Faith isn't a Virtue

Thank you so much for watching! If you're new to this channel please consider subscribing and hitting the like button.
In this video, I discuss why faith isn't a virtue and why it shouldn't be considered a reason for belief. I also talk about how unreliable faith is as a method of determining the truth of a claim. Faith can be used to justify belief in anything without evidence and that is simply problematic. Faith is really all that is left for the theist once all their arguments have been refuted and it simply isn't enough to justify belief.
Thank you so much for watching!!!!
Medium Article:
/ why-faith-is-a-unrelia...
Matt Dilahaunty's Video on Faith:
• Atheist Debates - Appe...
Intro music:
Music by Pumpupthemind from Pixabay

[@kassd4169]

just subbed

[@SharedPhilosophy]

Thank you! I appreciate the support! :)

[@DrustZapat]

Algorithm boosting comment

[@SharedPhilosophy]

appreciate it! 🙏

[@aarondeimund6898]

The word has a different definition depending on the contest. Saying you have faith in Jesus means you believe in spite of a lack of evidence. At least if I'm reading Hebrews 11 correctly. If you don't believe me, just think of it being used in context. Step out in faith. You have to take it on faith. Have faith like a child. They're all things you say when you get to the end of your understanding. In any other context, it means exactly the opposite and it really is just a synonym for trust. I only have faith in my coworker to get something done if I have good evidence that I can believe it.

[@SharedPhilosophy]

Agreed! The way you formulated this argument is really well done. I was purposely trying to not use Hebrews 11 because I don't want all my videos to seem targeted towards just christians. But I think Hebrews 11 does provide the definition of faith which is most synonymous with how people use it in daily life. I wanna show that this faith no matter if its in christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism, etc, is ultimately a unreliable way of determining what is true and therefore should be thrown out the window as a potential path to truth. Thanks for commenting!

[@Julian0101]

Yep, hebrews 11 clearly proposes to use faith instead of evidence, and if you take into account verses like Jhon 20:29 is clear that is about not having evidence.

[@starfishsystems]

Unfortunately, this dual definition of "faith" is very commonly used to construct a Fallacy of Equivocation, arguing that holding a belief for no reason is equivalent to holding a belief for explicit and justified reason. Therefore, it's especially important, when we're dealing with claims that are open to reasonable challenge, that we avoid the use of terms such as "faith" which are problematic in this way. Choose words which have more specific meaning and are not prone to fallacious abuse. And be prepared, if you INSIST on using ambiguous words, to be immediately dismissed as a dishonest interlocutor. You may or not be, but nobody is interested in playing guessing games with you.

[@fernandodeoliveiradasilva4991]

The same argument can be applied to you, it's not that you don't have faith in God, it's that you have faith that God doesn't exist.

[@aarondeimund6898]

The faith the Bible describes in Hebrews 11 seems to me to be entirely impossible without first believing in God. It describes faith as hope for things to come. What hope for things to come would you say an atheist has?

[@SharedPhilosophy]

You're making the argument that I refuted in the video using the example of the brakes on the car and my faith in those brakes. Firstly, I don't make a positive claim that god doesn't exist, atheism is the position of not being convinced that there is a god based on the arguments provided. I will never claim that I know for a guaranteed fact that god doesn't exist just as I will not make the case that I know for a guaranteed fact that Leprechauns or Big Foot does not exist, I will however state that I am unconvinced by the evidence provided for Leprechauns and Big Foot which gives me REASON to believe that they do not exist. Secondly, I don't have faith that god doesn't exist. I have REASON to believe that he probably does not exist. For example, when people make the argument that god guided and created life to be so complex and then I study evolution and see that there is no intelligence or intention behind this process, that gives me REASON to believe that god isn't behind the complexity of life, and so on with all the arguments provided for god, if there is a REASON I should doubt them, then I doubt based on that reason. There is no faith involved at all. Thank you for commenting!

[@Julian0101]

Nope, lack of belief doesnt require belief in lack. Remember, as long as you fail to show evidence for your god, there is no reason to believe in it. No need to have faith in your failures, you pretty much already shared the evidence for it.

