Why Is Your Faith Not Arbitrary?

[N/A Gone]

why is your faith not arbitrary?

This is in response to a debate I am having on a different forum with an atheist. I am curious what some people's response are.

For context, here is what he said last.

[quote]Thats an impressive wall of text. Faith is faith. You can wax philosophical but your entire discussion was based on the assumption God exists and his existence is beyond detection of the empirical sciences yet you can't support that assertion with anything.

Lets try a different path and leave the dead philosophers alone.

Theists and atheists are remarkably alike. We use generally the same rigorous process to evaluate most fact claims. We employ varying degrees of skepticism, inquiry and evaluate of available evidence to determine whether we think a fact claim is likely true or likely false.

Take the following three fact claims:

Claim #1: George Bush exists.
Claim #2: Invisible pink elephants fly nightly over the Great Pyramids.
Claim #3: You owe me $1,000.

Now, I am willing to bet that 99.9% of both theists and atheists will reach the same conclusion on each of the three fact claims above. Why? Because each will employ discretion and consider empirical evidence known to them to render a conclusion on each. Even though who have never met George Bush will consider the wealth of documentary empirical evidence for his existence sufficient proof to conclude Claim #1 is very likely true. Most will agree Claim #2 is very likely false even though most have never been to the Great Pyramids. In fact, we could test the claim by investigating it physically to see if we can detect such elephants. The point is - the same process is used by virtually all. Claim #3 similarly would be evuated with customary rigor - considering the available evidence, etc. Certainly some laws may impose a different standard than others but the concept of assuming nothing, reviewing the available evidence and rendering a conclusion would be employed by most.

However, consider this fact claim:

Claim #4: God exists.

Here - suddenely the theists abandon the rigorous and apparently dependable process they used for the first three claims. Instead, they throw up their hands and say "Faith!" and God must exist despite the lack of empirical evidence and the arbitrary nature of their assumptions. How the claim of whether God exists gets less rigor than a claim as petty as whether someone owes the other money is amazing.

Atheists such as myself have faith too. I have faith in the scientific method as a process to reveal the universe and its details to me. The method sometimes yields incorrect results. But that is ok. Because the process is neverending. The iterative eternal process of inquiry, consideration, evaluation... is the rigor any fact claim deserves - certainly one as important as whether God exists or not. You see - a theist assumes God exists and can never revise that fact claim unless he or she abandons his or her faith. I've asked many theists under what circumstance could you see yourself not believing God exists - and they say "none". Why? Because they assume God exists as an a priori statement. No matter what happens - its evaluated based on the presumption God exists. Whereas the scientific method - nothing is sacred. Anything can be discarded or replaced if new experiments or observations determine revisions are needed.

Theists are also almost atheists. They don't believe in a host of gods, supernatural entities and the like. They just haven't managed to not believe in one last one. There's a quote: "When you understand why you don't believe in other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours." Religious faith is arbitrary because there is no basis to believe in God but not believe in Allah or Odin or Ra or the Earth Mother, etc.

And so I challenge theists out there - I'm not asking you to prove God exists or that I'm wrong. Simply prove this - why is your faith not arbitrary?[/quote]

[jeffpugh]

Wow, this atheist is quite intelligent, and mostly on the right track with things (in my opinion). As for the question about whether faith is arbitrary, could that be expanded past, "if there is no basis to believe in God, why don't you believe in Allah, etc." Now that I think of it, I think you have to prove God anyways because we know that God is one type of being opposed to what men have made up in the past... I dunno, it's just a start, but I'll have to ponder more past this point... so I'll be a while. I'll wait to see what others say first... yes... (hehe, sorry for the cop-out).

God bless.

[beatty07]

Classic symptoms for a good heavy dose of Anselm. If you're thinking of something that might or might not exist, then you're not thinking of what I mean when I say God. If you're thinking of something that might exist as one instance of a group of others, you're not even in the ballpark.

There is precisely one circumstance in which I would not believe in God: if i cease to exist. That sounds silly but it's the crux of the matter. As long as there is something around that can be evaluated scientifically, the question remains of what it's ultimate cause is. The fact that there is something rather than nothing means that something must have begun a chain of causation.

And that, as a really smart guy said, is what we call God.

This guy isn't nearly as smart as he sounds. He's made a respectable thrust toward a position of agnosticism, but atheism is something he holds dogmatically and blindly without any evidence. We can have an intelligent conversation about whether there is or is not evidence that God exists. But that will only get us to agnosticism. For atheism, he has to conclusively prove that God does not exist, and at least in this argument he hasn't even tried.

