Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[Unknown Soldier]

is that not exactly what is happening here?

Yes. Scientific illiteracy and religious faith are near identical human behaviors. There isn't any fault or blame to be made of such. Apparently having an apple snack with a talking snake some time ago didn't work to fix the problem.

Yes, in practice religious belief can result in a rejection of science most notably The Theory of Evolution and The Big Bang Theory. But as we've seen on this thread, having animosity toward religion can also result in rejection of facts. There are times when our judgment becomes clouded by our fears which can result in denial. Atheists as well as the religious can experience denial.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

is that not exactly what is happening here?

Yes. Scientific illiteracy and religious faith are near identical human behaviors. There isn't any fault or blame to be made of such. Apparently having an apple snack with a talking snake some time ago didn't work to fix the problem.

Yes, in practice religious belief can result in a rejection of science most notably The Theory of Evolution and The Big Bang Theory. But as we've seen on this thread, having animosity toward religion can also result in rejection of facts. There are times when our judgment becomes clouded by our fears which can result in denial. Atheists as well as the religious can experience denial.

So you agree that the two faiths are quite different even though the same word is used?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I don't know how scientists define faith, but I do know that scientists have faith that is basically like religious faith only without the supernatural..

How do you know this? Are you a scientist? Have you spoken to many scientists about what they believe and why? Have you discussed with them what the religious believe and why and asked them if that’s how they feel about science?

Or are you putting words in the mouths of scientists in a way like your complaining atheists go to the religious?

Scientists, at least ideally, believe what they do because they have evidence to support it as well as valid reasons to conclude that the evidence supports their theories. The confidence they place in such conclusions is what faith is. Granted, many atheists may reject the word "faith" because of its negative connotations, but they still have faith as it is traditionally understood.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

is that not exactly what is happening here?

Yes. Scientific illiteracy and religious faith are near identical human behaviors. There isn't any fault or blame to be made of such. Apparently having an apple snack with a talking snake some time ago didn't work to fix the problem.

Yes, in practice religious belief can result in a rejection of science most notably The Theory of Evolution and The Big Bang Theory. But as we've seen on this thread, having animosity toward religion can also result in rejection of facts. There are times when our judgment becomes clouded by our fears which can result in denial. Atheists as well as the religious can experience denial.

So you agree that the two faiths are quite different even though the same word is used?

No.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I don't know how scientists define faith, but I do know that scientists have faith that is basically like religious faith only without the supernatural..

How do you know this? Are you a scientist? Have you spoken to many scientists about what they believe and why? Have you discussed with them what the religious believe and why and asked them if that’s how they feel about science?

Or are you putting words in the mouths of scientists in a way like your complaining atheists go to the religious?

Scientists, at least ideally, believe what they do because they have evidence to support it as well as valid reasons to conclude that the evidence supports their theories. The confidence they place in such conclusions is what faith is. Granted, many atheists may reject the word "faith" because of its negative connotations, but they still have faith as it is traditionally understood.

You didn't answer my question. Are you a scientist yourself? On what basis are you claiming what scientists believe and why?

Look, I understand what you're trying to say here, but I just happen to disagree. I think that using the same word -- "faith" -- for scientists and religious believers diminishes a very important distinction between how the two reach their beliefs.

 

[Shadowy Man]

is that not exactly what is happening here?

Yes. Scientific illiteracy and religious faith are near identical human behaviors. There isn't any fault or blame to be made of such. Apparently having an apple snack with a talking snake some time ago didn't work to fix the problem.

Yes, in practice religious belief can result in a rejection of science most notably The Theory of Evolution and The Big Bang Theory. But as we've seen on this thread, having animosity toward religion can also result in rejection of facts. There are times when our judgment becomes clouded by our fears which can result in denial. Atheists as well as the religious can experience denial.

So you agree that the two faiths are quite different even though the same word is used?

No.

Herein lies the problem.

 

[ideologyhunter]

That dog will never reach its tail.
The propositions, definitions, hypotheses, standards of experimentation, theories, and peer review structure in physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, et al., have next to nothing in common with the propositions, definitions, creeds, and orthodox positions of Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, et al. If all churches were required to demonstrate their claims in terms that could be independently verified, they'd be turned into Starbucks in short order.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You didn't answer my question. Are you a scientist yourself?

Not professionally.

On what basis are you claiming what scientists believe and why?

I base that on my reading books and magazines about science. Some of my favorite authors of scientific works include Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sean M. Carroll. I also subscribe to Scientific American. All these sources accept as true that which is based on sound reasoning (supporting evidence and valid logic). That acceptance is what is known as faith.

Look, I understand what you're trying to say here, but I just happen to disagree. I think that using the same word -- "faith" -- for scientists and religious believers diminishes a very important distinction between how the two reach their beliefs.

Why do you hate the word "faith"? Do you see faith as weak, silly, or gullible? Would it be more acceptable to you if I said that scientists trust and place confidence in any theory based in sound thinking?

Personally, I have no trouble with saying I have faith in what seems legitimate or trustworthy. For example, I have faith in science although it's not a strong faith.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That dog will never reach its tail.
The propositions, definitions, hypotheses, standards of experimentation, theories, and peer review structure in physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, et al., have next to nothing in common with the propositions, definitions, creeds, and orthodox positions of Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, et al. If all churches were required to demonstrate their claims in terms that could be independently verified, they'd be turned into Starbucks in short order.

