From: ciaran@ulysse.enst.fr (Ciaran O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources
Summary: Belief and free will as addressed in the FAQ
Keywords: FAQ, atheism, faith, free will
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:09:56 GMT
Organization: Telecom-Paris, France



These remarks about faith and free choice are made from the religious
point of view.

Faith
-----

The discussion of belief, in the FAQ is about as good as can be expected under
the circumstances. However, it seems to me that the definition of religious
faith has been made by someone who does not have a profound knowledge,
either internal or external, of the subject. I will use an analogy to try and
explain this remark.

There are many areas of human importance, including music, art, religion, 
dance, and human love that it is impossible to understand just from a outside
point of view. An outside analysis is fine, as far as it goes, but is 
necessarily incomplete. For example, an art critics remarks about a painting
do not dispense us from looking at it ourselves.

Now some people may be unmoved by any kind of painting but need to form an
opinion about art (for example, as an investor). These people will try to
understand what other people say to have as informed an opinion as possible.
For example, if they know other artists, they would ask them what they think.
They could also ask people that have limited personal talent themselves but
have a profound art culture (critics are often in this category).

So when we are trying to understand something from purely external sources
we rely either on people that both have an internal awareness and can
externalize their knowledge effectively, or on people that have made a
profound study of the subject. 


Faith and positive belief
--------------------------

I will now try to explain the difference between faith and simple belief,
from my point of view as a religious believer.

Religious belief is not a belief just like any other. For example, when
we believe that it is going to rain tomorrow we are expressing an opinion.
This opinion, in a sense, does not really matter -- if the sun shines tomorrow,
we are not going to be sad.

I am now again obliged to use analogy to make my understanding of what
religious faith is clear.

Imagine that we believe that we are loved -- that somebody else, a man
or a woman, loves us. This belief can be a permanent one (as in marriage)
or it can be something we "discover" (love by a stranger).

This kind of positive belief can fill us with joy, and indeed change our
lives. It is quite different from indifference ("why would anyone love me").
This is again different from a strong, negative opinion
("nobody would love me").

The necessity of true faith
---------------------------

The point I am making is that the kind of beliefs that are most positive for
us are positive ones. Nonetheless, not all positive beliefs are positive ones.
For example, love can be destructive. This would imply that the beliefs that
are most positive for us are exactly the true, positive ones.

It is difficult to imagine a more positive belief that an infinite
God loves us, and loves us infinitely. However, for such a belief to be
acceptable, it must be both truly positive (we must truly believe it, what
we believe must have nothing negative in it) and true.

Atheism is not based on faith
-----------------------------

The atheist position is that belief in God is either, not true, or not truly
positive. There is a qualitative difference between this kind of rejectal
and the positive belief of faith (including, even false belief). At this 
point therefore, religious belief and atheistic scepticism or strong
atheism myst be considered different and atheism cannot be considered to
be a religion. I would argue that, practically speaking atheists "adopt" 
a religion, but that is another matter.

Incidentally, this notion that an atheistic belief is qualitatively different
from a religious belief is suggested by the FAQ.

Free choice
-----------

A distinction must be made between belief and knowledge. We do not need
to believe in anything we know, because we know it. For example, a doctor
does not need to belief that someone with appendicitis needs an operation,
because he knows it from his education. A patient who has never heard about
appendicitis is obliged to believe the doctor.

If we do not know something, we can choose different opinions about the truth,
but only one opinion is the true opinion. However it is not possible to
choose one's opinion once we know the truth.

Thus the ability to choose ones belief, in the existence of doubt, is
a first instance of human liberty.

Now there is a difference between knowing the truth and accepting it. 
For example, we all know that Bill Clinton is going to be president of the
United States but not everybody accepts it. However, there is nothing that
anyone can do about it.

The second instance of human liberty is thus the possibility to reject
something that is known to be true.

Now if we reject the truth, for example, by refusing to accept Bill Clinton
as president, it is because we believe that it is not a "good thing.") In
other words, we believe that there is a higher truth (i.e., even though
Bill Clinton is president his "ideas" are wrong and the "right ideas" will
win out in the end), to which this truth is subject.

Clearly, if God exists, there is no higher truth than this. If we have
knowledge of his existence, we lose our first form of liberty, that is the
liberty to believe. If we refuse to accept God despite this knowledge, our
second form of liberty, that is our possibility to reject him nonetheless,
is useless to us since there is no higher truth in which we can then believe.

The point I am making here is that the possibility to choose, and even
reject God, is essential to human liberty.

Life in the presence of a refusal to believe
--------------------------------------------

I assume that I am addressing myself to people that do not believe in God.

I now assume the two points above granted, i.e. that you the reader admit the
existence of a choice about the existence of God as necessary, and that its
effects on someone who chooses positively are different from for themselves
I will now consider the consequences of this negative choice from a
philosophical point of view.

Two things remain necessary, namely to live out your life and to continue
to ask yourself questions.

Many atheists come from religious backgrounds, so their rejectal of a belief
in God does not stop them from looking for justice, kindness, and so on
in their lives. Some atheists have never believed neither in God nor in such
things as these. I call these "stomach" atheists.

I think there is an important consequence of the "atheist choice" that needs
to be underlined.
This is despite the fact that the above remarks about living out your own
life, about having to ask yourself questions, about looking
for kindness in your own life, or even about attaching too much importance
to your stomach would apply equally well to religious believers.

When you decided not to belive in God you simultaneously decided
to believe first of all in yourself. It is, after all, a belief in your
own capacity to choose that led to your choice. You can believe in other
things (justice, kindness, one's stomach) but you are alone in making these
decisions.

It is both harder and easier for we religous believers. It is easier
because our conviction that we are not alone leads us to seek God's counsel
(by faith and prayer). It is harder because we must submit ourselves to His
will.

Socrates said "Know thyself." I would add to that "Know Socrates" (this
knowledge is inexpensive to acquire). This advice applies to anyone, but
because your atheists beliefs make you believe in yourself first of all,
it would seem to apply particularly to you.

Question your own beliefs most of all. Look at your own life -- why do
things happen to you the way they do. Are you unnecessarily constraining
yourself (in your work, for money, in your human relations).

Above all, are you asking yourself the right questions?
Even the wrong answer to the right question has some good in it. This is
because sincere examination of wrong answer will lead to the right one.
However, nothing is more useless than the right answer to the wrong question. 

Ciaran O'Donnell					+33 1 6941 2438(voice)
38, rue de la Martiniere/ 91570 Bievres/  FRANCE	+33 1 6941 1677  (fax)
ciaran@inf.enst.fr


-- 
Ciaran O'Donnell/Telecom Paris - Dept INF/46 rue Barrault/75634 Paris-13 FRANCE
Phone +33 1 4581 7600	  / Fax +33 1 4581 3119    / E-mail ciaran@inf.enst.fr
Newsgroups: alt.atheism