Skip to main content

Atheists and others who buck the established religious systems have suffered from a bit of a PR problem since the beginning of recorded history. There are countless stories of the heretics, the blasphemers, and the impious being imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Atheism wasn't even a prerequisite; Socrates was sentenced to death for only believing in one of the gods in the Greek Pantheon. The official charge: impiety. Why is it that this stigma has taken root so firmly within the minds of human beings? Why has this trend persisted for millennia?

The answer is faith. Faith is the cause of this discrimination against the religiously atypical. The situation is as true today as it ever was, although in most civilized lands the punishment is much less severe. Perhaps one will only be ostracized by their family, classmates, or colleagues after revealing their lack of religious affiliation. The Islamic countries appear to be the main protagonists of violence in the name of religion these days, but the particular brand of faith which one uses as justification is not at all important. Faith is an effective tool to not only insulate oneself from reality, but also to vilify those who appeal to reason in its stead.

One of the ways in which this "faith" meme is propagated and perpetuated is by deception. Whether intentional or not, the general consensus is to paint faith as a virtue, or at the very least harmless. This misinformation has gone on for so long now that it is impossible to ascertain from whence, or whom, it came, but there is no shortage of people incapable of seeing through the propaganda who then become replicators of it.

A good example of this is Peter Sellick, who wrote "The Rationality of Faith". He contends that rationality does not exist purely as a method by which one can properly comprehend their surroundings, but rather that it is context specific-no one "rationality" being any more valid than another. All belief systems, or lack of belief systems, rely upon presuppositions, thus they are all the same. It is only after the presupposition is in place that rationale can be applied. How terribly ironic that the arguments in support of faith so frequently are more erudite versions of, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding here of the nature and connotations of the word "presupposition". What Sellick is missing here is the understanding that most linguistic utterances have some kind of presupposition that is generally known, assumed, or accommodated by the group to whom they are speaking. That demonstrates one use of the word "presupposition", but it carries with it philosophical implications when one does not clarify.

A presupposition is generally anathema to skeptics and rationalists, as it indicates that the conclusion has been drawn before the premise. We tend to believe that all areas of life are subject to critical evaluation and logic, even if we aren't perfectly implementing it at all times. Logic is nothing more than a formula into which one plugs variables and determines if the outcome is satisfactory. Sellick's use of "presupposition" seems almost deceptive in that he attempts to start out using the term linguistically, but then applies it philosophically.

He cites examples such as medicine-it presupposes that health is "better" than illness. (He doesn't state exactly what it's better for, so I will use it colloquially here.) He also uses science, claiming that scientists share the presupposition that nature can be understood using objective methodology. Is this not a poorly constructed attempt to conflate these disciplines with religious faith, which is by nature entirely different? Health being preferable to illness isn't a presupposition-it is apparent to every person from the time he or she catches their first cold. It is a valid conclusion that one comes to after examining the difference between health and disease. Science is no different. The scientific method was developed after millennia of attempting to figure out how to assess a phenomenon and discovering that the results could be reliably verified if one followed certain guidelines. It is like logic in that it is a formula-something which can be utilized to formulate proper conclusions.

His assertion that "reason can only exist in a tradition that shares common premises and is directed towards certain goals" is preposterous. If you already have a "goal" or a conclusion, what good is reason at all? Why not just call it faith? After all, what he is proposing is that faith supplies the end result and reason justifies it. If faith in and of itself is a virtue, why does it need to be defended at all? I wonder how Mr. Sellick would explain the many formerly religious people who now advocate atheism. Didn't they already have a conclusion, but then were persuaded otherwise--by logic and reason?

Stepping outside of any presuppositions is the necessary hallmark of a rational thinker. His misunderstanding of this concept is further elucidated when he faults philosophers like Descartes for ushering in an era of "radical skepticism" resulting in "liberalism" and moral anarchy. In Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, he engages in a thought experiment in an attempt to discover the foundational elements of existence and consciousness, but in no way advocated that as a permanent state of existence. Even he points out that at some point, one must make a decision or be paralyzed for eternity. Ultimately, though, Descartes still falls back on older arguments, such as Anselm's ontological argument for god, and that is precisely why he misses the mark. If anything, Descartes provided ammunition for those who presuppose the existence of god, and in fact, that argument is still used today.

