nounThe new atheists, however, have become fond of insisting that their stance regarding deities is that they "really just believe in one less God than you do." Another way of putting it is that atheism is not really a belief at all; it's just a "lack of belief in any god." This video is supposed to explain this point of view for those of us who just don't seem to get it.
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
From The Video
"Belief and Faith are not the same thing ... Faith can be thought of as confidence in that claim in the absence of evidence ... The more faith they have, the further away from evidence they travel."On the first point ("belief and faith are not the same thing") I would have to agree. I have often illustrated the differences between some of these concepts like this:
Belief = mental assent: There may be several reasons for my holding some belief but that belief is nothing but intellectual acceptance of a proposition. I believe that airplanes can fly.
Faith = active trust based on evidence: I not only believe that airplanes can fly, I demonstrate my confidence in that belief by taking active steps beyond mere mental assent. I get on an airplane.
Knowledge = justified, true belief: This is the philosophical definition of knowledge. I have a belief that is justified by its correspondence to reality (truth). I have measured my belief against the real world and found that it is actually legitimate. I get off the airplane in Chicago.Notice that (1:14 in the video), faith and evidence are said to be inversely related -- that "religious" faith is actually confidence in the absence of evidence -- that faith is blind. Where I claim that faith is "active trust based on evidence," the video says that exact opposite. Further, the video claims that:
"if you ask a non-religious person if anything could make them believe in a god, the answer would almost certainly be, yes. Conversely, if you ask a religious person if anything would cause them to disbelieve, the answer is always, no."Think about that one for a second. This would mean that if God showed up in my living room tonight and introduced Himself, I would therefore cease to have any faith in His existence. Do you see how ludicrous that is?
What's going on here?
Spoiler Alert: Words Mean Things
The first thing to note is that when atheists try to advance this argument, they are using different definitions of words and demanding that we accept them. For instance, at the point where the video claims that faith is confidence in the absence of evidence (again, at about the 1:14 mark), notice what is being shown on the right side of the frame. The inverse relationship being contrasted is not between faith and evidence -- it is between faith and "scientific data."
The atheist is demanding that the only way we can consider "evidence" is if it comes to us in the form of scientific observation. Most honest atheists are materialists -- they believe that the physical, material world constitutes all reality -- and that demands that our study of the physical world (science) provides us the only means to gather evidence. So, when an atheist demands evidence, he is demanding that physical evidence is the only thing that counts.
Problem: God is not physical. No thinking theist has ever claimed otherwise. For that reason, studying the physical world will never prove -- nor disprove -- the existence of God.
Notice what happens when you understand this subtle point ...
First, the atheist claims that, if asked if anything could make them believe in a god, their answer would be, "Yes." Saying this makes the atheist sound very open-minded, and rational, and unafraid of free inquiry. But what it doesn't take into account is that the only evidence they would accept is physical, material evidence ... for an entity (God) that is not physical.
In other words, they have defined "evidence" in terms that almost certainly can never be attained short of the second coming of Christ into their living rooms. At the same time, the historical evidence we do have for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is unacceptable to them because it infers some kind of supernatural reality, and they have already ruled out that possibility by a simple, atheistic presupposition that such an explanation is not allowed.
Very convenient wouldn't you say?
Second, the video ends with the pronouncement that:
"atheism is not a belief and requires no faith since it's based in evidence"From the prior discussion, it should be obvious that the faith/evidence claim is a convoluted mess that equivocates on both the definitions of faith and evidence. But here's another thing -- If the atheist really claims to have "no belief" regarding deities, all we need to do to show this to be false is to ask for a response to the following proposition: "God exists. True or false?"
There are only three answers:
- "I don't know" makes you an agnostic.
- "Yes" makes you a theist.
- "No" makes you an atheist.
Third, note that the video's claim that when religious people are asked if there is anything that would make them disbelieve in God, they answer, "No."
This is simply false. I can give a list of things that would make me quit believing in God in general, or Christianity in particular, tomorrow:
- A reason to exempt the most profound effect (the entire universe itself) from the cause-effect relationship we accept in every other case. Atheist materialists try to do this all the time -- asserting either that the universe popped into existence without a cause, or that we are one of an infinite number of other universes that cannot, by definition, ever be detected.
- A naturalistic explanation for consciousness (which cannot be demonstrated to be physical).
- A naturalistic grounding for ethics.
- A naturalistic explanation for the origin and content of information in DNA.
- Evidence that refutes the resurrection of Christ -- this is not my idea, it is a tenet of Christianity itself and the demand of Paul in 1Corinthians 15.
My position is that belief is belief is belief. We all hold beliefs. Religious ideas should not be held in some kind of separate category that atheists are allowed to define away. I believe religious ideas that they reject. That’s fine. But the fact that they reject them does not invalidate them. They hold beliefs that I reject but that doesn’t mean their beliefs are invalid. It means we disagree.
My religious belief is not “overwhelming” in the sense that I cannot be shaken from it. There are aspects of my beliefs that I question and doubt all the time. Any thinking human being who claims they don’t have religious doubts is a liar. But that doesn’t mean my beliefs are improperly held. Some of these ideas I believe in the same way atheists believe what they do about the makeup of the core of the Earth or the existence of a quark. They've never seen them but they accept them because they believe the evidence for them is more compelling than some other alternative. They take some of these beliefs on the expertise and authority of those they respect or whose credentials they hold in high regard.
The bottom line is that I don’t hold my beliefs in a vacuum. I don’t need to hold that with unquestioning certainty. I only need a 51% assurance that my view is true and that some alternative is not true. I have made an inference to the best explanation from the evidence I have in front of me. Both the atheist and I are operating on an active trust in the evidence we see.
The irony in all this is that the view I hold is actually the open-minded view that welcomes any kind of evidence and weighs it accordingly. I don't discount any kind of evidence or put limits on what is allowed into the discussion. The fact that many theistic believers may demonstrate otherwise does not constitute sufficient grounds to reject the evidence-based convictions of those of us who do.
Atheism is a belief that is not really open to serious inquiry. A simple discussion about these topics with mosts atheists makes that clear very quickly.