On faith, belief, and offense:

There is no injury to the non-believer in the believer’s continued belief. 

The positive statement “I believe in x, which is opposed to your views” is inoffensive. However, the statement “the belief in x is a false belief” is offensive, because it denies the potential verity of an unverifiable thing. While faith-based beliefs are unverifiable by nature, believing is a form of subjective truth, and to deny it is to call the believer a liar.

The point being that faith-based belief in a thing and faith-based non-belief in a thing are equally unverifiable, and as such, all faith-based beliefs or non-beliefs can co-exist logically, because blind faith is illogical in the first place. It is just as likely that an idea or object that is not readily apparent exists as it is that it doesn't, so long as it remains apparently not.

There is no contradiction in the simultaneous existence or non-existence of that which can not be proved or disproved with certainty. God may or may not exist just as unicorns or aliens may or may not exist. These things all possess potential for existence but lack any apparent evidence to that existence. That said, it is still illogical to assert belief in any such thing, because it is illogical to believe in anything that is not apparently so. Furthermore, it is illogical to believe in logical contradictions; absolutely non-existent objects, such as a round square or a highly populated desert isle.

There are three ways that people respond to the unverifiable: 

1. Blind acceptance, due to misrepresentation of the subject as having evidence of being absolutely true or false

2. Doubt or rejection of the subject as false in the face of such a misrepresentation

3. A rejection of the subject as a non-issue; as that which can not provide evidence of itself has no effect on the perceivable world, because it either does not exist or works in such a way as to be imperceptible or undiscovered. 

Obviously, the third response is the one that logic prefers, because blind acceptance as true and based on a lack of evidence is illogical, while doubt or rejection as false based on a lack of evidence is also a form of blind acceptance. To suspend judgment, to refuse to take a stance is most logical because it allows for existence or non existence, and places no particular value on either.

On challenging faith:

On the subject of using what is readily apparent as evidence of existence or non-existence, it would follow naturally that these principles be applied to issues of faith; whether it be faith in the existence of a thing, or faith in the non-existence of a thing.

It is unreasonable to provide a fully-formed antithesis to a faith-based thesis. (It is, of course, never reasonable to provide an unformed or partially formed anything). This is because that antithesis is as much a faith-based claim as the thesis, in that any evidence to its truth is based on the apparently not; something for which no evidence can be found. Countering a conclusion that is based on the not at all apparent with a conclusion that is based on the apparently not provides no evidence to the truth of one’s own assertion, and as such cannot disprove the opposite.

Simply, to state “your faith-based claim is false” is no more or less verifiable than to state “my faith-based claim is true.” Those who make conclusions based on the apparently not are effectively making a claim based on their own blind faith that what cannot be seen does not exist.

Conversely, it is just so that those who make conclusions based on the apparently so have faith that what they perceive is what is real – but, importantly, the perceivable world is an integral part of interaction and existence in the world, real or not. That is, it is not blind faith, as it is in the other two cases.

The application of this discourse is that in discussion about religion, outspoken atheism is as much a blind faith-based belief as theism. So, for those who would prefer to avoid blind faith in anything (which, as I have said is the most logical approach to belief) a careful agnosticism – with an open mind to emerging evidence - is the only option.



I have lots more to say about what's wrong with atheism, like its name, for example. We'll see what I do next time.

On the readily apparent as evidence of existence or non-existence:

Required Reading: Philosophy of Perception; Epistemology

While denying sense data is impractical, it would be equally impractical to deny the existence of a potential object or even a fantastic object when there is evidence to support it or when there is no evidence to the contrary. This is the basis of what I will call healthy scepticism.

Healthy scepticism is to be distinguished from unhealthy scepticism by the fact that it does not deny what is readily apparent. In order to illustrate unhealthy scepticism, I refer to a legend of an early sceptic, who upon adopting scepticism of even what is readily apparent was killed by a cart when he walked in front of it, disbelieving its existence. Conversely, healthy scepticism operates upon the assumption (but not the certainty) that what is readily apparent is evidence to its own existence by its being apparent in the first place. I say that it does not operate on a certainty because, while it is impractical to disbelieve what is readily apparent, it is equally impractical to believe that what is readily apparent is objective truth (more on that another time). 

Likewise, it is illogical to believe in what is not readily apparent, or in what is apparently not. The former - what is not readily apparent - is merely name given to the potential for either existence or non-existence, while the latter - the apparently not - is made readily apparent by the absence of evidence and cannot be verified by any available means.

What is not readily apparent cannot be used as substantive evidence for the existence or potential existence of anything. Only what is within the immediate reach of human experience is readily apparent, and effective in evidencing the existence of a thing.

In cases where something is not readily apparent, it is best to reserve judgment (as I may yet argue is best in all cases), however it is not within human capacity to continue to be active in life without behaving as though what is apparent is real, and what is not immediately apparent could be real – regardless of whether it is believed true. That said, one should neither believe that the apparently not is categorically true or false either. Even so, reaction or no reaction to a lack of stimuli is not required for active life.

Next Week: We'll see...

...