Arguments From Faith Debunked

"Now we could continue to list more definitions, but, honestly, there’s no need – the point has been made; there are many definitions of the word ‘faith’, and people frequently use them interchangeably, which makes them extremely susceptible to committing Equivocation Fallacies… and that, good Sirs and Ladies, is the primary flaw with Arguments from Faith… they quite simply are the embodiment of the Equivocation Fallacy (which I explain within the video)."

Take less than 10 minutes to really understand how bad accepting claims on "Faith" is.

Appeal to Faith Refuted

Faith Is Easy To Debunk

"The single greatest bit of advice that I can give to someone who has been presented with an Argument from Faith is to get the proponent to first very clearly declare which definition of the word ‘faith’ they’re using, and to then help them put their argument into a syllogistic form.

"The reason for this is because the word ‘faith’ means many things to many people, and if we want to effectively communicate with one another (which is the very point of rational discourse), then we simply must make sure that we first understand each other, by ensuring that we’re using the same language and definitions."

Click on the links below to understand the weakness of arguments from faith:

Arguments from Faith - Debunked

Faith Shows That The Emperor Has No Clothes

Science Is NOT Like Faith

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

"Science changing its mind (scientific community altering its views) is a good thing. It's a sign of remarkable humility and it should increase trust in science."

"Einstein's Theories didn't invalidate Newton's, they superseded them. They accounted for the same observations and they accounted for the observations that Newton's did not. Einstein comes along, comes up with his Theory of Motion, and his Theory of Gravity, the Special and General Theory of Relativity."

"If you have an experimentally-determined result, and it's verified, and doubled-checked, and tripled-checked, that will not later be determined to be false. What you can find is a deeper understanding of the world that encloses that understanding."

"Science changed its interpretations, not their observations."

Science finding out that dinosaurs weren't reptiles but were more closely related to birds is another example.

Click on the link below for more:

"Science changes its mind" debunked

Religious Gaslighting: Submit To Authority Over Critical Thinking

What you will find below is from an excellent counter-apologetic website. This excerpt focuses on why I say, "Religion is a brain poison":

Gaslighting

"Why does Yahweh destroy wisdom and cleverness (1 Corinthians 1:19), and tell wise men to become fools (1 Corinthians 3:18), and suppress all disobedient thoughts (2 Corinthians 10:5), and discourage trusting one's own understanding (Proverbs 3:5, Isaiah 55:8-9), and conceal knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9) but there is nothing written in the Bible in praise of human intelligence, the most distinguishing characteristic of the human species? Do you think the foolishness of Yahweh is wiser than man’s wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:25)? Do you think it is wrong to ask Yahweh for explanations (Romans 9:20)?

Did the originators of the Bible stories have anything to gain if their listeners just followed them without thinking critically? How could Yahweh create a scientific marvel like the universe and create us in its image but discourage scientific inquiry?

Do you agree with Jesus that people who believe something without proof are blessed (John 20:29)? Are Flat-Earthers blessed for believing that the Earth is flat? When is it best to accept something without good evidence and when is it best to require good evidence before accepting something? What is evil and adulterous, as Jesus claimed, about people asking for evidence (Matthew 12:39)? According to the Bible, every one of the Eleven and Paul believed only after perceiving something extraordinary. What is wrong with the rest of us insisting on seeing clear evidence before believing? If the Jews of Jesus's day were there, and if they knew their Scriptures, and if they believed in Yahweh, and if they believed in miracles, but they didn’t believe Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead then why should we believe it? Do you believe that Yahweh will reveal itself to anyone who sincerely asks?

Does it seem reasonable to you that we can only enter Heaven if we have the faith of a child, a person who can be fooled into believing that Santa Claus is real, that you can dig a hole to China and that the nice man in the van really has candy as he claims (Matthew 18:3)? Why does the Church use sheep/shepherd metaphors? Why is it a slur to refer to someone as a sheep if we should aspire to being sheep?

With access only to the comprehension powers of our own minds, how is it possible to lean on the understanding of anyone else (Proverbs 3:5-6)? If something does not make sense to you, what difference does it make to you if it makes sense to someone else? How is it possible for someone to know that someone else understands something?

Do you agree with 58% of Republicans that colleges and universities have a negative impact on the US? Do you agree with 72% of Democrats that colleges and universities have a positive impact on the US? Do you agree with Jehovah's Witness leader Gerrit Losch, that going to university is like shooting yourself in the head?"

https://www.stopindoctrination.org#gaslighting

Can You Justify Your Beliefs?

Scenario 1

You have a medical complaint (subjective). How are you going to find out what the problem is? Will you go to a local chiropractor, naturopath, or some other quack (pseudoscientist)? Or, will you go to the appropriate licensed physician/physician extender (science-based practitioner) who can objectively determine the truth?

Scenario 2

You are told by a friend that there are space aliens in the military complex in the next town (subjective). Are you going to accept the claim because he or she is a friend who has always been truthful in the past (subjective)? Or, are you going to research the plausibility of the claim and any evidence of such by availing yourself of the findings from recognized experts in the appropriate fields (objective)?

Scenario 3

All of your life you have been told about a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. You have accepted this claim because you have loving family and friends and they all agree that this is The Truth (subjective). You also look around and see a reality that you feel must have been created and you long for a relationship with your creator to feel secure (subjective). Do you accept these claims without objective evidence (on Faith) or do you investigate objectively what science has to say about the claims for a God?

