The response was authored by Ira Rifkin, a former contributor to Get Religion. What little I know about Mr. Rifkin is based on what he himself has written (I once had an online exchange with Mr. Rifkin over the question of whether the word parochial has a derogatory connotation, but that is the only personal contact I've had with him). Based on what he has written for the website as a commentator, my understanding is that, in terms of religious beliefs, Mr. Rifkin is a theologically liberal Jew who has an interest in Buddhism. At the beginning of his response to Duin's story, Mr. Rifkin wrote this: "Religious faith by definition means to believe without the need for what we think of as unassailable material proof." Now, initially I'm inclined to ask who "we" are, but I would rather focus on the main point of his comment--that religious belief "means to believe without the need for...unassailable proof." I suspect this is a common idea among many people, especially those who considered themselves free of the shackles of traditional religious belief. The problem, however, it would seem to me, is that Mr. Rifkin's definition could apply to all sorts of beliefs, not just religious ones. For example, many people earnestly believe that one's "gender identity" is something that can be personally defined; it is not based on biological facts. Nevertheless, I would contend that there is no "unassailable material proof" for such a belief. Certainly there is a lack of scientific evidence for it--indeed, how can science prove something that has only a subjective reality?
Worse still, we could apply Mr. Rifkin's definition to even less controversial ideas. For example, I suspect that all (or at least the vast majority) of my readers would agree that by employing logic we can gain an accurate understanding of the world. However, how can we prove this? It is not necessarily self-evident; it is an assumption (although a reasonable one, I would aver). After all, the philosopher David Hume argued that we have reason to doubt something seemingly as fundamental as the notion of causality. From experience, we may notice that one event, B, always follows another, A. But does that absolutely prove that A caused B? Hume would say no. When we say A caused B, we are just making an assumption. In fact, another philosopher, Rene Descartes, went so far as to argue that if we are determined to doubt everything, the only indisputable reality is that of our own existence. As he famously said, "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think; therefore, I am").
In short, even people who reject religious belief still hold ideas that lack "unassailable material proof." Therefore, Mr. Ripkin's definition, however much it may reflect a common view among many, is not very accurate. However, I would suggest that the correct question to ask about nearly any idea is not whether it has "unassailable material proof," but rather whether or not it is reasonable to believe it, given the evidence that does exist. That is the only way that we can have a high degree of confidence that what we believe to be true is in fact true.
Statute of Lady Justice weighing evidence at Dublin Castle: Image from Wikimedia Commons