On faith:
Faith means a few things, depending on the context. In the context of positive religious faith, it refers to a belief, without evidence, of a literally incredible phenomenen. Should you attempt to ascribe this manner and magnitude of faith to an atheist, you will find that they, quite rightly, rail against it.
Why? Because it isn’t equivalent. The faith an atheist has in the non-existence of gods is, as I said previously, identical to the faith a theist has in the non-existence of Zeus. Now, if you were in a discussion about Greek Gods, do you think that you would say, “I have faith that Zeus doesn’t exist.” Or do you think you would be more likely to say something like, “I am confident that Zeus doesn’t exist.”
Both of them are syntactically correct, but the first one is dischordant, because it’s semantically misused.
Similarly, if asked about a celestial teapot, would you say, “I have faith that no such teapot exists.” or would you more likely phrase it as “I believe no such teapot exists.”
Look up faith in the OED and you find, not only your ‘belief without evidence’ definition, but also the definitions ‘confidence’ and ‘belief.’ It is this context of ‘faith’ that is held by atheists.
Faith is used invariably in the context of a positive claim or outcome. Otherwise, what purpose the phrase: “I have no faith in X…?” This is why the word is inappropriate in the context of an atheistic belief that there are no gods. You would say, “I have
no faith in their ability to deliver on time,” rather than “I have
faith in their
inability to deliver on time.”
So we can see that, despite your claim being syntactically accurate, the semantic meaning of the theist’s faith and the atheist’s ‘faith’ are quite different. It is this semantic difference that you are ignoring. So to repeat, I am happy to sign up to the same faith in the non-existence of gods, as you have in the non-existence of fairies, goblins, unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Hopefully that’s cleared up faith. But to drum it home, I repeat: the atheist’s ‘faith’ is not of the same character as the theist’s faith.
Note that here we are talking about ‘strong’ atheists - atheists who are prepared to state that they believe no gods exist, rather than saying they don’t believe that gods exist. Again, there’s an important semantic difference that you have ignored.
Now, the reason that theistic and atheistic ‘faith’ are not of the same character, is to do with the nature and credibility of the claim being made. Is the faith of someone who fervently believes that cats can fly, the same manner and magnitude of faith as that held by someone who believes they can’t?
Which brings us nicely back on-topic: The burden of proof.
One can argue, as you have done, that the burden of proof rests equally on both the theist and the atheist. You at least haven’t gone so far as to suggest that a theist can claim the existence of God, then, when challenged, say, “Oh yeah? Well prove he
doesn’t exist!” (at least, I don’t think you have, and I can’t be bothered to trawl the thread) - that is clearly just dodging the burden, and is in no way a legitimate response to the demand for evidence. (Despite this, I see it a lot from theists - some people just don’t get it.)
Although you could say the burden of proof rests equally on both parties, since both are making a positive claim (the respective natures of the claims notwithstanding), I think the problem then becomes the nature of the proof that is needed. It’s clear that the two claims being made are of drastically different incredibleness:
The theist is making the claim that an undetectable, omnimaxial entity exists who created the universe and everything in it, can hear our individual thoughts, performs miracles and metes out punishment and reward according to a set of immutable laws it created. Or some variant thereof.
The atheist is simply making the claim that this ain’t so.
Now, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The theist’s claim is, by definition, just about the most extraordinary claim it’s possible to make. Consequently, the evidence/proof required to substantiate this claim must be commensurately robust. But it’s far from it.
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”
-Sam Harris, ‘The End of Faith’
However, the atheist can substantiate his claim just by pointing out that there’s no evidence for the existence of gods, and pointing out that this level of substantiation is good enough for the entire population of the world, when discussing different subject matter. Religion doesn’t get an exemption from such axioms.
So by all means, impose the burden of proof upon us strong atheists - our answer is, “No evidence, therefore no gods” and we’ve substantiated our claim.
So there you go - you win, if you want to call it a victory. Strong atheists have versions of ‘faith’ and are happy to accept the burden of proof for the claims made under this ‘faith.’ But we both know this is mere semantic hocus-pocus, and your motivation is given away in your previous post.
