Disambiguating Faith: The Threatening Abomination Of The Faithless

Faith is a form of loyalty. But more than that, faith is a form of trust which does not calibrate itself to objective standards of trustworthiness but trusts people despite their limitations as provably trustworthy people or even despite counter-evidence to the notion that they are worthy of trust at all. Even more than that, however, faith helps serve traditions’ tasks of uniting their members and transmitting their values and practices down through generations. One of faith’s distinctive contributions to creating cohesion is its ability to make trust beyond warrant in traditions and their institutions into a condition of loyalty to one’s group–even when the tradition or the institutions seem at odds with reason and conscience.

Faith’s merging of loyalty and trust, which makes trust in tradition the central test of loyalty to the community, explains why my individual decision as a conscientious thinker not to believe in propositions or in people on faith is interpreted not as a virtuous humility in matters of truth but as a vicious betrayal of a community.  I think that the reason that many religious people consider atheists more offensive than they consider members of competing religious traditions is that the atheist rejects the very practice of acknowledging that sometimes tradition (code-worded as “God”) can veto our ideas or suggestions for new practices.  Atheists, as rejecters of faith itself, are not just members of competing faith traditions submitting obediently to their own groups’ traditions but are, more radically,  those who recognize no authority at all in tradition qua tradition.

And so in many religious minds the outspokenly faithless atheist is ethically offensive—not just to the minds of the fundamentalists who fetishize tradition in the most obvious extreme but also in the minds of those religious liberals who fall all over themselves trying to find ways to respect tradition as much as their doubting intellectual conscience can possibly permit them.   The atheist is an irreverent, anarchist individualist whose lack of respect for tradition may indicates a dangerous possibility of thinking with no traditional brake on her thinking if it gets out of hand.

The normal human mind is a religious one—at least insofar as it is a tradition-deferrent one.  The idea of a  God as an invisible authority with absolute veto power over our reason and our will and whose demands can be communicated to us by traditional institutions and texts, is the personification of tradition’s desire for ultimate veto power over our beliefs and practices.  God in this way is a codeword and a proxy concept through which tradition erects moral and intellectual fences around the rational individuals that make up human communities.  Faith is the practice of deferring to received, traditional texts and institutions.  Tests of faith are exercises in which we are expected to prove we will trust when we do not see the reasons to do so.  It is assumed that tradition knows better and that we should defer to it even when we cannot confirm tradition’s claims with our own individual, limited rational powers of discernment.

Faith makes our willingness to trust tradition a condition of our being a loyal, morally reliable, and intellectually trustworthy person who exhibits proper limits on our hubris to think we know better than tradition whenever we do not see tradition’s reasons.  I see this psycho-social dynamic as the reaons that atheists face such visceral resistance and are so readily feared to be immoral or spreaders of dangerous ideas even when the atheists in question have proposed nothing particularly radical.  It is assumed that we will presumptuously think that we know better than tradition’s morality.

And, for people of faith, tradition (usually referred to by its proxy, God, or its representatives, e.g., the Church, etc.)  is the source of moral guidance—whether this is their abstract position or their implicit emotional interpretation of their moral upbringing which liberally intermixed language of faith with language of morals until they were practically inseparable subconsciously.  Someone who breaks with tradition does not need to go around killing puppies to be morally untrustworthy.  She has already, in her refusal to defer to tradition, embodied a rebelliousness against the very source of moral guidance, tradition itself, and therefore, a person without faith is taken to be a threat to moral tradition, morality itself, and moral deference itself.  Regardless of whether this faithless person proceeds to commit specific acts of immorality is irrelevant.    Their way of thinking opposes faith and tradition themselves and so cannot be allowed to spread.

Of course, the obvious flip-side of the faithful’s visceral fear of the “militant atheist” as representing intellectual and social anarchy is the New Atheist’s visceral fear of the theocrat who represents intellectual and social authoritarianism.  Of course anyone even cursorily familiar with this blog knows that I think the New Atheists’ fear is, in the main, rationally justifiable. Nonetheless, it is important that on both sides of the faith fence we recognize that part of what fuels our passions are the complicated dialectics between both reason and tradition and between individual and social order.   And it is impossible to resolve the tensions within either of those dialectics.  Every healthy socio-political-intellectual arrangement will involve some give and take between these forces.  I don’t think that faith in otherwise unjustified propositions makes them rationally acceptable or, worse, tolerable bases for other judgments of fact or norm.  Nonetheless, there must be some acknowledgment that tradition tries to warn us of things through its irrational demands.  It would do well for reason to inspect  possible justifications for traditions as carefully as possible before jettisoning them.