I'd say that the quality of evidence differs markedly between science and religion. The evidence that scientific theories are based on is for the most part literally substantial (e.g. fossil evidence for evolution) while religion tends to rely heavily on eye-witness testimony and stories for evidence.

The logic employed by both camps, on the other hand, is much more similar. Both the religious and scientists make use of inductive logic, for example.

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier's primary mistake is painting 'science' as some kind of monolithic ideological block which it is not.

There is no pope of science or committee that decides what is and what is not. There is no autrity that defines any philosophy regarding science.

Science is comprised of individuals. Indvuidals who have the usal spectrum of beliefs and philisophical perspectives.

To me the bauty of science and the applied science of engineering is something works quantitatively and measurably or it does not.

There was a saying invoked when techicl debate derauled into perosnal opinion and philoosphy, 'science always works'.

Meaning no matter how you think about science and theory it always works. There is no faith involved.

With relgious faith one can pray and trust in god. When things go wrng for you you can sy yiu still have faith, god has something else in my mind for you. I have heard that personally.

That is religious faith.

When you really see sceince for what it is, a mass of imdivduasls with different views withut a central authority, it is a mracle we end up with a coherent science.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You didn't answer my question. Are you a scientist yourself?

Not professionally.

On what basis are you claiming what scientists believe and why?

I base that on my reading books and magazines about science. Some of my favorite authors of scientific works include Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sean M. Carroll. I also subscribe to Scientific American. All these sources accept as true that which is based on sound reasoning (supporting evidence and valid logic). That acceptance is what is known as faith.

Look, I understand what you're trying to say here, but I just happen to disagree. I think that using the same word -- "faith" -- for scientists and religious believers diminishes a very important distinction between how the two reach their beliefs.

Why do you hate the word "faith"? Do you see faith as weak, silly, or gullible? Would it be more acceptable to you if I said that scientists trust and place confidence in any theory based in sound thinking?

Personally, I have no trouble with saying I have faith in what seems legitimate or trustworthy. For example, I have faith in science although it's not a strong faith.

I don’t “hate” the word I just don’t agree on your definition so it’s not the right word for me to use. Anymore than I “hate” when people use ‘anxious’ when they mean ‘eager’.

I know you disagree with my definition of the word and that is fine. I can’t make you believe otherwise or change what it means to you.

I am a professional scientist and I’ve talked to many other professional scientists, even religious ones (they do exist). I’ve never written the word “faith” in any of my papers not read it in any paper.

You may say that I have co-opted the word and changed its meaning from the way that others use it. But that happens all the time and sometimes new connotations get associated with words and symbols and we can’t get rid of them. As you said earlier with the word “gay”. I could still use it to mean “happy” but I would likely be misunderstood by most others, no matter how much I might argue that the word has been co-opted.

I still believe that the way religious believers believe what they do is different than the way scientists do and so there is linguistic value in using different words to distinguish them. Most other scientists agree with me and you are likely to get the same response from them if you ask them do they believe in science by “faith”.

 

[Shadowy Man]

How many religious people have you heard say “I have faith in the existence of god but if better evidence turns up I will change that belief”?

 

[Shadowy Man]

If we follow your line of thinking it would be perfectly reasonable for a scientist to write in their paper “we have faith in the result to the 3-sigma level”.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I base that on my reading books and magazines about science. Some of my favorite authors of scientific works include Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sean M. Carroll. I also subscribe to Scientific American. All these sources accept as true that which is based on sound reasoning (supporting evidence and valid logic). That acceptance is what is known as faith.

In your dreams.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

How many religious people have you heard say “I have faith in the existence of god but if better evidence turns up I will change that belief”?

Apologist William Lane Craig said essentially that. For instance, if somebody found a logical inconsistency in the concept of God, then Craig said doing so would disprove God.

 

[ideologyhunter]

That is as silly as the Christians (I've heard quite a few of them) who say, "Well, evolution is only a theory!! It's just a guess."

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I base that on my reading books and magazines about science. Some of my favorite authors of scientific works include Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sean M. Carroll. I also subscribe to Scientific American. All these sources accept as true that which is based on sound reasoning (supporting evidence and valid logic). That acceptance is what is known as faith.

In your dreams.

You don't believe I subscribe to Scientific American?

 

[Shadowy Man]

How many religious people have you heard say “I have faith in the existence of god but if better evidence turns up I will change that belief”?

Apologist William Lane Craig said essentially that. For instance, if somebody found a logical inconsistency in the concept of God, then Craig said doing so would disprove God.

And a scientist would have to come up with a working definition of god and a mathematical framework from which one could make observable predictions to first prove god.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That is as silly as the Christians (I've heard quite a few of them) who say, "Well, evolution is only a theory!! It's just a guess."

What can be sillier than a bunch of insecure atheists denying what the religious say about their faith?

 

[Shadowy Man]

That is as silly as the Christians (I've heard quite a few of them) who say, "Well, evolution is only a theory!! It's just a guess."

What can be sillier than a bunch of insecure atheists denying what the religious say about their faith?

You are more making a claim of what scientists think faith should be than I am of saying what the religious should say about their faith. They can say whatever they want about their faith. The issue is with equating their faith with science.