I know that within the confines of religion, using critical thought to determine anything for oneself is tantamount to blasphemy, and it seems that Sellick desires a return to times when all of our choices were mandated and handed to us-by god. He says this:

The resulting void is called liberalism in which every man is his own orthodoxy. This move amounts to the fragmentation of human society in which justice is reduced to individual human rights; faith is reduced to spirituality; action in life is reduced to lifestyle; and the operation of reason is reduced to serving material acquisition.

How exactly does it fragment the population if we learn to accept one another? How is justice not founded upon human rights? Is reason not exercised in many areas other than "material acquisition"? This is a caricature of what would count as rationality to anybody not so bent on defending their own beliefs. This is a classic case of projection from a person who wants to destroy reason and put faith in its place, all in the name of piety and the moral code of archaic traditions. If faith is so rational, why is it that the only way that this argument can be made is by reducing the value and importance of reason to bring it down to level of mere faith? How about attempting to show how the belief in something for which there is no evidence is a rational conclusion, instead of doing the theological equivalent of mudslinging and then cheering because everybody's covered in dirt at the end? Sometimes people need to stop "rationalizing" their presuppositions and start being rational.


Originally posted to Kelly OConnor on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:59 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Excellent diary. Thank you. nt (3+ / 0-)
  •  Strawman argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vox humana

    I know that within the confines of religion, using critical thought to determine anything for oneself is tantamount to blasphemy...

    You fail to properly back up your argument that one "within the confines of religion" is necessarily lacking in critical thought.

    Is this not your own presupposition, whose only purpose is a rhetorical strawman?

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair via Al Gore; -6.62, -5.28

    by bluejeandem on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:13:56 PM PST

  •  Very thoughtful. Unfortunately for the premise, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluejeandem, swampus

    even reason and logic involve faith.

    Do you rely upon the idea that reason and logic will solve all problems? Do you believe if the world were truly "rational," it would be better?

    These are beliefs, unprovable.

    Do you think the planet will spin as it has and that there will be a tomorrow?

    That is faith. They cannot truly be known.

    I know that within the confines of religion, using critical thought to determine anything for oneself is tantamount to blasphemy

    That has not been my experience. And my experience does not involve faith that my conclusion will be proven.

    Actually, the religion I have chosen demands that I use critical thought, as I am directly responsible for my relationship to the Divine and the world around me.

    The law is slacked and judgment doth never go forth: the wicked compass about the righteous and wrong judgment proceedeth - Habakkuk 1:4

    by vox humana on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:14:24 PM PST

    •  Faith is crap. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm sorry, it does not take any faith to believe that the planet will continue to spin, that's simply an absurd statement.

      We have loads of evidence that the planet has spun since the moment it formed.  We have loads of evidence that rotational inertia exists, and that it takes huge amounts of energy to counter that inertia.  Therefore, believing that the planet will continue to spin is exactly the opposite of faith, it a belief grounded in evidence and reason.

      Faith is the holding of a belief with a certainty or confidence that is not justified by the available evidence.

      Simply stated, faith is the abandonment of rational thought, of reason, of sanity itself.  Once you accept the basic premise of faith, that wishful thinking is a valid form of understanding reality, then nothing is off limits.

      Once you abandon evidence-based thought, you can start to believe in fairy tales and myths as if they were real, which is all religion has ever been.

      Did God once walk among the Egyptians slaughtering every first-born male?  Sure, the evidence is against it, but I have faith.  Did God conceive a son with the express purpose of torturing it to death to pay for a crime it didn't commit?  Sure, the evidence doesn't support it, but I have faith.  Did God once split the moon in two in front of man's eyes?  Again, the evidence shows it didn't happen, but I have faith.

      Don't you see how stupid that begins to sound?  And every time someone defends the idea of faith, more people think that it's a valid way to think.  On that path lies nothing but trouble.

  •  I agree and disagree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nemo Yocto

    I agree that faith is a dangerous thing. In fact, I think faith -- belief without adequate evidence -- is the greatest scourge of humankind. I am an atheist, but I regard myself, most importantly, as anti-fideist.

