Atheism Requires No Faith

This is another piece of flawed reasoning the religious have been throwing around a lot recently – “it requires more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God.” I guess there must have been a memo sent round or something. Talking points. That’s the only explanation. It’s certainly not because it’s a valid argument.

The usual rebuttal given is that atheism just means no belief in God, and it doesn’t require any more faith to have no belief in God than it does to have no belief in Russell’s Teapot. That’s obviously true but I think it misses the point the theists are trying to make.

What they’re really saying

I think what they’re trying to say is this. Atheists think matter just appeared out of nowhere, that something came out of nothing. But where did the matter come from? To think that matter appeared out of nowhere requires more faith than to think a creator made everything. The theists quite often mess up the argument further by misunderstanding the big bang, or with dodgy statistics, or with appeals to ignorance of abiogenesis. But that’s the basic argument. Why is there something rather than nothing? To think that matter just appeared by itself, requires faith.

The flaw in their argument

Atheists don’t think matter came out of nowhere. Atheists say we don’t know where matter came from; we don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe one day we’ll know, or maybe we won’t. But we don’t know now. Theists are exactly the same. They don’t know either, but the difference is they make up an explanation (God). But it’s just a made up explanation – they have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that they just like it.

And it’s a useless explanation. Unless they know something about this “God” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next - it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along. Except that the theist won’t be open to the real explanation when and if science is able to provide one. The placeholder prevents investigation into the real explanation. The theist is the one with the faith – faith that “God” is the explanation and that no other is possible. The atheist is content to say “we don’t know”. For now, anyway. And it’s obvious that saying “we don’t know,” requires no faith.

Comments

[Samuel Skinner]

Technically matter came from energy- the true question is where the energy came from. Given the fact energy can come into and out of existance now... well, I file this under "I need to learn Quatum Physics". The universe refuses to be simple!

[Yoo]

The next time I hear a theist say that I need more faith than them to be an atheist, I'll ask whether that means they're an unfaithful infidel.

[Paul Crowley]

I'm pretty sure there can be no answer to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?". When you ask "why X?" you're asking for a model that would have predicted X. Whatever model I posit, however you can still ask "yes, but why that rather than nothing?"

[Martin]

That's a nice piece of writing there Skeptico. I'm seen this argued before, but not so clearly.

[Beowulff]

To me, there's a bigger reason why the God-explanation really is a non-explanation: where did God come from? Why is there a God to create everything, instead of just a nothing to create nothing?

[Sven]

They probably mean: Being an atheist needs more patience dan following a relegion.

[Adrian]

I think the "I don't know where matter came from" is a real cop-out. The Inflation period of the Big Bang nicely accounts for essentially all the matter in the universe. From what I understand, the amount of energy/matter that's still being debated is on the order of a few kilograms.

It's like the old line that "abiogenesis isn't part of evolution" line used when Creationists ask where life came from. It may have been a good retort 25 years ago, but our knowledge has grown significantly and these questions have good answers now. While it's technically true that we don't know for 100% certain where matter came from, we have a very good theory. No reason to act like we're still in the dark on this question.

[Techskeptic]

While it's technically true that we don't know for 100% certain where matter came from, we have a very good theory. No reason to act like we're still in the dark on this question.

We have a number of very good hypotheses, but no one very good theory. This is why "We don't know yet" is truly a better answer than going off, like Dawkins incessantly does, about infinite universes, cyclical universes, etc etc.

Each hypothesis has some bits of evidence for them, but I don't think we are quite there yet with a strong theory of "what has gone before". We don't even know if time itself works the same way at strong gravities, we dont know if gravitional constants are the same at huge distances, etc etc. There are many many questions out there that need to be determined before we can say, "This is the strongest theory".

I don't claim to be an expert on cosmology, but from what I have read this seems to be the case.

[Adrian]

Techskeptic,

Those are questions to the origin of the universe, not the origin of matter. The two are very different. The answer to "where did matter come from" hasn't changed substantially for decades, AFAIK, and none of them involve infinite universes or cyclical ones. It isn't a simple answer that can be easily distilled into a soundbite, but it's not all puffery either.

I generally start by asking just how much net energy people think there really is in the universe. We look around and see scads of matter and energy, but reality is much more complicated. As a strange but wonderful fact, our universe may well have virtually no net energy at all, as the energy in matter is balanced by gravity.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

It's a very cool bit of info that has been studied for years and rolls a lot of creationists on their heels, at least when I've talked to them.

[Tom Foss]

This is why "We don't know yet" is truly a better answer than going off, like Dawkins incessantly does, about infinite universes, cyclical universes, etc etc.

I think Dawkins is right to bring up such hypotheses, and usually he makes it clear that the question is still up in the air to some degree. But I think the point he'd make is that the very existence of plausible, parsimonious hypotheses renders the God hypothesis irrelevant via Occam's Razor--even in the absence of convincing evidence. In order for the God hypothesis to even enter into consideration, there would have to be some evidence for the existence of God. Until then, "we don't know, but why couldn't the energy have always existed?" is probably the best answer.

[Bjoern]

On the question "Where did the energy come from?":

Section 3a of my Big Bang FAQ here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw
contains a short discussion of various approaches to this question.

[Beowulff]

Adrian and Bjoern, thanks for the links, I learned something new today :)

[Christoper]

Clearly the Cectic webcomic guy reads this blog, unless Cectic=Skeptico?

