The New Atheists are famous for characterizing religious faith as mindless and silly. Richard Dawkins famously said, "Faith is belief without evidence and reason; coincidentally, that's also the definition of delusion."
When I've challenged atheists as to how they explain the religious belief of Nobel laureates in the hard sciences – things like chemistry and biology – they take the Dawkins approach. Do they seriously think (I ask) that men and women of the highest intelligence and education, whose careers hinge on rational and critical thinking, simply "go delusional" when it comes to religious belief?
Well, yes, they do. At least that's what the atheists say – because it's pretty much what they're forced to say in order to preserve their dismissive attitude toward religion as utter nonsense for delusional dummies. Even a Nobel laureate in chemistry becomes a delusional dummy when he starts thinking about God. (The atheists, of course, never explain how they avoid doing this.)
Faith, of course, doesn't have to have any great intellectual or evidentiary foundation. Famed Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga says Christian faith can be justified on no more than the sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) we all share and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. This can be real, genuine faith even if it seems mindless (or blind) to the atheists and is impossible to explain to their satisfaction.
Some believers are proud of their anti-intellectualism, of clinging to beliefs "on faith" in the face of mountains of scientific evidence or human experience to the contrary. That's fine, I suppose, but it does invite Dawkins-type attacks. I'm not really talking about specific beliefs like the age of the earth and I don't think Plantinga is either. I'm talking about a basic faith in God and the essential truth of Christianity, which I do believe requires no more than what Plantinga suggests.
But faith can also be well-informed. The leap of faith can have a solid foundation in philosophy, theology, science, human experience, intuition and all the other things on which we rely in reaching other important convictions and making other important decisions. This is what I tried to describe in some of my earlier blog entries.
A favorite tactic of atheists is to analogize belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or unicorns. In other words, it's childish and silly. Here's why such analogies don't work and are themselves silly:
- We don't disbelieve in Santa Claus in a vacuum. Most of us at some point did believe as children, but we shifted to disbelief and have continued in disbelief.
- Our childhood belief in Santa was entirely rational. It wasn't delusional at all. Parents and other trusted authority figures assured us he existed. We saw him everywhere, at least at Christmas time.
- At some point, we disbelieved. This, too, was entirely rational. Like our childhood belief, our disbelief had a foundation. This foundation might be based on assurances from trusted authority figures that Santa didn't exist or on our own study, observation and experience. (True story: My first clue was when "Santa" fell off the roof one Christmas Eve and his screams sounded uncannily like dear old Dad.)
- Because the vast majority of sane and intelligent people over the age of five or so don't believe in Santa, we're very confident in our disbelief.
- Theoretically, and unlikely as it might seem in the case of Santa, our disbelief could be shaken by new evidence. We might even be persuaded Santa does exist. Unless he actually appeared, however, we could never be certain; we could only have some level of conviction. We likewise can never be certain Santa doesn't exist. We can have only a high level of conviction (in this case near-certainty) that he doesn't.
- Given the current state of the positive evidence (none), the negative evidence (lots) and the overwhelming disbelief on the part of sane and intelligent adults, a belief that Santa exists would indeed be deemed irrational and delusional.
- The situation isn't at all the same with Christianity. Billions of people, including many of the best philosophers, scientists, academics and professionals who laugh at the idea of Santa nevertheless believe in God. Their belief can't reasonably be dismissed as irrational or delusional. However, a substantial minority of other sane and intelligent people don't believe in God or believe in some other version. They likewise can't be dismissed.
- The fact is, the state of the evidence is such that where one comes out on the question of God depends on what evidence, inferences and arguments each individual deems most relevant and compelling. As with Santa, we can never be certain God exists unless He appears. Believers are convinced He has revealed himself in history, but this is likewise a matter of the evidence and arguments an individual finds compelling; sane and intelligent people may disagree. Other believers insist God has appeared to them, either via an objective mystical or visionary experience or an internal revelation, but this likewise is subject to legitimate debate and possible alternative explanations.
- As with Santa, we can never be certain God does or doesn't exist. We can only have a level of conviction one way or the other depending on our assessment of the evidence, inferences and arguments or simply our sensus divinitatis and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.
A valid analogy would require something where (1) the truth can't be established with certainty, and (2) the evidence, inferences and arguments are strong enough on each side that a substantial number of sane and intelligent people may be found on both sides.
All these attempts to make religious belief appear silly always boil down to two things:
- "I disagree with the type of evidence, inferences and arguments you are using to reach your convictions" or
- "I disagree with your assessment of the evidence, inferences and arguments."
