Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[DBT]

No. There is no absolutely "right" definition of faith or any word for that matter. What atheists like you are doing is twisting what the religious mean by faith by saying their faith is something different than what they say it is.

but isn’t it also a twist of the word “faith” to *equate* a religious believer’s faith in their god to a climate scientist’s ‘faith’ in science?

I already explained what the word "faith" means in the context of science and how it's like religious faith.

Isn’t that you claiming what a scientist thinks the word means when we don’t?

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. The difference between what I say about religious faith and what many atheists say about religious faith is that I base my understanding of religious faith on what the religious say it is while some atheists make up what religious faith is.

If these two situations are synonymous then the word has been devalued in meaning. That’s been my point on this thread.

The word faith has more than one meaning, of course. And if we refer to what somebody else means by faith, then the honest thing to do is make sure we don't say they mean something else.

It's not hard: the context in which a word is used determines its meaning in that instance.

So, wherever there are assumptions or beliefs being held without evidence, the definition of faith is 'a belief held without the support of evidence.'

 

[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.

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.

Has any scientist done that with dark matter, dark energy, or the multiverse?

 

[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.

Has any scientist done that with dark matter, dark energy, or the multiverse?

Yes, yes, and don’t really know. That last one is pretty speculative in my opinion and really isn’t driving physics, more of a philosophical thing.

 

[DBT]

Things such as dark energy, multiverse, etc, are being inferred or speculated, not believed or taught to be true and factual.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

You have some very serious reading comprehension problems. I never said either one of those.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

You have some very serious reading comprehension problems. I never said either one of those.

You are saying that scientists are misrepresenting what the word faith means. That means that you are saying what they think it should mean, that they are wrong in their definition.

You have also said you see no difference between the way that scientists believe what they do and the way religious believers believe what they do.

If these are not what you are meaning then I am miscomprehending indeed and I’ll happily bow out of the conversation because I would clearly not be adding anything useful to it.

 

[steve_bank]

So, Soldier takes what people write about science on faith....I'd say that is a religious kind of faith.

Kind of like believing the bible is the truth because it was inspired by...god.

I used to read Sci Amer evey month in the 80s and early 90s, until it devoved into more of a poualr science publication. More like the magazine Popular Science, sensationalinsm.

Astronomy and Sky And Telescope magazines had better general science than Sci Amer. I was into it. In the 80s I heard Dobson speak at a Stellahane conference in Vermont., Still exists.

Stellafane: Home of the Springfield Telescope Makers

Stellafane, Home of the Springfield Telescope Makers Inc., Springfield, Vermont, USA

stellafane.org

If you actually want to experience science for yourself a good low cast way is a local armature astronomy club. Amateurs build optical and radio telescopes. Be around people who talk science.

Another is amateur radio.

Keep in mind Clark and Azimov were science fiction writers.

Heresey to some, I thought Sagan was a bitO f a space cadet. He was more pop science than science. Nearing the end he admitted usng pot for inspiration.

Pop science is important, it creates interest in sceince. But it often presents speculative science as sciEnce fact. Time travel through a black hole. Faster tan light ravel.

Clark had a tv show that drifted into the pseudo science and supernatural. Everybody has to make a living.

Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

You have some very serious reading comprehension problems. I never said either one of those.

You are saying that scientists ...

No--some atheists...

what the word faith means. That means that you are saying what they think it should mean, that they are wrong in their definition.

...are misrepresenting what the religious say about their faith!

Sheesh--two big mis-readings of one sentence.

You have also said you see no difference between the way that scientists believe what they do and the way religious believers believe what they do.

Only insofar as both camps have faith.

If these are not what you are meaning then I am miscomprehending indeed...

Indeed you are.

...and I’ll happily bow out of the conversation because I would clearly not be adding anything useful to it.

Keep on trying. You should get it.

But before I go--please post what this sentence means in your own words:

Isaac Newton was a great scientist who had religious faith.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

You have some very serious reading comprehension problems. I never said either one of those.

You are saying that scientists ...

No--some atheists...

what the word faith means. That means that you are saying what they think it should mean, that they are wrong in their definition.

...are misrepresenting what the religious say about their faith!

Sheesh--two big mis-readings of one sentence.

Sorry.

You have also said you see no difference between the way that scientists believe what they do and the way religious believers believe what they do.

Only insofar as both camps have faith.

By your definition of the word.

If these are not what you are meaning then I am miscomprehending indeed...

Indeed you are.

...and I’ll happily bow out of the conversation because I would clearly not be adding anything useful to it.

Keep on trying. You should get it.

But before I go--please post what this sentence means in your own words:

Isaac Newton was a great scientist who had religious faith.

This would mean that he was a scientist who also was a religious person. I have known such people, too. But that doesn’t mean he came to his knowledge of physics through the same means as his faith in his religion.

Of course he was more of a “natural philosopher” than a “scientist”, per se, which for this discussion may be an important distinction.

How much do you know about Newton? How much do you know of Newtonian physics?

You seem to want there to be a dichotomy there for me to struggle with. But maybe I’m misreading you again so I shouldn’t assume anything.

