Disbelief - an act of faith?
I have spoken with many people, both atheist and not, who claim that even atheism requires faith. The idea is that disbelief is simply a different set of beliefs.
But this raises the question, what can we believe? If I say that I do not believe in unicorns, and you say that you do, are we both really looking at the evidence in front of us and choosing a different belief? Am I taking it on faith that there are no unicorns, choosing to believe all of the millions of people who tell me so? No. I do not believe in unicorns because I have never seen one.
This raises even farther issues. I have never seen a giraffe, but I still believe that they exist. Is this as wild as your belief in unicorns, which you also have never seen? Either way, there seems to be some faith involved.
But my faith in this hypothetical situation is a completely different beast than the faith of somebody who believes in silver horses with big horns. I looking at the evidence presented to me (photographs of a giraffe), and choosing to believe that the camera that took the photograph acted as cameras have always acted in my experience, and that it didn't elongate the neck of a horse or something. I am taking it on faith that the animal in the photograph is made of flesh in blood, but this "leap of faith" is once again imposing my real-life experiences in the past onto my present circumstances. I am choosing the most probable explanation (giraffes exist) of the evidence in front of me (the photograph of a giraffe). A belief in unicorns requires much more faith based on the evidence.
I state giraffes do, in fact, exist. This is a decision I am making about the state of the world based on the evidence in front of me. While some may call my thought about giraffes a Belief that they exist, I would say that it is no belief, simply a conclusion about the state of the world that Any Normal Person would realize when faced with tangible evidence. Disbelief, similarly, is not a form of belief, for there is no leap of faith required.
And that's what I believe :-D
But this raises the question, what can we believe? If I say that I do not believe in unicorns, and you say that you do, are we both really looking at the evidence in front of us and choosing a different belief? Am I taking it on faith that there are no unicorns, choosing to believe all of the millions of people who tell me so? No. I do not believe in unicorns because I have never seen one.
This raises even farther issues. I have never seen a giraffe, but I still believe that they exist. Is this as wild as your belief in unicorns, which you also have never seen? Either way, there seems to be some faith involved.
But my faith in this hypothetical situation is a completely different beast than the faith of somebody who believes in silver horses with big horns. I looking at the evidence presented to me (photographs of a giraffe), and choosing to believe that the camera that took the photograph acted as cameras have always acted in my experience, and that it didn't elongate the neck of a horse or something. I am taking it on faith that the animal in the photograph is made of flesh in blood, but this "leap of faith" is once again imposing my real-life experiences in the past onto my present circumstances. I am choosing the most probable explanation (giraffes exist) of the evidence in front of me (the photograph of a giraffe). A belief in unicorns requires much more faith based on the evidence.
I state giraffes do, in fact, exist. This is a decision I am making about the state of the world based on the evidence in front of me. While some may call my thought about giraffes a Belief that they exist, I would say that it is no belief, simply a conclusion about the state of the world that Any Normal Person would realize when faced with tangible evidence. Disbelief, similarly, is not a form of belief, for there is no leap of faith required.
And that's what I believe :-D
posted by Josh at
12:58 PM
2 Comments:
Many take the 'better safe than sorry' approach. Saying, "I would rather believe in god and see the potential of going to heaven than disbelieve and burn in hell."
If you see something in the woods that looks like it could be a rock or a bear, probability dictates you should run (or climb a tree, however you evade a bear): better safe than sorry. I mean, you lose your dignity if other people see you running from a rock, but since no one knows for sure about god, it is not so embarrassing.
Unicorns are an invalid comparison here, because there is no incentive, real or perceived, to compel you to believe in a unicorn.
So essentially you mean Pascal's wager? I won't even argue against that. Just google for arguments against Pascal's wager. They are quite convincing.
Post a Comment
<< Home