And it would do well for the faithful to recognize just how much respect for defensible tradition that contemporary rationalistic atheists do have even as we decisively reject any authority in religious holy men or texts.

There is much more to say about the meanings and dynamics of faith in future installments of this series.  But for now,

Your Thoughts?

__________________

For more on faith, read any or all posts in my “Disambiguating Faith” series.  It is unnecessary to read all its posts to understand any given one.

Trustworthiness, Loyalty, And Honesty

Faith As Loyally Trusting Those Insufficiently Proven To Be Trustworthy

Faith As Tradition

Blind Faith: How Faith Traditions Turn Trust Without Warrant Into A Test Of Loyalty

The Threatening Abomination Of The Faithless

Rational Beliefs, Rational Actions, And When It Is Rational To Act On What You Don’t Think Is True

Faith As Guessing

Are True Gut Feelings And Epiphanies Beliefs Justified By Faith?

Faith Is Neither Brainstorming, Hypothesizing, Nor Simply Reasoning Counter-Intuitively

Faith In The Sub-, Pre-, Or Un-conscious

Can Rationality Overcome Faith?

Faith As A Form Of Rationalization Unique To Religion

Faith As Deliberate Commitment To Rationalization

Heart Over Reason

Faith As Corruption Of Children’s Intellectual Judgment

Faith As Subjectivity Which Claims Objectivity

Faith Is Preconditioned By Doubt, But Precludes Serious Doubting

Soul Searching With Clergy Guy

Faith As Admirable Infinite Commitment For Finite Reasons

Maximal Self-Realization In Self-Obliteration: The Existential Paradox of Heroic Self-Sacrifice

How A Lack Of Belief In God May Differ From Various Kinds Of Beliefs That Gods Do Not Exist

Why Faith Is Unethical (Or “In Defense Of The Ethical Obligation To Always Proportion Belief To Evidence”

Not All Beliefs Held Without Certainty Are Faith Beliefs

Defending My Definition Of Faith As “Belief Or Trust Beyond Rational Warrant”

Implicit Faith

Agnostics Or Apistics?

The Evidence-Impervious Agnostic Theists

Faith Which Exploits Infinitesimal Probabilities As Openings For Strong Affirmations

Why You Cannot Prove Inductive Reasoning Is Faith-Based Reasoning But Instead Only Assert That By Faith

How Just Opposing Faith, In Principle, Means You Actually Don’t Have Faith, In Practice

Naturalism, Materialism, Empiricism, And Wrong, Weak, And Unsupported Beliefs Are All Not Necessarily Faith Positions

How Faith Poisons Religion

  • Aaron Greenberg

    Excellent post! There is a difference between the person who rejects faith to run away from moral bounds and the person who does so because they are seeking truth. Just as there is a difference between those seeking faith to justify their actions, and those seeking moral guidance. In each case, I defy the first and applaud the second.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderist Wonderist

    One of your more insightful posts!

    Be cautious of the term ‘dialectics’. It’s a good sign-post sometimes, but not a reliable navigational system.

  • Dan Fincke

    Thank you, Wonderist. And I am indeed wary of making dialectics a “navigational system” rather than merely a sometimes good sign-post as you very rightly suggest. I paused appropriately to make sure I wanted to use the word before going ahead with it. In the context I think it fits.

  • http://asystemofrandomtangents.wordpress.com/ Anna Johnstone

    I have borrowed a bit of this but linked back to this post. Hope that’s ok.

    • Daniel Fincke

      no problem, anna!

  • Terie Spencer (Teege)

    I just came across this post, Dan, and it’s the best explanation I’ve ever read of the fear theists have of atheists. Thanks so much for your posts. I will be thinking about this and discussing it with friends.

  • Daniel Fincke

    Thanks, Terie, it’s one of my favorite posts and I look forward to any further feedback you might have on its thoughts after you pass on its suggestions to others.