Often, the religious claim that some belief of theirs is a matter of faith, and therefore isn't open to debate. The idea is that no arguments can be used against their position since the position is not based on arguments in the first place. This is a mistake, however. It is true that one cannot present any counter-arguments to a faith-based view, given that there aren't any arguments to counter; but it isn't true that one can't argue against the view itself. Faith-based beliefs are every bit as susceptible to criticism as other beliefs. And in fact the principal criticism in their case is very easy: since a faith-based belief has no justification, it can simply be dismissed. That is what Christopher Hitchens meant when he said that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Might there be some justification for faith itself, however? Well, to justify faith as a means of acquiring truth, one has two options: either provide some reason for believing in it – some evidence that it works, in other words – or claim that the efficacy of faith is itself a matter of faith. The latter is obviously circular and therefore unhelpful. But the former can't be right either, for as soon as one has a reason for accepting some method as efficacious, then one is no longer taking whatever it shows to be true on faith. One now has evidence for whatever it is, after all – namely, that the method used works!
Now, there are those who will insist that obviously we must take some things on faith, for we cannot have reasons for literally everything. How does one justify reasoning itself, for instance? If one uses logic to argue that logic is valid, then one is arguing in a circle; the only option, therefore, is to take it on faith. But the idea that one must have faith in logic is actually nonsense. The laws of logic are unavoidable in that they are presupposed in every belief and every statement. That's not an argument in defense of logic – it's an explanation why logic is necessarily true. And if being necessarily true isn't sufficient to justify something, then nothing is.
Might there be some justification for faith itself, however? Well, to justify faith as a means of acquiring truth, one has two options: either provide some reason for believing in it – some evidence that it works, in other words – or claim that the efficacy of faith is itself a matter of faith. The latter is obviously circular and therefore unhelpful. But the former can't be right either, for as soon as one has a reason for accepting some method as efficacious, then one is no longer taking whatever it shows to be true on faith. One now has evidence for whatever it is, after all – namely, that the method used works!
Now, there are those who will insist that obviously we must take some things on faith, for we cannot have reasons for literally everything. How does one justify reasoning itself, for instance? If one uses logic to argue that logic is valid, then one is arguing in a circle; the only option, therefore, is to take it on faith. But the idea that one must have faith in logic is actually nonsense. The laws of logic are unavoidable in that they are presupposed in every belief and every statement. That's not an argument in defense of logic – it's an explanation why logic is necessarily true. And if being necessarily true isn't sufficient to justify something, then nothing is.
RSS Feed