The Problem of Reasoning With Faith

There are a few points in my life when I really started to cement my philosophy of personal religious views.

One of them was when I realized the futility in arguing the nonexistence of a god. Primarily this is because theists can cite an argument that takes advantage of a flaw in inductive reasoning; namely, inductive reasoning proves what is probable, not what is infallible. For example we tend to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow because it always has in the past. There's some infintesimal chance that something could cause the sun to explode...but most people don't wake up thinking that is what will happen.

As is outlined in this paper this is a big reason that people will believe in something despite evidence to the contrary; you can't prove that it's not there because it's only probable that it's not there. For people that don't prefer to live by reason this is a perfect loophole.

For example...

Frank and Joe are friends who get together to have a chat. Frank tells Joe that there's a small invisible elephant named Nemo hovering over his head and that he controls the weather.

Joe is skeptical that there's a hovering Elephant named Nemo over Frank's head. "I don't see anything."

"He's invisible," says Frank.
"So how do you see him?"
"He wants me to so he lets me see him."
"Well...I want to see him. Can he show himself to me?"
"Not if he doesn't want to show you."
"What if I throw some paint above your head? Wouldn't that cover him so I could see him?"
"No, it'll pass through him."
"Does he make any sounds? Can I hear him?"
"Only if he lets you."
"So I can't hear him, I can't touch him, and I can't see him. How do I know he exists?"
"Easy! Look outside! Right there's the weather!"

This is how it is with theists discussing the existence of God; it's telling that basically in order for Joe to "see" Nemo he must first, like Frank, believe he's there and that way accept the shortcomings in the lack of evidence. Joe could tell Frank all about what is known regarding meterology; cold fronts, low pressure fronts, heating of oceans and humid air from the effects of the sun heating the ground and water, etc. etc...but see, it's complicated to understand those things. It's far more comforting to just say Nemo does it.

More accurately as science advances our understanding of weather Frank just will fall back on either Nemo wants us to believe that, or those are the mechanisms that Nemo uses to manipulate the weather. It's still Nemo controlling it.

No matter what there's still a fallback to dismiss these arguments. Science provides reproduceable results, testable hypothesis and theories, yet stacked against something whose abilities are believed to be...well, what amounts to magic...it's far simpler for Frank to dismiss Joe with a lot of hand-waving and he'll continue to take comfort in what he's already invested in believing. There's no way to definitively show that there is no Nemo above Frank's head because no matter what evidence Joe brings to the table Frank can dismiss that that's just how Nemo works or what Nemo wants. It's the power of the divine.

It is impossible to argue with people who don't want to hear what you're trying to say; don't even bother. It's uncomfortable for the majority of theists to listen to something that challenges what they've believed all their lives, something that comforts them, and for people like that comfort is more important than seeking truth.

Nontheists, the best approach is to simply be honest with yourself and others if asked. Don't push your ideas upon others; it'll be as unwelcome to them as when they push their beliefs on you. There are others who feel alienated because they are surrounded in their communities by theists and who question themselves because they are a minority in their own community. Finding others who are comfortable standing up and saying they don't believe in an organized religion can help you find others who share your perspective; you're not alone.