Do Atheists Need Faith?

Since becoming an atheist I've been thinking a lot about faith.  As a Christian I was taught that faith is a good thing; a VERY good thing.  In fact, in Christianity, it's one of the three biggies ("faith, hope and love...").

I can still remember what it felt like when I first encountered the mere suggestion, during my de-conversion, that faith might not be a positive attribute after all.  The very thought of it was startling (and deeply disturbing) to me.  You mean there are actually people who think it's bad to have faith?!  Sane people?

As I began to analyze it, more and more, I ultimately came to the conclusion that faith is, by and large, something to be avoided wherever possible.  Yes, you read that last sentence correctly.  To repeat, I now believe that faith is something to be avoided.

Below, I will do my best to explain cogently why I would ever say such a scandalous thing.

First, let's begin with a quick clarification.  I've noticed that discussions about faith have a tendency to get bogged down in semantics.  I think this is partly due to the fact that the word faith itself has several different definitions.  For the purposes of this post I'd like to hone in on definition number 2, according to dictionary.com, "belief that is not based on proof".  To be clear, I have no significant problem with some of the other definitions of the word faith (such as definition number 1, "confidence or trust in a person or thing").  More on that later.

Let's get back to my original question...is it necessary, or even healthy, for any of us to cleave to a "belief that is not based on proof"?  Ever??  No.  Absolutely not.  Christian, can you think of any other area in life, besides religion, where "belief without proof" is beneficial in some way? Just one example?

Take your time.

Now, notice that I did not title this post "do atheists have faith".  I'm certain there are plenty of atheists who hold firmly to all sorts of unsupported beliefs.  My point is that they shouldn't. Faith, in this second sense of the word, is simply not required nor is it helpful.

I once interacted with a Christian who "played the faith card" by accusing atheists of having "faith" in The Big Bang Theory.  To illustrate she linked to a document which contained numerous highly technical, and supposedly unresolved, problems with the theory.  What she failed to realize is that such an objection is completely irrelevant to the atheist.  It can't even get off the ground, because we do not hold to The Big Bang Theory in a manner that is comparable to the way in which she holds to the Christian religion.  If The Big Bang were disproved tomorrow, it wouldn't phase us skeptics.  Our core beliefs would remain fully intact.  I do "believe" in the Big Bang theory, mind you, but only because it's the best explanation we've got (and, despite what she claimed, there is an abundance of evidence in its favor).  I don't have "faith" in it by any means.  She further viewed our unwillingness to debate it point by point as a rhetorical win, for her side, when in fact it was simple humility (and respect for proper scientists) that kept us from taking this approach.  What she should have been doing instead is seeking out a physicist or a cosmologist.  Did she?  I sincerely hope so, but I doubt it.

Also, as I discussed last time, Christianity does not win by default even if our best minds are unable to explain where The Universe came from.  Atheists/agnostics are completely o.k. with answering "I don't know", whenever and wherever necessary; can Christians say the same?

My current belief is that it's perfectly alright to have varying degrees of certainty about pretty well anything and everything.  For example, I feel around 99% certain that I will wake up tomorrow morning.  I am a relatively young man, without any significant health problems (that I am aware of), and it is pretty rare for people like me to die suddenly in the middle of the night.  I am about 75% sure that I won't have to replace either one of my aging cars within the next year.  I feel roundabout 60% sure that it will rain tomorrow.  (Or at least that's what the meteorologist says.) Should I be feeling the need to use faith, to "top up" any of these beliefs?  Let's say someone is 51% convinced that Jesus died for their sins, but 49% of them doubts it (pretending, for the moment, that such a thing could be accurately measured); do they squeeze into eternal bliss by the skin of their teeth?  And what if you flip those numbers the other way?  Does such a person merit eternal punishment, with no chance of reprieve, but "just barely"?  The absurdities, in the Christian worldview, only deepen the more that you allow yourself to ponder on such conundrums.

Some Christians will object to my points above by claiming that they hold exclusively to the "trust" definition of faith.  Atheists need not believe anything on insufficient evidence, they will say, they need only have "faith" (aka "trust") in God.  This is utterly nonsensical, of course, because it's meaningless to ask someone to "trust" in something that they don't even believe exists.  Do you "trust" the Tooth Fairy?  How about Santa Claus?  Bigfoot?  Or perhaps you prefer to "trust" in space aliens?

I'm sure I will wind up coming back to this subject again sometime, perhaps several times, so I'll leave you for now with those initial thoughts.  I'd like to close with the following discussion, from "The Atheist Experience" TV show, since it illustrates quite nicely the difference in perspective between atheists and Christians on this issue (and be sure to stay tuned until the very end for a special surprise...).