    I disagree on presuppositionalism. We have no choice but to make some presuppositions -- at the very least, we must assume that our actions will have predictable consequences, e.g. that me hitting the next key on my keyboard won't transform me into a watermelon.

    However, this is not a foot-in-the-door for fideism apologists. See, if faith is 'belief without adequate evidence', then the concept of 'faith' has no meaning until after we established the baseline evidentiary rules. As such, anything preceding the most essential epistemic assumptions -- e.g. about predictability of the relationship between our actions and their perceived consequences -- cannot possibly be labeled 'faith'. To do so is to use this term out of its proper semantic context.

    So yes, we must make the necessary presuppositions, but they are not faith.

    Ceterum Censeo: Veritas et Libertas Ultra Omnis Sunto

    by Victor on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:23:26 PM PST

    •  Ironic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I've been writing a paper on rational decision making this afternoon, and had been struggling with this exact question.  After searching through several websites, I still didn't have an answer that satisfied.

      Not wanting to spend the whole evening down the philosophical rabbit hole, I decided to wander on over to DailyKos for a break.

      Lo and behold, my procrastinating method pays off and I find exactly what I was looking for in the first place!  Thanks!

    •  However, all of this assumes that (0+ / 0-)

      human systems of reason and categorization adequately capture actual reality, doesn't it?

      The law is slacked and judgment doth never go forth: the wicked compass about the righteous and wrong judgment proceedeth - Habakkuk 1:4

      by vox humana on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:53:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not at all (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ashaman, vox humana

        You are presupposing epistemic realism. You need to do no such thing. The only thing you need to do, is establish a predictive relationship between action and observation -- and for that, you merely have to assume that some reasonably simple predictive function exists. You needn't assume that this function reflects what is 'really real' in any way. In fact, the very question makes no sense.

        This is pure pragmatism -- incidentally, the only major school of philosophical thought which is indigenously american. I am a proud pragmatist.

        Ceterum Censeo: Veritas et Libertas Ultra Omnis Sunto

        by Victor on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:00:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That sounds very nice. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Is it possible to conceive of a reality that humans do not know yet? Is it possible to imagine a system yet to be discovered that works better than any human system could?

          It is possible to imagine such. I just did.

          If it is possible to imagine such things, then one can easily see that presuppositions are indeed faith.

          Full disclosure: as an artist, I can also conceive how your hitting a key on the keyboard might turn you into a watermelon.

          Pragmatism as I read it in your comment appears to leave out the reality of the possible future and can concentrate only on the demonstrable past and the immediately predictable future. There must be more to it than that?

          The law is slacked and judgment doth never go forth: the wicked compass about the righteous and wrong judgment proceedeth - Habakkuk 1:4

          by vox humana on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:09:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your error... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vox humana

            is that you attempt to ascribe ontic significance to epistemic concepts.

            This is a common mistake. Most people have trouble separating ability to predict observations, from some vague unspecified 'objective reality'.

            Pragmatism doesn't exclude future possibilities. It's simply about the idea that there is nothing to empirical truth, no other content, but the ability to make these predictions; 'truth' is that which works. You don't assume that there predictive techniques somehow reflect the noumenal reality. You recognize them as exactly what they are -- useful predictive techniques.

            Give up ontology. It's a mark's game.

            Ceterum Censeo: Veritas et Libertas Ultra Omnis Sunto

            by Victor on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:16:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe. But it's not as much fun! :8) ~ (0+ / 0-)

              Epistemology is such a narrow focus of consideration... and it can only get to a small part of what is really interesting to me.

              I can at least talk about art with ontology.

              And, sorry. My mystic nature probably fouls the conversation. But I know that there is more. Empericism doesn't even begin to get at it. And that's the truth that works for me.

              Anyway, thank you for a very interesting conversation! It would have been interesting to have the diarist in here, too. Oh, well.

              The law is slacked and judgment doth never go forth: the wicked compass about the righteous and wrong judgment proceedeth - Habakkuk 1:4

              by vox humana on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:34:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site