To keep his example, what if we consider the proposition: "Every night invisible and noncorporeal elephants who existence is of an entirely different order than ours fly over the Pyramids." You can't disprove that. It's simply not possible. A real scientist will only say "I see no reason to believe that." If he says "I believe with absolute scientific certainty that that is false," then he's left science and made a blindly dogmatic statement.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'd point out that being a true atheist is having faith, faith in the nonexistance of God. now, there are soft and hard atheists... these are actual terms... soft, to describe people who tend to not believe but don't take definitive stances.

and it's not without evidence theisitc faith. miracles is one. nderf.org is too.
though, nderf is pretty shaky about who or what God is doeother than many claim he exists.
i wouldn't be surprised if our notions of God are wrong, as most theogians would agree as a premise, butto say he doesn't exist isn't quite accurate either.
all depending on how you define God.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i know some will point to arguments of God's existance typically thought of, but most of those rely on really flimsy defiitions of God. eg the first cause is God, is a shaky definition of GOd even if you can prove a first cause. not that the first cause argument is completely sound proof in itself anyway. but that's a very loaded statement that i'd have to go at lengths to defend.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Faith is faith.[/quote]

That is the sentence that immediately leaped out at me. He is making an arbitrary judgment of his own: he is assuming that he knows precisely what faith is and what it means to have faith. Going by the rest of his argument, it would appear that he treats 'faith' as an excuse for believing in something that isn't obvious to the five senses. This is apparent in his reference to dead philosophers - as if the fact that they are not immediately available to humankind somehow invalidates their work.

God does come to us through the means of our senses: this is the wonder of the Incarnation. He speaks to us in our own human language. But He isn't bound by our senses - He exists beyond them as well. Consequently, the world that we experience is only a tiny part of the reality that there is. Saying this is not the same as saying that there are incorporeal elephants flapping about over the pyramids. That analogy presumes that God is some great cosmic 'thing', like an elephant or a teapot or a butter-bowl. This atheist rejects belief in such a god, and rightly so: even if he never makes another prayer in his life, I hope that God has mercy on him for the sake of that one gesture of holiness.

[quote]Theists are also almost atheists. They don't believe in a host of gods, supernatural entities and the like. They just haven't managed to not believe in one last one.[/quote]

That part made me cringe. He really is objectifying God, seeing belief as quantifiable. A monotheist who believes in one God is not closer to atheism than a polytheist who believes in two dozen. If anything, it is the other way round. Polytheism seeks to quantify the divine, to assign it to designated compartments, to make it easy and understandable. Apply to this god for help in love and this goddess for help in war. The divine becomes a giant customer service department. This corresponds very closely to the atheistic understanding of 'god'. The Judeo-Christian tradition is leagues away from this.

The pair of you are not speaking a common language when you talk about God. I think you need to write that you don't see God as a 'thing', a bigger and better version of a human being seated on a golden throne in the clouds. God is being itself. Your friend may disagree with that statement, but if he thinks closely about its meaning he will realise that your concept of God does not match up with his own. Once he is at least prepared to accommodate this idea, you will be able to talk about the manner of revelation.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Apotheoun]

Faith is arbitrary, because the act of faith -- of its very nature -- involves man's free choice ([i]libero arbitrio[/i]).

Edited October 8, 2007 by Apotheoun

[dairygirl4u2c]

an atheist would attack "God as existance" as a catharisis so theists can certainly claim God exists. no one would deny existance, rational people anyway. and you can call that God if ou want, but it's not saying much of anything.

[jeffpugh]

Wow, these are great posts here. I'm a bad apologist insofar is I get caught up with the big things and forget about the little things... like as Cathoholic pointed out: "faith is faith". I should have caught that right away, but good thing she did. I'm glad you all posted this one, cause this will help me with my atheist friend... yeah, I even followed Dairygirl's posts. I have to say, it's interesting input, but they're a bit neutral grounded. You ever going to make a radical decision on here, dairy? I'll be waiting Seriously, in all sincerity...

[N/A Gone]

Thanks Guys. Keep going. I hope Jeff or L_D venture in here.

Oh, so you can see how it is going so far, here ya go

[url="http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=716291&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0"]http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php...asc&start=0[/url]

[Anna]

The atheist seems to think that there is only one proof to almost everything, and that proof is science.
Prove it scientifically, or I will not believe.
(Hmmm...Sounds vaguely familiar to St. Thomas, and his next response was, "My Lord and my God!")

