Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Faith" is just a word. Describe the behavior to know what the word means.

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed. Believing a story that there's an immortal ghost inside you called a soul is a good example of faith, be it religiously associated or not. No experience with a soul is ever involved but one retains "faith" that a soul is real.

On the other hand it isn't faith that makes me believe my car is going to start. That's knowledge based on experience, it's not faith.

It's a very simple distinction.

 

[DBT]

We understand that our car is likely to start each and every time, unless the battery is failing, the starter motor is worn out, etc, through our knowledge and experience of these mechanical systems, which has nothing to do with faith.

The physical world does not work on the principle of faith.

Faith is wishful thinking, convincing oneself that something is in fact true when there is little or no evidence for it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The physical world does not work on the principle of faith.

Which is probably why faith eschews physicality. and replaces it with claims about non-physicality, things like souls and spirits living in the sky and all kind of irrational claims like hells and heavens, demons, angels and on and on.

An individual can practice these irrational behaviors for very rational reasons even though the belief itself is wholly irrational and a fantasy.

 

[Jarhyn]

The physical world does not work on the principle of faith.

Which is probably why faith eschews physicality. and replaces it with claims about non-physicality, things like souls and spirits living in the sky and all kind of irrational claims like hells and heavens, demons, angels and on and on.

An individual can practice these irrational behaviors for very rational reasons even though the belief itself is wholly irrational and a fantasy.

IKR? And worse, it favors non-physicality even in relation to things that actually do have physical basis.

Let's take for example the "soul". You aren't just a collection of meat. You also have a mathematical definition in addition to the meaty wet organismal definition, that is in fact reflected by that meat: You can be described so completely as a logical relationship of elements that that description can leveraged into a meaningful copy of you.

Let's take for example a fictional example to bring this home: look at the episode of Star Trek where Riker got copy-machined by a teleporter.

That teleporter buffer literally by this definition contained Riker's soul, of exactly the moment of the accident.

But that means, while it's not necessarily a physical identity, that the soul is not some unique magical thing so much as a description of process.

It's a definition of "soul" that is useful and addresses physical realities rather than foolish supernatural bullshit.

Of course, this also means that wishy-washy claims about an afterlife and the soul living on after death are bullshit.

If you attempt to define these concepts in reified ways, religion loses it's pathway to the goal of making people give you what you want in exchange for nothing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's fine, but it's important to know that the religious concept of faith is basically the same as the faith in science.

Well, since I don’t have faith in science it’s unclear to me what to make of your statement.

Faith in the context of science is the confidence that scientists place in a conclusion. It is how sure they are right about something. If you feel confident that evolution occurs after assessing evidence for it using logic, for example, then you have faith in that science.

Do you just dislike the word "faith"?

If we want to use the word colloquially and so generally that it covers both religious faith and my feelings toward science then it starts to become a meaningless word.

I think the meaning of the word faith is not hard to understand. The religious have explained often enough that faith is not believing without evidence but is confidence in a truth. Scientists can have confidence in their truths too.

I can foozle science very much but if you disagree with what I mean by “foozle” is it really helping you understand my feelings?

All you need to do is tell me what you mean by "foozle," and then I will understand what you are talking about. I won't use other definitions because I would be misrepresenting what you're saying about "foozle." It would be dishonest and unfair for me to do that. Yet in the same way so many atheists keep twisting what the religious say about faith.

If faith in religious usage were the same as for science then I suppose I would be a religious scientist.

That doesn't follow at all. As a logician I've studied inductive logic which relies on faith as it's used in theology, and yet I'm not a "religious logician."

Yet I’m not.

You don't need to be religious to rely on faith.

Think about it: Do you rely want to avow that you have no faith in science? Would you want to cross a bridge designed by engineers who put no faith in engineering?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Name one religious group that defines faith that way and post a link to document it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Name one religious group that defines faith that way and post a link to document it.

I don't do arguments from authority.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Name one religious group that defines faith that way and post a link to document it.

I don't do arguments from authority.

Then no religious group defines faith the way you do. Let's be fair and honest, shall we?

 

[Shadowy Man]

That's fine, but it's important to know that the religious concept of faith is basically the same as the faith in science.

Well, since I don’t have faith in science it’s unclear to me what to make of your statement.

Faith in the context of science is the confidence that scientists place in a conclusion. It is how sure they are right about something. If you feel confident that evolution occurs after assessing evidence for it using logic, for example, then you have faith in that science.

Do you just dislike the word "faith"?

The word is fine. It just doesn't mean to me what it means to you. So when you use it in a sentence like "faith in that science" it implies something that isn't true to me.

If we want to use the word colloquially and so generally that it covers both religious faith and my feelings toward science then it starts to become a meaningless word.

I think the meaning of the word faith is not hard to understand. The religious have explained often enough that faith is not believing without evidence but is confidence in a truth. Scientists can have confidence in their truths too.