- - - - - - -

The word "science" is from the Latin for "knowledge." "Knowledge" is "JUSTIFIED, true belief." In the scenarios above, what actions are justified in understanding objective reality?

Faith Exposed

Discussions with theists always center on the topic of Faith. It has been my universal experience that theists get defensive when science-based thinkers state that Faith is belief without evidence. The following links from dictionaries and the Bible itself are clear: the word EVIDENCE is never used to describe it.

- - - - - -

Faith | Definition of Faith by Merriam-Webster
FAITH | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Faith | Definition of Faith at Dictionary.com
Faith definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

- - - - - - -

What does the Bible Say About Faith?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0ZUnAXiaNU

Faith vs Physics

Theistic religions claim that faith trumps reason and science. Roman Catholicism, which claims it began science, proclaims this "Truth", as can be seen in The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

• Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."³¹ "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."³²

Science does not accept this claim from religions. First of all, "certainty" is a laughable word to science, as science is based not on certainty but on probability and plausibility. Second, contrary to religions that have rigid dogmas that don't change in the face of evidence, science changes its views with changing evidence.  Because of such, science has made great strides in helping us understand reality better, as well as improve human well-being. What progress in anything has any religion offered humanity? I can think of several actions of religion that impede progress.

A good example of how science is expanding our knowledge is physics/cosmology efforts. While this podcast has some speculation, such is the bedrock of the fruits of science:

• "In this episode of the Making Sense podcast Sam and Annaka Harris speak with Donald Hoffman about his book The Case Against Reality. They discuss how evolution has failed to select for true perceptions of the world, his “interface theory” of perception, the primacy of math and logic, how space and time cannot be fundamental, the threat of epistemological skepticism, causality as a useful fiction, the hard problem of consciousness, agency, free will, panpsychism, a mathematics of conscious agents, philosophical idealism, death, psychedelics, the relationship between consciousness and mathematics, and many other topics."

*It is humbling to know that our concepts of causation, time, and space probably are not fundamental to our reality (link)(link)(link). "Certainty" is so pre-scientific.

* Take that, Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Faith Is Not A Virtue

Contrary to the religious meme, faith is NOT a virtue.  It is the mindless accepting of claims unsupported by evidence.  It is a lazy way to understand reality: no questioning, no inquiry, no use of the brain's capacity.  John Loftus, in the Oct/Nov 2017 "Free Inquiry" magazine, talks about faith as well as anyone:

"Faith is an irrational leap over the need for evidence. Faith has no intellectual merit. It is not a virtue. It has no method. It solves no problems. It is not worthy of thinking people. Religion does not survive the requirement for sufficient objective evidence precisely because it is based on faith."

ALL dictionary definitions of "Faith" exclude consideration of objective evidence. (link) Also, many people conflate "Faith" with "Trust", and there is some justification for such. However, common usage of the term "trust" includes trusting people BECAUSE a person has OBJECTIVELY DEMONSTRATED that he or she is trustworthy. (link)

 

Evidence Vs Faith 101

My friend, Edward Tarte, an ex-priest, succinctly compares evidence with faith.

Edward Tarte---Evidence vs. Faith

 

The Decision-Making Process

How We Decide: an Analysis of an Essential Process We Take for Granted

How We Decide: the Processes Behind Decision Making

How We Decide (And How Religion Subverts the Process)

Jesus And Mo Embarrass Themselves

"This is why, if you have evidence, you don’t speak of faith, and why scientists don’t say they 'have faith in evolution'. Faith is not a virtue, but a character flaw."

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ faith

The Certainty Of Faith: Its Worst Feature

Why do I say this?  How can one have an important conversation with someone who, when challenged on matters that challenge their beliefs, states that nothing could change their mind?

More On Faith

"Christians say that truth is their goal, and the even capitalize Truth to assure us (or themselves?) that they’ve really found it, but methinks they doth protest too much. They’re not welcome at the adult table until they use tools that actually work at finding the truth."

How Reliable Is a Bridge Built on Faith?

Matt is about as succinct and clear as one can get on the uselessness of “Faith:”

A Frustratingly Dishonest Theist Caller

An Analysis Of Faith

"Christians, to help you make your own arguments more clearly and honestly, let me suggest some word hygiene. Use trust to mean evidence-based belief, belief in accord with the evidence and which will change as the evidence changes. Use faith to mean belief not primarily supported by evidence and which is not shaken by contrary evidence."

Faith, the Other F-Word

I Am An Apistevist

Yes, I came across this term recently and I am definitely one of them.  HT Aron Ra

A person who does not use faith to know things-especially in the religious sense

I would just leave it at before the hyphen.  The question is, "Why would anyone accept ANY claim on faith (Belief without evidence)?"

Science-Based Thinking vs Magic/Faith-Based Thinking

There is a clear difference, and incompatibility, between science-based and magic/faith-based thinking.  Science-based thinking is supported by evidence and leads to justified true belief.  Magic/faith-based thinking is unsupported by evidence and is based on a desire for certainty and comfort.  Let's take a close look at this incompatibility.

Religion. Faith And Superstition

"There are two things that theists always yell at me about: characterizing faith as 'belief without evidence' (which in fact the Bible says it is!), and calling religion a 'superstition.'"

Faith is belief without evidence and religion is a superstition.