A. C. Grayling responds to a recent joint statement by the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster that "atheism is itself a faith position." (Recall the James Randi response: "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.") They are committing, says Grayling, the informal fallacy of to quoque.

We understand that the faithful live in an inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation, through the swirls of which it is hard to see anything clearly, so a simple lesson in semantics might help to clear the air for them on the meanings of "secular", "humanist"; and "atheist". Once they have succeeded in understanding these terms they will grasp that none of them imply "faith" in anything, and that it is not possible to be a "fundamentalist" with respect to any of them.

His argument is, roughly, that not subscribing to a belief in god is not itself a view that requires faith because it is a position dependent upon reason and evidence. "I don't believe P because there is insufficient evidence for P" is not at all like "I believe that P even though there is insufficient reason that P."

People who do not believe in supernatural entities do not have a "faith" in "the non-existence of X" (where X is "fairies" or "goblins" or "gods"); what they have is a reliance on reason and observation, and a concomitant preparedness to accept the judgment of both on the principles and theories that premise their actions.

By calling those who don't share their belief in a god "atheists" who commit to different articles of "faith," theists attempt to keep the discussion in their own terms.

I would add only that often--and we see this frequently from creationists who attack evolutionary theory--a lack of certainty is associated with faith. So, when scientists admit that their evidence, though sufficient to support belief, falls short of supporting complete certainty, many of the religious believers will describe the scientitsts' situtation of as a matter of faith. But faith is a matter of believing without or despite empirical evidence--evidence doesn't matter. Thus Grayling's point that rejecting a position for lack of evidence is not the same as accepting something for which there is no evidence.

TrackBack