I, personally, have found that the evidence and logic that religious people use to justify their beliefs is fundamentally different than the evidence and logic that scientists use to justify their beliefs. That is what I meant by me not being a religious scientist. If the tenets of religion could be determined using the same paths of evidence and logic as the science I have studied then I would believe religion just as I believe science. However, whenever I have been presented with religious arguments that attempt to follow the same kind of reasoning as the science I have studied the results have come up extremely short.

I can foozle science very much but if you disagree with what I mean by “foozle” is it really helping you understand my feelings?

All you need to do is tell me what you mean by "foozle," and then I will understand what you are talking about. I won't use other definitions because I would be misrepresenting what you're saying about "foozle." It would be dishonest and unfair for me to do that. Yet in the same way so many atheists keep twisting what the religious say about faith.

Fair enough. I won't claim I know what you mean by the word "faith". But don't claim to know what I mean by it, because I don't use it the way you seem to imply that I would use it.

Think about it: Do you rely want to avow that you have no faith in science? Would you want to cross a bridge designed by engineers who put no faith in engineering?

Yes. I don't have "faith in science". My beliefs and understanding of science do not rely on anything I use the word "faith" for. I cross bridges with a TRUST that engineers have put in the due diligence to understand the science necessary to construct bridges and that there are governmental organizations that have been put in place to manage specifications and requirements on engineering that are based on centuries of tried and true physical laws backed up by experimentation and reliable quantitative results predicted by those laws. Sometimes, I wonder how much trust I should put having actually been a TA for a freshman physics class filled with engineering undergraduates, but I have worked with engineers for decades and I see how they do their work and I understand the physics that underpins their work. And some bridges do fall down because of shoddy work and/or corrupt oversight, but I overall have a TRUST in the work that has been done.

This is purely a semantic disagreement between us. I have a definition for the word "faith" that's different than yours. I know that the word "faith" colloquially means many things, but I, personally, don't use it in certain ways.

 

[steve_bank]

Like god, Christians use the word faith but can't quite define it. Everybody just sort of knows what it is.

The central most foundational belief in Christianity is the gospel tale of the resurrection. Without the resurrection there is no Christianity. Christians take it on 'faith' that the story is true, and find endless ways to rationalize the belief which has no evidence.

I am still womdering why Soldier wen on a plne does not fear it may just stop flying and fall. When yiu think about that you realize you have an implict trut of fath in most everyting. The wter will be there tomorrow along with a full grocery store.

In part faith is about coping with a relity none of us can control, which is the real value of relgious faith. A sense of certainty in an uncertain chaotic world.

I have faith od has a plan for me....no worries.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Then no religious group defines faith the way you do. Let's be fair and honest, shall we?

I am being fair and honest when I say I don't do arguments from authority. Lots of religious words are meaningless to people outside the cult. I could define resurrection as a dead man killed by being nailed to boards, buried and then coming back to life, walking through walls and flying up, up, and away like Superman. That's exactly what happened but it will never be described that way because it's embarrassingly accurate. If you take away all those hokey religious words there really isn't any religion left.

 

[DBT]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Name one religious group that defines faith that way and post a link to document it.

I don't do arguments from authority.

Then no religious group defines faith the way you do. Let's be fair and honest, shall we?

Perhaps it's in the interest of religious groups to define faith in ways that gives it legitimacy, a reasonable means by which to establish 'one's own truth.'

 

[bilby]

The religious have explained often enough that faith is not believing without evidence but is confidence in a truth.

Sure. But the "truth" in their case is something that they believe to be true, without (or despite) the evidence.

So it IS believing without evidence, but they also have faith (incorrectly) that it isn't.

I am not sure that the weight you give to their semantic confusion is warranted at all; Saying "Faith is believing without evidence" is completely warranted and an accurate description of what is happening, despite the denial of those engaging in it.

The religious have explained often enough that there is an afterlife in which good people can be rewarded for their goodness. They are wrong about that, too. Taking a religious "explanation" of anything at face value is a mug's game.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Faith is essentially the trust or confidence we place in a conclusion. As such, it is not necessarily religious. So, for example consider a climatologist who has studied the melting ice in Antarctica. She gathers a lot of data regarding the reduction of ice there and compares it to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere over the past decades. Based on the evidence available to her she concludes that yes, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is causing the ice to melt in Antarctica. The confidence she places in that conclusion is her faith.

So, here you give an example of a scientist putting “faith” in her conclusion . Could you now provide what you think is a comparable example of religious faith that results from the same level of evidentiary findings bolstered by a sound logical framework.

Maybe then I’ll have a better of idea of what you think the word “faith” means in a scientific context.

 

[DBT]

Believing that something is true without sufficient evidence is a common thing. It is something that we refer to as having faith. To have faith that a lost child turns up unharmed, to have faith that God will care for your family, that no harm comes to them is faith.

To believe in a Creator is faith, to feel you have a personal relationship with God is faith.

To expect physical things to behave as they always have through our experience with them is confidence and trust.

 

[Learner]

Like god, Christians use the word faith but can't quite define it. Everybody just sort of knows what it is.

But Christians can define the word faith. The bible uses ALL the definitions!