Does this atheist have any regard for history?
How can we scientifically explain why the Red Sea would part when Moses extended a rod across the waters?
How can we scientifically explain why it closed back up again, drowing all the Egyptian army?
How can we scientifically explain the seven plagues, the burning bush, the tablets of stone with the ten commandments?
Oh, these accounts may have happened centuries ago, but they continued on...
How can we scientifically explain a Man who touched blind people and made them see, touched the crippled, and they walked?
And how can we scientifically explain His Resurrection from the dead - and that many saw Him and spoke with Him, even after they witnessed His crucifixion and burial?
These actual historical happenings with no scientific explanation were explained, by Wonder-Worker Himself, as acts of a Higher Being we refer to as God.
Miracles do continue to this day.
And, I am pleased to say that my religion never readily accepts something as "miraculous," if it CAN be scientifically explained.
To be declared "miraculous" means that we have called in all scientific processes and experts, and no scientific explanation can be given.
Then, and only then is when our Church makes a declaration on something being miraculous.
When Johnny's broken toe heals, we do not say, "He's healed! It's a miracle!"
But when a seemingly ordinary piece of bread, made by human hands from wheat flour and water, suddenly begins to drip human blood and forms a mass of human heart tissue that is cross-cut in such a fashion that it would take surgical precision, and that heart tissue does not decay after 600 years of observation, the Church then declares, "Yes, it appears we have a miracle on our hands."
And miracles are attributed, again, to that marvelous, timeless, Wonder Worker Who we refer to as God.
He has given us all the proof we need.
For those who reject that proof, we can only pray that one day, they have the opportunity to place their fingers in His palms, their hands in His side, or experience the power of His saving embrace.
Till then, they'll go on thinking they're oh, so smart, and all we have is a little cliche, "Faith is Faith."
Oh no, It is so much more than that.
But, to paraphrase/quote St. Bernadette, "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who refuse to believe, no explanation is possible."

[abercius24]

It all boils down to one thing: Why does "existence" (as a state of being) exist? Does cause and effect apply to everything but existence itself? Or does existence itself have a cause? Based on all the heap of emperical evidence we have in this universe to analyze, it is not logical to believe that any effect can exists without a cause. Therefore the logical conclusion is that something that exists apart from this universe caused the universe to exist. This cause must exist apart from this universe in order that it may not be bound by the laws of cause and effect itself. Based on the intelligence the universe contains for us to draw from, it is also logical to believe that the ultimate cause of existence is also intelligent. This intelligent first cause that exists apart from the universe is what we call God. And that is only the beginning...

[dairygirl4u2c]

everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.

there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian. perhaps as you were saying, if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily.

now, the big bang actually helps verify the CC dogma of God's existance. we see empiracally that there was a first cause, the big bang. should we say hte big bang just happened or that something cause it?
was there anything before the big bang?
if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next onse the first God. and are those first particles then God? i think particles idea shows that the first cause should not necessairly be called God, and that God has to be more than just random chance.
this is where it gets hairy.
while the big bang does help give credence to the CC dogma, it doesn't necessarily prove it.


it is a sufficent level to say that God, as defined as first cause, does exist. but it's not exhaustively definitive. must like if we see a shadow, we know somehting is causeing it as a proof, but we haven't proven it definitively.

Edited October 8, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

same for intelligence. that there is order to hte universe doesn't prove God.
as a first cause as God, order just means that order happened to occur.
if you define intelligence as order then sure, but that's not saying much. you have to give the intelligence consciousness to mean anything.
order is indicative of inteligent consciousness but not a proof.

same with somethign complex like a watch. it's just proof, even more proof, but not exhaustive. plus when you look at the watch, it didn't spring up out of nowhere. it got here as an end product of earth formation, and evolution, and trial and errors and all that. if it did just spring up, you'd have something.

[beatty07]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1399109' date='Oct 7 2007, 09:20 PM']Consequently, the world that we experience is only a tiny part of the reality that there is. Saying this is not the same as saying that there are incorporeal elephants flapping about over the pyramids. That analogy presumes that God is some great cosmic 'thing', like an elephant or a teapot or a butter-bowl.[/quote]

It's not an analogy. I didn't mean to be understood as comparing God to paracosmic pachyderms (!). The point is that science is equally well equipped to evaluate both claims. As in, not at all.

Using scientific methods to evaluate the existence of YHWH makes less sense than playing Uno to evaluate the mass of Betelgeuse.

I'm in total agreement, of course, with what I take to be your main point, which is that we also don't believe in the god in which this guy doesn't believe. I think that's true of pretty much all atheists, actually. That's why I like to bring up Anselm and Thomas.