When Faith Isn't Enough?

When faith isn't adequate enough for some they may turn to arguments for god as a reason to believe or a reason that others should believe. As a nonbeliever I encounter these regularly, usually when someone finds out my position, but I wonder how many people have actually been converted this way. Nevertheless these arguments have gained a huge following from god debates to books to argument based religious sites like William Lane Craig's site Reasonable Faith. Several of these arguments for and against the existence of gods date back to the time of the ancient Greeks like Plato and Aristotle yet they have sustained a huge resurgence recently.

Despite this popularity, my skepticism is quite looming as I wonder about the true nature of these arguments. Is this all for show? Is this idea too complex for a simple argument to cover? I'd like to know what you think. 

Do you think anyone has ever been converted in this manner or do you think these are these all merely superfluous syllogisms, constructed to support each side's position?

The Review

Gone No More

Resurrection

Rising this blog from a two week death, I bring to you an interview with Matthew Mccree-Cannon, a fairly liberal Muslim, who, among other unique ideas, gives a rather different view of faith than I've heard here before. My favorite idea of his is on how to deal with interfaith issues,but my favorite moment was probably his thoughts on nonbelievers. Enjoy or send me hate mail, the choice is yours.

Speaking for Ourselves

We're All Quite Different

Many times someone will hear what your religion is and them proceed with "then you must believe x." These often ill-informed, frequently negative, presumptions do little to encourage dialogue as these preconceived notions are rarely shaken by disagreeing and plainly saying what you believe and why you believe it. As a nonbeliever this happens to me constantly, and I grow weary of defending myself from straw-men beliefs, but we nonbelievers are far from alone. We all believe different things for different reasons and because of this I propose a very simple idea: let everyone speak for themselves.

In my rather lengthy second full interview I speak with Jon Goldthwaite, a leader from Columbia College Chicago's Campus Crusade for Christ. He answers the same questions from the last interview but, as with most of us, gives very different answers on questions on faith from everyone else including my previous interview. He is somewhat more pointed then my interviewee in the last interview and quite direct. Enjoy:

First Full Interview

Bless You

...How many times per day do you hear someone say this? I'd imagine, unless you work at home, a dozen or so at the least. This statement, though clearly religious in origin, has lost all religious meaning. Now if you may be so kind tell me why people started saying it? Long before I shed my religion, I stopped saying this because I learned the comical origins of this phrase,but these origins have no bearing on what is now just considered habit or common courtesy but people still look down upon me for this (even though I use alternative phrases). What can this tell us about faith?

Sometimes traditions carry on simply because they go unquestioned and it goes against common courtesy not to follow them. 

Breaking Common Courtesy

Breaking another faith-based common courtesy, I continue to ask people their views on faith. Below are the answers of one Christian, Lamar Smith, a friend of the Truth,who responds in my interview with him on this topic that it is considered common courtesy not to ask about. He is a rather liberal Christian who I have known for many years and spoken with on practically everything but I never really knew any of his positions on this subject.

Answering questions on and about faith,  Lamar tells me, among other things, why he chose his religion, how he feels when someone questions his position and if he fears death. With no further adieu:

Why This Faith and What If You're Wrong?

Not Picking Out of a Hat (Hopefully)

We all have our positions on religion and faith and we frequently think about how current events shape and alter those positions but rarely do we think about why we hold the basic positions and what happens if we are wrong. With the thousands of religions out there why do we chose one particular faith over another? Pascal told us to make a wager but here is what some Christians told me:

I Could Be Wrong
What if you are wrong? How would your life change? Would it change at all? Here's what two Christians told me:

These are the first of many interview clips in which I ask for answers for the big questions around faith but what about you? Why this faith, or non-belief, and how would your life change if you found out you were wrong?

What are Your Answers?

The most important questions (besides these) that we all face:

Do you believe in God?

Why your particular faith?

What if you are wrong?

Do you fear death?

Some answers to these questions and many more from all perspectives coming soon... Have you answered them yet?

What Do You Mean?

Speak Clearly

Probably more than any other subject we talk right past each other when we speak of religion and faith. Take the most basic religious question that can be asked “Do you believe in God(s)?” Right away I think which god? Shiva and Vishnu? In which order of supremacy? Yahweh? The Old Testament or New Testament version? Zeus? Ra? This question is far too vague and unfortunately in this field vagueness is prominent.

We are severely lacking in the words to even discuss the issues. Taking my cues from others, who speak of "my faith," I have frequently used the word “faith” as a synonym for religion and the expression “religious faith” to denote a religion. This is problematic habit to say the least. Each of these expressions have there own unique definitions and connotations and these connotations are different for different people. And I have learned this the hard way.

The End of Semantics

Beliefs can be justified or unjustified. The object of that belief may be real, imaginary or unknowable but the belief itself should only be discussed in the terms of justification. When trying to demonstrate the possibility of a belief being "incorrect" I used the Flat Earth Society as an example. Yes they are wrong about the truth of the shape of the world and they belief is totally unjustified but their belief isn't "wrong" (they've merely used extremely flawed reasoning to achieve their belief).

