disenchantedbunny.

Often atheists question theists about ‘faith’-based knowledge. A common retort is that atheists are also in faith about something or other. While this piece of “no you are!” reasoning is common, there are many variations. Hypothetical examples include but are not limited to rejoinders like (circle correct example):

‘You have just as much faith in evolution / your two hands / reason / postmoderndeconstructivisticdialogue / porn / science / no god (/ antimatter deities) / other’

The nice part about this is that if you haven’t already committed yourself to some untenable epistemological position, atheism doesn’t really have to entail anything of the sort. Weak atheism, as it is commonly touted, is merely the default position held by an individual who hasn’t yet found any reason to believe in god.

Weak atheism is part of a basic sceptical stance that refuses to accept beliefs on faith alone – whether evidence based, realist, verificationist, Nietzschean, or whatever we want to label the tenets of our positions. Such scepticism holds that faith is not a viable or reliable true belief forming practice.

Dennett is making this point when he talks about most theists not really believing in a god, but more ‘believing in belief’.

When translated in this manner, the “no you are too!” defence is often saying (to the weak atheist):

‘You have just as much faith in your not-having-developed-faith’

I’ll let you decide whether this is blatant circular reasoning or just a conclusion that is completely counter to where the premises lead.