Defending the Definition of Faith: Belief Without Sufficient Evidence
One of the central criticisms in Trent Horn’s review of Peter Boghossian’s A Manual for Creating Atheists is the definition of faith as “belief without sufficient evidence.” Horn contends that this definition is a straw man, arguing that faith, especially in the Catholic tradition, is more nuanced and involves trust based on evidence. However, Boghossian’s definition is not without precedent. Many prominent atheists and philosophers, including Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have pointed out that faith is often invoked precisely when evidence is lacking. In practice, religious faith is frequently used to justify beliefs that are not supported by empirical data or logical reasoning. When evidence is available, we typically refer to our beliefs as knowledge, not faith. Thus, the distinction Boghossian draws is both meaningful and accurate in the context of religious discourse.
Lack of Philosophical Consensus Does Not Validate Faith
Horn suggests that the lack of consensus among philosophers about the definition of faith or the existence of God somehow lends credibility to religious belief. This is a misapplication of philosophical disagreement. The absence of consensus does not automatically validate any particular position; it simply reflects the complexity of the issue. In fact, the lack of agreement among philosophers about the existence of God is more indicative of the weakness of theistic arguments than their strength. If the evidence for God’s existence were compelling, we would expect a much higher degree of consensus among experts. Instead, surveys consistently show that professional philosophers are far more likely to be atheists or agnostics than the general population, suggesting that rigorous philosophical inquiry tends to undermine, rather than support, religious faith.
Theistic Arguments Have Not Withstood Scrutiny
Horn defends classical theistic arguments—such as the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments—as if they remain unassailable. In reality, these arguments have been extensively critiqued and found wanting by many philosophers. The cosmological argument, for example, relies on assumptions about causality and the nature of the universe that are not supported by modern physics. The teleological argument, or argument from design, has been severely undermined by the theory of evolution and our growing understanding of natural processes. Moral arguments for God’s existence often beg the question by assuming that objective morality requires a divine lawgiver, a premise that is far from established. The continued debate over these arguments is not a sign of their strength, but rather of their persistent failure to provide convincing evidence for theism.
Criticisms of Tone Do Not Undermine Logical Arguments
Horn takes issue with Boghossian’s tone, describing it as condescending or dismissive. While tone can affect how a message is received, it has no bearing on the validity of the arguments presented. Ad hominem attacks—criticizing the person rather than addressing the substance of their arguments—are a well-known logical fallacy. Whether or not one finds Boghossian’s style appealing, the focus should remain on the logic and evidence behind his claims. Dismissing an argument because of the author’s tone is a distraction from the real issues at hand. The core of Boghossian’s work is a call for critical thinking and evidence-based belief, principles that stand regardless of rhetorical style.
Promoting Critical Thinking and Evidence-Based Belief
Atheism, as advocated by Boghossian and others, is not a dogmatic rejection of religion but a commitment to following the evidence wherever it leads. The criticisms raised by Horn do not undermine the central thesis of A Manual for Creating Atheists: that beliefs should be proportioned to the evidence available, and that faith—understood as belief without sufficient evidence—should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other claim. Encouraging people to examine their beliefs critically is not an attack on religious individuals, but an invitation to intellectual honesty and growth.
Read the original review at https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-manual-for-creating-atheists-a-critical-review.