The central most foundational belief in Christianity is the gospel tale of the resurrection. Without the resurrection there is no Christianity. Christians take it on 'faith' that the story is true, and find endless ways to rationalize the belief which has no evidence.

I am still womdering why Soldier wen on a plne does not fear it may just stop flying and fall. When yiu think about that you realize you have an implict trut of fath in most everyting. The wter will be there tomorrow along with a full grocery store.

All definitions you'll find in the dictionary are quite synonymous with each other in terms of the bible - the variants of the word faith, work 'in conjunction together' - which is why Christians (even scientists) become believers. It usually starts with trust ( one variant of faith) - for the potential believer who is born AFTER the time of Christ. To trust is having faith in the authors who have written their reports and testimonies .

It starts with first with having faith in the human authors, which people of today, won't have witnessed those biblical events,(which eventually leads to having faith in God, which was the case for me). Basically, for some (the potential believer), may have had their attention drawn openly towards the scriptures by consciously (or sub-consciously) auto-recognising the emotional 'language' through psychological comparisons to there own. One example: The descriptions of the 'FAITH'(one of the variants of the word), strongly instructs, mandates, decrees being utmost truthful & righteous to each other etc. Basically: The fear of telling lies, corrupting the truth and being unrighteous etc., leads to death, which would be quite a psychological concern for believers.

 

[bilby]

The fear of telling lies, corrupting the truth and being unrighteous etc., leads to death, which would be quite a psychological concern for believers.

But no concern whatsoever for liars.

So how do you know which you are reading?

 

[steve_bank]

Learner makes my point

An endless stream of interpretation and rationalization. It occupies the mind and one foes not think about the reality around us. It is called an escape. No matter ho bad it gets there is an etrnal glorious afterlife.

Music, tv, movies, pro sports are all modern pop culture escapes.

When one contemplates our human condition too much one can end up face down drunk in a bar or with a needle in ones arm. I see it everyday in Seattle.

Religion makes sense as a way to cope. The problem is what people do and impose on others in the name of religion.

 

[DBT]

Escape from reality is big business.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Do you just dislike the word "faith"?

The word is fine.

Thank you for a straight answer! I don't get very many of those.

It just doesn't mean to me what it means to you. So when you use it in a sentence like "faith in that science" it implies something that isn't true to me.

But what faith means to me is irrelevant. I'm discussing what faith means to the religious and how their atheist critics use faith with a different meaning to strawman what the religious say about faith. So if you use the word "faith" when critiquing theology, then make sure you're using "faith" with the same meaning they do. Otherwise, you're committing a strawman fallacy.

I think the meaning of the word faith is not hard to understand. The religious have explained often enough that faith is not believing without evidence but is confidence in a truth. Scientists can have confidence in their truths too.

I, personally, have found that the evidence and logic that religious people use to justify their beliefs is fundamentally different than the evidence and logic that scientists use to justify their beliefs. That is what I meant by me not being a religious scientist.

Then religious persons must be "fundamentally different people" than scientists are which seems unlikely considering that many religious persons are scientists. It is very true that people like Christians are often bullheaded and irrational believing what they want despite evidence to the contrary, but anybody can be like that. Scientists can be that way too.

If the tenets of religion could be determined using the same paths of evidence and logic as the science I have studied then I would believe religion just as I believe science. However, whenever I have been presented with religious arguments that attempt to follow the same kind of reasoning as the science I have studied the results have come up extremely short.

That's your own point of view which I basically agree with. Yes, to me at least the evidence for religious claims seems weak, and the logic for those claims seems weak if not fallacious. Nevertheless, it appears that there's nothing blind about what most theologians say when they argue for the truth of their beliefs.

All you need to do is tell me what you mean by "foozle," and then I will understand what you are talking about. I won't use other definitions because I would be misrepresenting what you're saying about "foozle." It would be dishonest and unfair for me to do that. Yet in the same way so many atheists keep twisting what the religious say about faith.

Fair enough. I won't claim I know what you mean by the word "faith".

Again, the issue isn't what I mean by faith but what the religious mean by faith. All you need to do is search for what they mean by faith rather than rely on stereotypes or slogans. I guarantee that you won't find one sect that officially defines faith as blind acceptance of dogma.

Think about it: Do you rely want to avow that you have no faith in science? Would you want to cross a bridge designed by engineers who put no faith in engineering?

Yes. I don't have "faith in science". My beliefs and understanding of science do not rely on anything I use the word "faith" for. I cross bridges with a TRUST that engineers have put in the due diligence to understand the science necessary to construct bridges and that there are governmental organizations that have been put in place to manage specifications and requirements on engineering that are based on centuries of tried and true physical laws backed up by experimentation and reliable quantitative results predicted by those laws.

That's right! Everything you've posted here is trust in relevant truth. To be sure that bridges are safe, engineers take steps to be confident that their judgments about the structural integrity of those bridges are correct. That's basically what the religious mean by faith.

This is purely a semantic disagreement between us. I have a definition for the word "faith" that's different than yours.

What exactly is your definition of faith? It appears to be the same as that of the religious.