believing something, rather than simply to say you believe it. If I say that I believe there are no talking fish, it isn't very productive to say that this proves I have "faith" that fish don't talk, because I don't believe it on faith. I believe it because of the evidence of my senses and the evidence presented by people employing a reasonable method of getting at the truth about things. However, to say you have "faith" that God exists means more than just saying you believe it. It means that you believe God exists because you have faith that He does. It is this meaning of faith to which reason stands opposed. I do not believe anything on faith. I only believe things because I have good evidence to support them. That is what reason means: basing all beliefs on the evidence of the senses, and on nothing else. Of course, some try to take issue with this. For one, they say that I have only replaced faith in God with faith in reason, but I only believe in reason because the evidence of my senses has always confirmed that reason is reliable. Why do I think this way? It seems almost silly to ask such a question. Does it really make sense to base your beliefs on things for which you have no good evidence? "Faith in God" is not the same as belief in science or friends or even everyday assumptions like "a fish did not write this essay." Having faith that you believe in something astoundingly incredible that is both unproved and unprovable is true. That is simply not reasonable to me. I will never base my beliefs on such stretches of imagination, because it so easily leads to error and self-deception. Though my heart may tell me many useful things about me, only my mind has anything useful to say about the outside world. Moreover, it tells me that God, like talking fish, is the grandest of fictions.Since I have always lived my life with meaning and joy, without needing a belief in God or an afterlife, I know that such beliefs are unnecessary. An...
