The Faith of Those Who Don't Believe

What is faith?

Faith is trusting and committing without complete certainty. That is how we use the word in naturalism, which we understand as a religion without gods. Naturalist faith exists, has an object and has reasons, and this text explains what they are.

The word has two common uses. In the first, "faith" is belief in something supernatural, such as the existence of a god or the truth of a doctrine. This is what most people have in mind when they ask whether someone "has faith" or "has no faith."

In the second, broader sense, faith is an attitude toward uncertainty: acting with confidence without being able to verify everything yourself. This is the sense we adopt, defined like this: faith is acting and committing with confidence, without complete certainty, supported by partial reasons.

What changes from one person to another is the basis and the object of faith. The idea of trust and commitment appears in every form of faith.

What does this trust rest on?

It is not blind. We trust because there are reasons, even if partial ones: what has worked before, what several independent people report, what we can test and what still stands after being tested.

Two things set well-supported trust apart from poorly supported trust:

• The basis: how many independent reasons support the trust, and how good they are.
• Revision: what happens when the reasons change. Healthy trust follows what is discovered and weakens when the facts go against it.

What matters in a faith is less the fact that it exists and more what sustains it.

Is faith believing without proof?

That is the definition many people have in mind. For us, faith is not believing without reasons: it is trusting and committing on the basis of partial reasons, and being ready to revise them.

There are people who have faith in gods and describe it the same way, as trust supported by experiences and signs they consider sufficient. It is not for us to say how that faith works from the inside. The disagreement usually lies elsewhere: the weight of the reasons. Those who see no sufficient reason to assert that a god exists consider those signs insufficient, and those who do see one consider them sufficient. The discussion revolves around the weight of the reasons. Recognizing this helps us talk without caricaturing either side.

So is every faith worth the same?

This is the most serious objection to our idea: if we trust the method without having checked everything ourselves, our trust would be the same kind of thing as any other faith, including faith in gods.

In part, yes, and that deserves acknowledging. Every faith acts without complete certainty, and no one has direct access to everything they trust. The line between well-grounded trust and belief sustained only by habit is not always sharp, and some people examine their reasons carefully, whether they have faith in gods or not.

Even so, there is a difference of degree and of method, and it is the one we choose to value:

• Trust should be proportional to the reasons. The stronger the claim, the firmer the reasons must be.
• It should be revisable: open to changing when new facts appear.
• It should rest on reasons that other people can examine, and not only on a private experience.

Our faith also starts from assumptions that cannot be fully proven, such as the idea that reason works reasonably well, or that suffering matters. We state these starting points openly: they are choices, not demonstrated conclusions. Saying so is part of being honest about our own faith.

Why reclaim the word "faith"?

We could simply say "trust." It describes the knowledge side well. But "faith" also carries dedication, commitment and hope, which are needed in any life, with gods or without them. If we leave the word with a single meaning, we are left without a name for these things.

That is why we prefer to take the word and say clearly what it means to us. It is a proposal, not a correction: anyone who uses "faith" in another sense can keep doing so. This one is ours.

What do we place our faith in?

In at least four things, all open to examination and revision:

• In the method: the trust that observing, testing and correcting errors leads to ever better knowledge, even if the result is provisional.
• In people: the bet that cooperation and mutual care pay off, and the decision to do our part.
• In values: the commitment to the dignity of every person, which holds even when it is hard and when there is no guarantee it will work out.
• In the future: the hope, without a promise, that what we do today can improve tomorrow, like someone raising a child or planting a tree they will not see fully grown.

In these four there is trust and there is commitment, without the supernatural element. It is a faith that sustains action in the face of uncertainty, and it is the faith of our religion.

An invitation

If you describe yourself as an atheist, the question "do atheists have faith?" may now seem less strange. Atheism says what you stopped believing in. Naturalist faith proposes what to place your trust and commitment in after that.

Three questions can help you start:

• What do I place my faith in today?
• What reasons support that trust, and could other people examine them?
• What would make me revise it?

You don't need to have the answers now. Admitting that it can be revised is part of our faith.

To understand how naturalism relates to atheism, read What is atheism?.

Frequently asked questions

Do atheists have faith?

It depends on the sense of the word. In the sense of belief in gods, no. In the sense of trusting and committing without complete certainty, yes, and it is the faith that naturalism takes as its own.

Is naturalism a religion?

That is how we understand ourselves: a religion without gods, with faith, values and commitment, and without the supernatural.

Are faith and reason opposed?

For us, no. Reason gives faith measure and grounding: it shows what to trust, how much to trust and when to reconsider. What is usually debated is what counts as sufficient reason.

Does this mean faith in gods is worse?

That is not our conclusion. We propose one sense of "faith" and say what it rests on. Those who have faith in gods can keep using the word in the sense that makes sense to them.