I never meant that belief in a religious faith could be "wrong" in the absolute sense (except perhaps extreme heretics) and of course you can't really with disprove anything with certainty, outside of in math, but I thought this merited a final clarification. 

Be particular with your religious words for the wrong words can be your damnation.

Can Faiths Be Incorrect?

What's Wrong is Wrong?

In a previous post, I mentioned the idea of imagining that a "religious faith" could be demonstrably incorrect. Well if faith is a belief, then I would say yes. Take for example the Flat Earth Society. Undoubtedly the people involved in the Flat Earth Society have an enormous amount of conviction that they are correct, and that the Earth is not spherical, but they are clearly and demonstrably wrong (and we shouldn't teach the controversy). 

In general few, if any, would argue that beliefs can be wrong yet here is a field where we have decided its not acceptable to say so. I don't necessarily mean whole religions being wrong, what about heretics? There are people who's faiths consist of claims that are no where to be found in, or are directly in opposition with, their holy texts and teachings. Are these people's faiths wrong? 

That Can't Be True

It would seem reasonable to say that if a faith encompasses a belief, or beliefs, which are demonstrably false, then it should follow that that faith is (at least partially) incorrect. However, religions are not sets of claims based around simple demonstrable truths and the modern edict  "all faith claims (or religions) are equal" doesn't support this basic reasoning (unless they are all assumed to be wrong). 

So which is it? Can faiths be incorrect? And what does it imply if faiths can't be incorrect? I would say they can be wrong and you would say...?

Speak Up (or Don't?)

Terrible Weather Huh?

Ahh small talk how you fill those awkward silences. We all hate those awkward silences so we talk about everything, and sometimes nothing, a lot. With the two notable exceptions of everything being the old truism: politics and religion. Supposedly these two areas, no matter how important to the world, shouldn't be brought up because it would end all of life on earth.

Change the Subject Please
So they say just go ahead and scratch off potentially the most two important subjects for fear of hurt feelings because what happens in the world outside of your friends isn't important anyway right? What's the worst that can happen?

Of course this is at least half wrong because politics are not really out of bounds. Everybody doesn't like it when someone brings up politics or someone questions your viewpoint but no conniptions are usually had (but there are exceptions). But the old cliche seems half right because religious faith is generally completely beyond questioning and met with hostility when brought up. In return for our silence we get: less verbal conflict and we don't offend anyone.

A Challenge We Can Meet
What do we stand to lose by not discussing faith and religion? Any time we refuse to discuss something for fear of consequences we sacrifice critical thought and integrity to the alter of political correctness. But what else do we stand to lose?

Imagine for a moment we knew someone's religious faith was demonstrably incorrect. Under our current rules we wouldn't tell them the truth, no matter what the effects of those beliefs were. This is obviously unjust.

Its apparent we all value critical thought and would like to lead people away from untruths so why not, put aside possibly hurt feelings, even on the subject of faith? You never know, we might just be saving some of our friends from untold lost hours of their lives and potentially dangerous ideas.

Besides, intellectual duels can be fun.

Know Doubt?

Doubt you say?

I can fly. What you don't believe me? You want evidence? The reason you don't believe me is because claims, specifically extraordinary claims, require evidence to support them. The less evidence you have to support a claim the more that claim is doubted. And in all but one case this doubt is at the least publicly permitted and is usually widely encouraged. Few, if any, get offended by the fact people doubt claims.

The one exception? Religion. Surprise! Bet you saw that coming. Other than starting a discussion of "how ugly your face is," doubting religion is easily the fastest way to provoke a feeling of insult. People are quick to take offense at the very idea of doubting a religious claim even if they aren't religious themselves or don't believe the specific claim doubted.

Well This is Awkward?

Socially this leaves nonbelievers, like myself, in an awkward position when someone makes a religious claim. The nonbeliever is left with four options: nod and agree (lie), try to change the subject, run away or do the outlawed (tell the truth about what you think).

I doubt any nonbeliever likes those options but currently these are the choices. Personally, I tend to just break the law because when the thought-police come to arrest me I can just fly away.

What is Faith? Asking the People

Where to Start?

Any conversation of religion usually begins and ends with a discussion of faith (besides those that end with "And I hope they burn in hell!"). So before you can move forward to tackle the issues of communication between faiths this needs to be addressed. Besides everyone has some kind of faith.

We all have faith that the buildings we are in are not going to collapse or faith that the chair you're sitting in right now can support your weight. Without this faith, which is built upon evidentialism, it would be near impossible to live our daily lives but this is not what we mean when we speak of religious faith.

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." - John 20:29 KJV

To me that is faith in the religious sense: believing with limited evidence, no evidence or even when the evidence says not to. But there is nothing worse than an someone defining a group of which they are not a member. Of course I could scroll to the appropriate page in each holy text but dictionary definitions just state it and don't live it. So I asked some religious friends of mine...

Faith in their Words

"FAITH is Knowing and Believing with out having to see or touch"

"Faith is the real feeling of blind trust"

"Perceiving the reality of something known as unreal, the access to something intangible, the possibility of something impossible, and the expectation of the unlikely."

Now we can begin.