 

[DBT]

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.

You have some very serious reading comprehension problems. I never said either one of those.

You are saying that scientists are misrepresenting what the word faith means. That means that you are saying what they think it should mean, that they are wrong in their definition.

You have also said you see no difference between the way that scientists believe what they do and the way religious believers believe what they do.

If these are not what you are meaning then I am miscomprehending indeed and I’ll happily bow out of the conversation because I would clearly not be adding anything useful to it.

You have already falsified your proposition. In one instance you falsified your claim that atheists get the idea of faith wrong when you were equivocating 'poster' in relation to two entirely different meanings of the word by ignoring context and multiple definitions of a word.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I already explained what the word "faith" means in the context of science and how it's like religious faith.

If anyting yiu are guilty of usng the logical faacyof false equivalence.

I have nver read Dawkins, although some seem to quote him like XChrtians the bible. I wtcd him in an interview and was not mporessed. He apeared to be more agnostic than atheist.

I have absolutly no use or interest for pop science and pop philosphy writers reghrless of any scientfic credentials.

Dawkins is a pop culture writer with a following.

You are conflating science with philosophy.

The only true definitions in science is the Sytems Inernational or SI primary and derved units. Like metres, kilograms, and seconds. There are no philosophical definitions in science. There are scientists who 'philosophize' but such philosophixng carries no weight or authority,.

International System of Units - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whether a new theory becomess accepted or not happens over time. Even good theories will have those who reject it.

The basic equation for current and voltage in a circuit is Ohm's Law, E = I*R where E is voltage across the resistor, I is current through the resistor, and R the resistance. George Simon Ohm developed it in the 19th century.

Since then it has bee used so much without problens that it is acceped and used withiut question. I used it so many times I didn't have to consiosly think it to use it.

I trust in the theory based on history, mathematical quantification and measurement, and experience., I do not have faith as in a religious faith.

Same with Neewtons Laws and the Laws Of Thermodynamics applied in our surface macroscopic reality. I know from experience that measured results always conform to theory.

Unlike science religious faith is not subject to physical experiment, test, and measurement. If it were so religion would be science not faith.

Soldier, your reaponse seems to be I define faith the way I want it to be, therefor it is right.

Keep in mis some of us on the forum have experience with both religion and science.

Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Not a philosopher, nor a theologian. He treats religion like a science. But it's not. So Dawkins ends up saying a lot of dumb stuff about religion.

What Dawkins is absolutely right about is his criticism of religious people trying to make their religion into a science. Which Unknownsoldier seems to also try to do. Ie Evangelical Christianity. Dawkins only attacks the dumbest form of religion. There's a lot of them though. But he will never be able to attack the core of why people are religious. He himself goes to Christian traditional rituals. Just because it's a British tradition for his family. So he must on some level get it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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?

Science is not a faith. It's super dangerous to speak of it as such. It poisons everything that science is supposed to be.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

I happen to know many scientists. I have them in the family. That's not how scientists talk. First off, evidence comes first, then theories. It's never the other way around. They're also perfectly happy with believing in many different theories all att once. Because each theory is a possible interpretation of the available data. They might push a theory as a thought experiment. But they tend to know the limits of human knowlege. It's the central tenet of their jobs.

If they're in any kind of field with media attention they are extremely careful with how they phrase themselves.

Yes, atheists need to take leaps of faith now and again. But it's important to understand that for most people this is a form of gambling. We take a leap of faith, in spite not having all the information because life is short.

 

[bilby]

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?

Science is not a faith. It's super dangerous to speak of it as such. It poisons everything that science is supposed to be.

Exactly.

Science is fundamentally founded in the idea that nothing should be taken on faith, that everything and everyone should be doubted, and that even the most tried and tested theories are to be discarded in the event that evidence is found to falsify them.

The contrast with religious faith could not be more stark.

 

[DBT]

Priests and Pastors encourage their flock to believe, to have faith, not question.

 

[Learner]

I questioned Christianity but In the end I became one of them.

 

[Learner]

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.

Hi Unknown Soldier, like you state in the above I concur with. It seems, that many atheists make errors in arguments about faith which they wouldn't make, if they had at least done some 'Philosophy of Science' ( I need to myself). Doctor of Philosophy or PhD does sound like an apt title in science - they got the title right from the start.

I'll use this video although this young man is Christian with the viewpoint, he does highlight some interesting points.



( I use several meanings of faith depending on the verses for context)

 

[DBT]

I questioned Christianity but In the end I became one of them.

Questioned it, how? The nature and evolution of its God? How the bible was put together?

 

[Tigers!]

Science is fundamentally founded in the idea that nothing should be taken on faith, that everything and everyone should be doubted, and that even the most tried and tested theories are to be discarded in the event that evidence is found to falsify them.

I seriously doubt that you doubt that you are rational and coherent.

 

[Tigers!]

Yes, atheists need to take leaps of faith now and again. But it's important to understand that for most people this is a form of gambling. We take a leap of faith, in spite not having all the information because life is short.

What do you mean by the word faith in the sentence above? Faith in what? Or is that faith blind?