
3. Ritual acts focused on those objects.
4. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the god(s).
5. Religious feelings (awe, mystery, etc.) that tend to be aroused by the sacred objects during rituals.
6. Prayer and other communicative forms of conduct concerning the god(s).
7. A worldview according adherents a significant place in the universe.
8. A more or less comprehensive organization of one’s life based on this worldview.
9. A social organization bound together by (1) - (8). (Audi, Religious Commitment and Secular Reason, p. 35)
With this more exact definition, atheism doesn’t fit one of the criteria. Audi continues with sources of religious obligation: ‘(1) scripture; (2) non-scriptural religious authority especially that of the clergy, but including the relevant community, such as the… theological community…; (3) tradition…; (4) religious experience; and (5) natural theology,’ the latter exemplified by Aquinas’s five arguments for the existence of god. (ibid., p. 117)’
Other ideas
>The Bible Dictionary’s definition of faith
>The Catholic Encyclopedia’s definition of faith
>Martin Luther’s definition of faith
>The Religion Of Atheism
Posted in atheism, belief, definitions and descriptions, how to dialogue | 
January 13th, 2007 at 3:37 am
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (Merrian-Webster).
belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof (MSN Encarta Dictionary).
belief that is not based on proof (Dictionary.com).
Precisely! That’s exactly how I used it (excepting the “somebody” in #2). Case closed. That’s why soulster’s post had almost nothing to do with me.
If I am to be criticized for simply using a word as the dictionary informs me is a perfectly permissible way to use it, then what else can I say? The problem doesn’t lie with me.
Even drunkentune, for Pete’s sake, accepts the same definition I used:
“belief in some thing, even when there is an absence of evidence, or conflicting evidence.”
He simply denies that he does this. I said it would be easy to show that indeed he does, no matter what he says. He’s simply deluding himself, or epistemologically naive. But we never got to that because he acted like such an ass that I soon lost interest (nor have I gotten it back; I’m only clarifying the essential point of definition, so don’t expect any further reply).
I think it is a much easier case (though not a slam dunk) to argue that atheism is not a religion. Yet the Supreme Court once declared that secular humanism was a religion, so there is intellectually-cogent precedent for such a thing.
I think it functions like a religion insofar as its ultimate commitments cause allegiances and repercussions for other related “sub-views” in the same way that a religious person’s first premises do.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:07 am
Quick answer to the question - “Do atheists have faith?”
Obviously they do NOT have faith in the existence of a god or gods.
Probably safe to say that most atheists do not have faith in “the truth of religions” and they probably don’t have faith in the existence of the supernatural either.
Aparts from the issues of religious faith, an atheist may, or may not have faith in other concepts. But it wouldn’t be BECAUSE they were an atheist that they had these faiths.
There are no prescriptive faiths for atheists.
I may have faith that mankind will eventually create an improbability drive (I don’t by the way), but this faith isn’t particular to me being an atheist. My being an atheist has nothing to do with it.
On the otherhand, religious faith is prescriptive for theists, it is required. Religious faith is necessary for someone to call themselves a theist.
There is no faith required (religious or otherwise), as the result of calling oneself an atheist.
Not many atheists I know use the word “faith” outside of a religious context. I think that is because atheists see religious faith as a belief in something regardless of the evidence or the lack of it.
Maybe because atheists are not convinced that faith that something is true regardless of evidence or the lack of it, is the best determinant of truth.
Theists appear to consider evidence in a subjective light. I am not convinced that a theistic test (if one exists), for veracity is unflawed.
When it comes down to it, I think their test for truth is faith. As mentioned in Hebrews 11:1.
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
So faith becomes evidence of things not seen, but hoped for. (In other words, - Preserve your faith and faith becomes the evidence that what you believe is true, IS true.)
Not many atheists are going to consider faith as evidence of the truth.
