tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20163580.post117146975904883153..comments2023-08-17T10:11:03.892-04:00Comments on Mike and Dean's Cross-Border Tagteam: Religion v FaithUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20163580.post-1171565710951587012007-02-15T13:55:00.000-05:002007-02-15T13:55:00.000-05:00I'm an atheist, but I think there are some basic p...I'm an atheist, but I think there are some basic problems with raging against faith.<BR/><BR/>If you look at the history of philosophy, no system is airtight. By "system" I mean an explanation of the world, man's relation to it, and the best principles by which to live one's life. Every system is based on some unprovable assertions -- and I'm not talking about explicit axioms in the Spinoza sense. I mean that in each system, subsequent philosophers uncovered hidden assumptions or ambiguities that the original author wasn't even aware of.<BR/><BR/>What's true of history's greatest minds is true of us, too, of course. Ultimately we base our personal philosophies in part on some basic ideas that seem self-evidently true, but which when examined carefully are shown up to be little more than gut feelings. <BR/><BR/>Now we hold these gut feelings because they seem to be confirmed every day (the existence of a universe independent of subjective experience, the reality of cause and effect, etc.). But, again, no one's developed an airtight proof of their truth.<BR/><BR/>This is dangerously close to faith. In fact people of faith claim that they see their beliefs confirmed in a thousand ways every day -- though, personally, the beauty of a leaf has never persuaded me of God's existence.<BR/><BR/>Still, the point is we all live our lives according to beliefs that we can't conclusively prove. And I do believe there's a difference between statements that seem self-evidently true and that are supportable through inductive reasoning (such as a belief in cause and effect), and statements built entirely out of faith that contradict all evidence (such as the world being 6000 years old) -- but it can be hard to say exactly where the line between them falls. Especially when most of us don't have the capacity, the inclination, and certainly the time to find the deepest roots of every belief we hold or statement we make.<BR/><BR/>I think the real difference here lies in our degree of certainty. Pat Robertson is certain of his unproven beliefs; Socrates wasn't. As an atheist who recognizes the limits of his philosophical exploration, I have more in common with a person of faith who is open to doubt than I do with a dogmatically certain secularist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com