[@jamesbarringer2737]

@@SharedPhilosophyYou may find that argument convincing, but there’s no reason anyone else should. I’m going to appeal to authority here, which may be bad evidence, but it is evidence - Einstein frequently talked about God, explicitly saying he believed in the God of Spinoza. Einstein himself said Maxwell, who first explained the principles of electromagnetism (which also suggests a constant relative speed to light), was the greatest scientist in history. Maxwell, claimed by Einstein as the greatest scientist in history, was devoutly Christian. Newton was kind of wacko, yet still, clearly believed in God, and was even an elder kin the Church. Max Planck, the very original discoverer of quantum effects, considered the Father of Quantum Mechanics, was a man of faith, even writing "Religion und Naturwissenschaft", where he argued religion and science are different but complimentary and equally necessary approaches to understanding the world. These are the four scientists who clearly above all others provided the foundations of all understanding of the physical nature of the world. All believed in some form of God, and stated so publicly. Each of these three saw truths that the rest of the world could not see. If the four greatest scientists of all time believed in some form of God, it is clearly reasonable for lesser mortals to agree with them. It’s an appeal to authority - not a good argument, and yet nearly everything we are taught is learned this was, because it would be an absurd endeavor to attempt to know everything through direct personal experimentation. It’s not a strong argument but you’ve offered nothing better.

[@SharedPhilosophy]

@@Julian0101 Appreciate you commenting and putting out your view point here, but let's keep it a little less passive aggressive. We wanna offer people constructive criticism please :)

[@nobodyatall7039]

Reason and evidence are also very poor foundations for belief. At best they are good foundations for determining where to look. Even when you have personally experienced something the potential for error is not completely eliminated.

[@SharedPhilosophy]

This is true to an extent. I'm not sure to what extent we can apply the adjective "poor" when it comes to belief due to reason and evidence. I'm open to the fact that many of the things we know to be true now could be wrong, that is in fact the whole job of science, is to try its best to prove itself wrong thereby coming one step closer to the truth. By stating that reason and evidence are also very poor foundations for belief you would be undermining the entire success of science and the technological advancement that has been made using the scientific method, which is based on using reason and evidence to conduct experiments and come closer to a more accurate understanding of the world. For example, many scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation of life, but after conducting experiments and using reason and evidence found through those experiments we were able to come 1 step closer to a better and more accurate understanding of reality and how life is generated. Yes I agree, just personal experience which may happen once or twice may be heavily flawed. That is why personal testimony is among some of the most unreliable evidence in court and must normally be backed by some kind of third-party evidence to be considered seriously. But science and evidence produced by science is not the conclusion of one person's personal interpretation of an event, but rather the collective consensus of hundreds and thousands of scientists working to make sure that the evidence found is repeatable and demonstrable thereby establishing its solidity. Also what other alternative is more trustworthy if we don't use evidence and reason? Faith? we already saw how that can be super problematic, so then what else do we have? Thanks for commenting!

[@starfishsystems]

Well, ARE they "very poor foundations" or is it simply that you claim they are? What justification can you offer to support your claim? And why should I find it convincing? Here is the problem. I have an epistemology that I can test empirically and theoretically, against observed reality in the former case and against axiomatic formalisms in the latter. And the total effect of a lifetime of this practice, when set against your not very specific effort of a few minutes, leads me to dismiss your effort as not even remotely interesting. You really have to bring something more than, "Oh, those are very poor foundations, because I think so."

[@Julian0101]

@@starfishsystems Beware the troll, he has very poor foundations for logic and reasoning, to the point of making critics that also debunk his own claims, he even tried to quoteminwa publicily available dictionary and acted indi gnant when called out on it. If you push him enough he will start projecting and then affirm his claims are right until proven wrong... So yeah, standard wannabe apologist.

[@Julian0101]

@@tgenov Says the guy who quotemined a publicily available dictionary and acted indi gnant when called out for it. Don't worry, I get why you don't want to reflect on your failures, and why you keep projecting instead of rehabilitating your self debunked claims. Your last reply quotemining was a perfect example on how you are stuck in the that lose-lose situation.

[@Julian0101]

@@tgenov Nope, we established your want to quotemine defintions while ignoring the context. You also trivially demonstrated how faith is not a virtue with your dis dain for anyone you think is using it. Apologist: noun apologist; plural noun: apologists a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial. "critics said he was an apologist for colonialism" See, you cant help but demosntrate you were the one wrong all along.