The Dualism of ‘Faith’
The word ‘faith’ can mean different things to different people, and too often discussions between atheists and theists get stuck on the semantics of this word. Atheists are often accused of having ‘blind faith’ in science, or even in the opinion that gods do not exist. This is not true, and especially untrue given the meaning of the word ‘faith’ as it is most commonly used. Here is the Compact Oxford Dictionary definition of the word ‘faith’:
faith
• noun 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief.
— ORIGIN Old French feid, from Latin fides.
Granted, in a general sense it is possible to have a “complete trust of confidence” in the belief that there are no gods. However, this isn’t what is usually being claimed. The word ‘faith’ is used by theists to describe atheists’ use of science, and the scientific method of evidence and reason. In this context, the word ‘faith’ is probably the worst choice imaginable. One of the corner stones of the scientific method, and science itself, is that knowledge is never absolute or final. It’s constantly at a relative value towards the evidence provided. A scientist will not have ‘faith’ in anything that lacks evidence, and should also have no problem disregarding previous beliefs should evidence to the contrary arrise.
While a theist might have faith in the existence of his god, or gods, even when evidence is presented to the contrary, an atheist will most likely change his beliefs according to the evidence at hand. Note, for example, how even though atheism only means disbelief in gods, you will rarely meet an atheist who believes in other supernatural phenomena without any evidence to support them. Atheism is a result of the inability to have ‘blind faith’ in things that are not supported by logic, reason, evidence or otherwise.
Maybe, though, it isn’t so strange that those that do not believe according to logic and reason, will claim things about others that are contrary to both.
No comments yet.