Not Enough Faith To Be An Atheist
http://cectic.com/171.html

[PhillyChief]

The motivation is the same as when they claim atheism is a religion. Whether they like it or not, the backing of science, of logic and reason gives a great deal of credibility to an argument, and disputing that with religious dogma effectively forces one to choose between science and faith. But what if instead of a choice between faith or science, you made it a choice between one faith or another? Well then, that kind of choice is easy for someone of faith, since they'll simply stick with theirs.

At first it may seem ironic that they'd be discrediting science by claiming it's just silliness like their own beliefs, but to the silly I guess, the silly you know will always be preferable to the silly you don't.

[Ed Pleskovitch]

When I was in college we had to read a book on the Yanimomo tribe of amazonia.I liked the explanation positid there.First there was some one who came up with an explantion on,whatever(thunder,lightning)then used that explanation to gain control over other tribal members and enhance his power over the whole tribe.From that point on RELIGION has been used as a power tool to control others and it still is to this day.Religion attempts to explain the unexplainable.To make us feel good about what we don't know.Religion is a security blanket.We don't have to know everything.We just have to have faith that some one else understands and tells us that it will all be ok .....or not.

[LAURA ROWE]

THANK YOU

[techskeptic]

Laura, stick around. This blog is one of the better ones. Richard has a knack of cutting clean through nonsense with a way of writing I can only hope to match one day. The other contributors in the comments are quite adept too.

be well.

[techskeptic]

I think Dawkins is right to bring up such hypotheses, and usually he makes it clear that the question is still up in the air to some degree.

i agree he is right to bring it up, but I truly disagree that he makes clear that the question is up in the air. Did you read the Time article? It was a debate between him and Francis collins. I'm not saying he lost it, but when he brought up this hypothesis, it read as being totally absurd if you didn't already know of and understand why this is a valid hypothesis. I've seen him do it at a lecture too in response to questions.

Dawkins is doing somethig that I probably could not do. that is respond thoughtfully, wittly, and clearly during public debates and Q&A. So I totally forgive any time where he didn't have just the perfect answer. But on this one, this fumble has been done more than once.

But I think the point he'd make is that the very existence of plausible, parsimonious hypotheses renders the God hypothesis irrelevant via Occam's Razor

Yes again, i agree, but that is because I already understand this stuff. You and I are not 90% of this country who have no feel for science, no feel for what is nonsense and what isn't or even what Occam's razor is or what it really means. Further Occam's razor is not a law. Sometimes the idea with the fewest assumptions is not the right one.

If I had a cursory understanding of Occams' "God did it" seems simpler. That is because I have not bothered to truly reflect on the complexity and huge number of assumptions that are required to believe that God is there in the first place.

so again, even if dawkins teaches Occam each time he brings up that idea, it would still seem obtuse to 90% of the population.

I hate sound bytes. I hate simplifications and analogies. But, most people don't. Most people accept the simplest, easiest to understand reasons. Its your job, and my job and Dawkins job to provide those. And when we are dead, it will still fall to even more people. Until critical thinking is more widespread than it is today. People think we have andvaced fast in the last 100 years. Wait until its normal and expected that people think critically.

But sadly, we are not there yet and we have a long way to go.

[His Shadow]

@ TechSkeptic

I'm glad I read all the comments. TechSkeptics original comment had the feel of an attack on Dawkin', but his further explanation makes it clear it was no such thing. And I agree with your sentiment: without a basic background in the anthropic principle, Big Bang physics or even the myriad ways in which the basic building blocks of life can be created, a layperson listening to Dawkin's has no way to know why Dawkin's arguments and alternate explanations have any explanatory power at all. It's simpler to keep on keeping on with "God did it" because anything more complex than that seems like an attempt at obfuscation.

However, this is why he wrote "The God Deluison". He builds his case a block at a time. It's just not very likely that the people that really need to read that book ever actually will take the chance on having their faith "attacked".

[Valhar2000]

Well, I agreed with Techskeptic, but I wouldn't have singled out Dawkins. He is the least offender when it comes ot that charge. I can't count how many books I've read on cosmology or quantum physics that start going on and on on weird tangents, devoting only the tiniest footnote to the fact that IT'S ALL SPECULATION!

I'm not kidding, it really gets tedious to read those things over and over again, without ever seeing any mention of evidence in favour of it. Nowadays I tend to read very fast over those paragraphs.

For this reason, I do beleive that the best answer to the question of "where did everything come form" is, first and foremost, "we don't know, and you don't either". And then one can elaborate.

[Valhar2000]

Well, I agreed with Techskeptic, but I wouldn't have singled out Dawkins. He is the least offender when it comes ot that charge. I can't count how many books I've read on cosmology or quantum physics that start going on and on on weird tangents, devoting only the tiniest footnote to the fact that IT'S ALL SPECULATION!

I'm not kidding, it really gets tedious to read those things over and over again, without ever seeing any mention of evidence in favour of it. Nowadays I tend to read very fast over those paragraphs.

For this reason, I do beleive that the best answer to the question of "where did everything come form" is, first and foremost, "we don't know, and you don't either". And then one can elaborate.

[Marcus Ranum]

My usual counter to the "atheism takes more faith..." canard is "actually, if it doesn't affect my sex life, health, or what I'm having to eat tomorrow, I don't care about it at all. can you explain how much faith it takes to not give a shit about the origin of life and the universe?"