In another thread (which I didn’t want to hijack) Justin1982 stated:
Personally, I can see both sides of this argument. (Except for the obnoxious “whether you like it or not” remark.) In order to clarify this argument, I was wondering if this relates to the belief / disbelief in other deities. For example, the Greek god Zeus. If someone does not believe in Zeus they are, by definition, an A-Zeusist. I assume most people on this forum are A-Zeusists. So…is your A-Zeusism a belief? Or is it, as some would argue, simply a position on the question, “Do you believe in Zeus?”
People throw the idea that something is a belief or isn’t a belief around as though a “belief” translates into a bad or wrong thing. That is not correct. An atheist believes there is no God. A deist believes there is a God who cannot be known. A theist believes there is a God who can be known. One of these is a correct belief, the others are incorrect beliefs, but they are ALL beliefs.
Now, the question is what is faith: faith is belief in an impirically unprovable statement. Let’s look at three of these:
Statement 1) Zues is defined as a personal, finite God who dwells not only in the universe, but right here on earth in “Mount Olympus”. Because Zues is a finite being constrained by a finite space, we can reasonably search that entire space. Having found no evidence of whatsoever of Zues, Mount Olympus, or otherwise, I can say with scientific certainty that Zues does not exist. I believe Zues does not exist and this is fact. Ergo, A-Zuesism is a belief, but it is not a belief which requires faith.
Statement 2) The Christian God is defined as a spiritual, infinite being who does not dwell on earth nor even in the physical universe. Because God is an infinite being who is not constrained within the finite space of the universe, we cannot reasonably search a given space. Because anything outside of the physical universe (which physics has proven to be a finite volume) is outside of physical law, no imperical statement can be made regarding the existance or non-existance of the Christian God. In other words, whether I say there is no God, or that there is a God, BOTH of these are statements of belief based on a total lack of empirical evidence in either direction, ergo BOTH are statements of faith.
Statement 3) The deists define God as disinterested and inactive. Christian theists define God as interested and active. Both argue over the validity of empirical data: what constitutes a miracle? What constitutes valid documentation? What is made up? What is simply renaming of a scientific phenomenon? Atheist jump in on this, claiming that lack of evidence of the miraculous is lack of evidence of the existance of God. That is not correct… while we can empirically determine whether or not God acts on earth (though that will continue always to remain debateable), we CANNOT prove that just because we refuse to believe something was miraculous that therefore God does not exist. The best we can say if we give no credit to the miraculous is that “if God exists He does not actively participate in this universe”. This would disprove the christian theists, but it would in no way disprove the existance of God. Any more (aka, implying that God does not exist because He is not active) is a statement of faith.
In other words, the point to make is that both atheism and deism (the belief that God exists) are ALWAYS ALWAYS going to be statements of FAITH, not just belief, for the reason that science cannot possibly know what goes on beyond the borders of our universe.
