Atheism As Faith?
Atheist scientists who made the mistake of giving credibility to religious apologists by debating with them are often accused of upholding a hypocritical position when they maintain that faith cannot be a valid source of knowledge, while at the same time denying the existence of God. No one can disprove his existence, goes the argument of the religious, not by any experiment and not even on logical grounds, so the Atheist must resort to faith too, since he doesn’t really know either. The fact that nobody has ever been able to prove that God exists doesn’t mean that he really isn’t there. And the pious have their faith to back their position, while Atheists claim they don’t rely on faith. It sounds so reasonable. So, they ask, can one still deny that God exists without taking that on faith? Well, duhbviously!
The most common defense against the accusation that Atheism is a position of faith is the analogy usually called Russell’s Teapot, coined by Bertrand Russell in 1952. It runs as follows:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Nobody can prove that the teapot isn’t there. But does that mean that one relies on faith when one denies its existence? Most of us are Atheists when it comes to, say, Apollo, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl, but we can neither prove or disprove their existence. Most of us will also deny the claims of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, according to which the world was created by a drunken monster made of spaghetti, who can save your soul too, by touching you with his “noodly appendages.” Do you really need faith to realize that that’s nonsense? No, you just know that it can’t be true. Same thing with God. As Dawkins says, we are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in, just that some of us go one god further. When you figure out why you don’t believe in Quetzalcoatl, the plumed serpent god of the Aztecs, you’ll understand why some of us don’t believe in your god. And, as you must see by now, faith has nothing to do with it.
So let’s unshitten the dialog by admitting the obvious: The religious need their faith at the end of the debate, because all other arguments in their favor fail. Atheists don’t.
Many thanks to Josh Reyes, Nanny Carroll and Mark for the e-mails that caused this rant. I hope that this answers your questions and that you’ll keep writing.
Leave a Comment