Faith is a Rule Changer… Sometimes
As a skeptic I’ve read and taken part in many debates with believers who follow the familiar pattern: A debate on a topic begins and after some time the believer acknowledges that the skeptic has made some strong arguments but instead of acknowledging that maybe they should reconsider their position the believer says “you just have to have faith.”
Now we all know you can’t argue with faith because it is by definition impervious to evidence but you can point out that the acceptance of faith isn’t a good thing epistemologically, it just doesn’t lead to knowledge. However what I find more important is to point out what just occurred. We were both playing the same game by the same rules, attempting to prove our views with logic and evidence, but as soon as it became apparent the skeptic had defeated the logic and evidence of the believer, the believer changed the rules of the contest. Now you can’t stop people from doing this but you can try to make them acknowledge that to withdraw from the use of reason purely when it doesn’t fit them anymore is an admission that the belief they hold isn’t rationally based, or at the very least they are currently out of rational reasons and should permanently stop using those arguments just refuted.
In moral terms abortion, same-sex marriage and the death penalty are all subject to faith claims on all sides of the issue. So if someone is to reasonably decide if any of these are moral we must clearly reject faith as a guide to do so. Still, for example, Obama’s support of same-sex marriage today will undoubtedly be met with claims of immorality based solely on the fact it contradicts a faith position that homosexuality is immoral. As my previous post indicated, I don’t buy for a moment any arguments that homosexuality is immoral but because morality is one of last places in public discourse where it is still acceptable to use religious beliefs as the sole justification for a position. As a result people who oppose same-sex marriage largely don’t even bother to make arguments to support their position.
However in science, where creationism and a small minority of climate change deniers disagree with established science because of their religious beliefs, it’s no longer publicly acceptable, at least not in political or legal discourse, to replace argument with an explicit expression of faith. When people do this they are roundly dismissed as unfairly, and unconstitutionally, attempting to force their religious beliefs onto secular society. Now there aren’t any moral positions supported the way the theories of evolution and climate change are, but I think secular people must be just as vigilant in pointing out the unfair and unconstitutional move from using reasoning and evidence to faith positions with regard to morality as they are about issues of science. It’s our responsibility to remind them either that retreat into faith should be allowed in every field, which would make rational discourse impossible, or it shouldn’t be allowed anywhere.
Anonymous