Faith under these circumstances is non-negotiable. And I think that it is this non-negotiable aspect of religious faith, which makes it unreasonable.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Oh come off it, Dave!
I told you in Red Dust that,
I don’t have ‘faith’ in the origins of the universe because firstly, if evidence conflicts with I know, I reject my old knowledge, and secondly, I have yet to find any evidence that does conflict with the general scientific explanation for the origins of the universe. I hold my premises on objectivity and subjectivity, and have made this clear before. My ‘faith’ has nothing to do with the existence of gods, only with the existence of the universe outside of my head.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
drunkentune:
From the substance of your post, I think we have found some common ground. My current thinking has been influenced by atheist responses on this blog, so you can see that it is, at least in my case, achieveing the purpose of greater understanding.
Dave:
Welcome back! Glad you have rejoined the discussion since it involves some of your comments.
drunkentune (& Dave and other readers):
Let me explain my defintion of faith further and give some support for it: My Definition of Faith. My arguement is dependent on my definition, which is not what you will find in your standard English dictionaries, so this might help.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Let’s try the argument from a different perspective without any supernatural references. I am going to use the word “faith” in a non-religious context.
(I will also state at this time that I am unlikely to use the word “faith” when referring to a subject like this, but for the sake of argument, I will use it in a way that many people, theists and otherwise use it. Let’s remember that for most of us “faith” means a strong, unwavering belief in something, regardless of evidence or the lack thereof.)
Example A.
“I have faith that Australia is the best country in the world.”
1. Do I have to know about all the other countries in the world in order to make a statement of faith like this?
2. Does a statement of faith like this mean that I have travelled to any or all of the other countries in the world?
3. Does a statement of faith like this mean that I actually know of the existence of other countries?
No - to all of them.
In fact, a statement like this, a faith statement, doesn’t require knowledge about other countries at all. A faith statement does not require, nor does it have to rely on supporting evidence or evidence to the contrary. In other words, I don’t need to lack faith in other positions in order to have faith that Australia is the best country in the world.
Example B.
Now for the opposite position.
“I don’t have faith that Australia is the best country in the world.”
Once again.
1. Do I have to know about all the other countries in order to make this non-faith statement?
2. Does a non-faith statement like this mean that I have travelled to any or all of the other countries in the world?
3. Does a non-faith statement like this mean that I actually know of the existence of other countries?
No - to all of them again.
In fact, a statement like this, a lack of faith statement, doesn’t require knowledge about other countries at all. A statement which proclaims a lack of faith does not require, nor does it rely on supporting evidence or evidence to the contrary. In other words, I don’t need to hold faith in some other position in order to have a lack of faith that Australia is the best country in the world.
So it is with a theist position and an atheist position.
When a theist makes a statement of faith, the statement does not require, nor does it rely on supporting evidence or evidence to the contrary.
And when an atheist makes a statement about their lack of faith, the statement does not rely on supporting evidence or evidence to the contrary either.
Neither of them needs to either have faith in, or a lack of faith in contrary positions.
But if a theist wants to convince an atheist that their faith statement is true, Then they will need MORE than an argument from faith to convince them of it.
Now, as we know that the burden of proof is with those who make the positive claim, I await the convincing argument for the existence of god or gods. Don’t forget that atheists are unlikely to consider an argument from faith as evidence of the truth as many of us have a lack of faith in faith.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Dave:
Welcome back! Glad you have rejoined the discussion since it involves some of your comments.
Yes (which is why I came back), but strictly temporarily.
January 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I think it’s actually a lot simpler than is being described here. All that is required to be an atheist is to NOT be a theist (which is someone who believes in a deity). “Atheist” is synonymous with “non-theist”.
Of course, this leaves unanswered every other question that might be asked about such a person. Any other attributes you might find to be common amongst atheists are just incidental. What is essential is only that they are not theists.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Great follow-up. This one also gets some link love at infinivert.com!
January 18th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Thanks for the link love, Josh!