Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Science has been poisoned by the religious so much, for so long, I'm pretty certain T.G.G. Moogly won't cause any waves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

So you follow a Jew, but ignore the laws of his religion. Yeah, that is some good questioning.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Bush II on teaching intelligent design along with evolution through natural selection, in public schools: "Both sides ought to be properly taught...so people can understand what the debate is about." (8/1/'05) Right, that raging debate among paleontologists as to whether or not all animal species originated on one day, and included snakes that apparently walked upright (and at least one that talked.)

(aargh... I meant this to flow directly from post 321, but missed my moment.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bush II on teaching intelligent design along with evolution through natural selection, in public schools: "Both sides ought to be properly taught...so people can understand what the debate is about." (8/1/'05) Right, that raging debate among paleontologists as to whether or not all animal species originated on one day, and included snakes that apparently walked upright (and at least one that talked.)

(aargh... I meant this to flow directly from post 321, but missed my moment.)

link to NY Times article on this quote. Should be editorialized to note that the quote provided above is a combination of two quotes, one when he was Governor of Texas and one as President when asked if he still felt that way.

Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Mr. Bush was pressed as to whether he accepted the view that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution, but he did not directly answer. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Different ideas, yes. Crap ideology being shilled as science (and not particularly good science)? No! It was interesting, however, that he couldn't just say that ID should be in school directly. W wasn't particularly bright and probably didn't even know what ID (or evolution?) was.

 

[Learner]

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

So you follow a Jew, but ignore the laws of his religion. Yeah, that is some good questioning.

You were able to deduce all that from a mere short sentence?

Your post is at home with the faith topic.

 

[TomC]

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?

I don't want to speak for Zoid. But this isn't hard for me to understand.

People draw conclusions and make decisions all the time on insufficient information. Broadly speaking, that's often referred to as faith.
For example, I believe that I could go start my car and drive somewhere. It's well maintained and reliable, but it's 20 years old and occasionally develops problems. I wouldn't trust it go to California, but I have faith it would easily get to the grocery store and back.

A much bigger leap of faith was opening my own business, a custom framing/art store. I was excellent with customers, design, and craftsmanship. Bookkeeping and business skills, not so much. Spending my meager life savings on equipment and inventory, then signing a 3 year lease on a space, was definitely a leap of faith.

Which is why, IMHO, this conversation is kinda useless. Faith means all kinds of things to different people in different contexts. The OP is complaining that not everyone uses the word precisely the way he wants it used.
Tough luck.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

So you follow a Jew, but ignore the laws of his religion. Yeah, that is some good questioning.

You were able to deduce all that from a mere short sentence?

Yes, that is what it means to be Christian.

Your post is at home with the faith topic.

I'm sorry you don't understand that Jesus was Jewish and didn't suggest abandoning a part of the Ten Commandments.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Which is why, IMHO, this conversation is kinda useless. Faith means all kinds of things to different people in different contexts.

Religious usage of the word "faith" is certainly in part a way to avoid having to be honest with oneself. And if the tactic of never having to face any "how" questions wrt practicing a religion gets one through life maybe that isn't such a bad thing. I'm too curious about how things work so can't accept claims about ghosts and souls and gods and afterlives without evidence that meets scientific rigor.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Hi Unknown Soldier,

Hola Learner!

like you state in the above I concur with.

Then you are obviously perceptive and prudent.

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.

As I explained they don't even need to do that; they can just ask the religious what they mean by faith or look it up. I've posted my own search results that have falsified what the atheists here say the religious mean by faith, all of that to no avail.

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

I like Aron Ra and agree with him on most issues. I think he uses a lot of hyperbole which many people take too literally.

 

[bilby]

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.

It's a working hypothesis. No other is currently supported by evidence available to me, nor seems able to yield any useful results. But it's not a certainty, nor even close to one.

Be careful what you wish for though - if I am crazy, then you are probably imaginary...

 

[steve_bank]

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.

That a philosophizer has science credentials does not make his or her opinions on science truth.

To me [eole like Dawkins are the flip side of the atheist theist coin. People quote Dawkins as Christians quote the bible. IMO same social phenomena.

Hawking omnce d said 'a back hole is god's way of keeping things secret form us'. Or something like that.

Being a scientist without discussing what that means does not confer any special wisdom or sanity or rationality.

The practice of science is a skill that is learned from theory and experience. It is a job.

I worked with a physicist in the 80s who had worked at MIT Lincoln Labs. As he put it people went to work and went home. He was into amateur sports car racing. I spent time at his house with him and his family. We talked politics and music, never philosophy.

 

[bilby]

Hawking omnce d said 'a back hole is god's way of keeping things secret form us'. Or something like that.

And Einstein said he didn't believe that God plays dice.

But neither man was saying they believed in actual Gods; They were just using language in a way that conveyed their central point, without regard for the misinterpretations that might be made of their words by the unscrupulous.

That's why God created metaphors.

 

[steve_bank]

On philosophy threads Soldier said he read books on math which made him a mathematician.

Then he told us we did not get math, math is wrong, and we are all stupid.

Now he reads Carrier and presumes to tell us we are all wrong.

I am sensimg a recurring theme here.

 

[Learner]

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

So you follow a Jew, but ignore the laws of his religion. Yeah, that is some good questioning.

You were able to deduce all that from a mere short sentence?

Yes, that is what it means to be Christian.

Do you mean in context that in order to be Christian, it is declared through the doctrines that "believers should ignore the laws?" Or that, Christians are simply ignoring the laws, going against the Gospel doctrines, as they see fit?

The first is erroneous, the second can happen.
Neither is for me.

Your post is at home with the faith topic.

I'm sorry you don't understand that Jesus was Jewish and didn't suggest abandoning a part of the Ten Commandments.

The Christianity I'm familiar with, understands 'Jesus didn't come to a abolish the law. I can agree to that understanding.

 

[No Robots]

Everyone knows Jesus is a Jew.

Hit Christian TV show ‘The Chosen’ is all about Jesus. So why is it so Jewish?​

Even the antisemites have stopped denying it. That leaves only the mythicists.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

On philosophy threads Soldier said he read books on math which made him a mathematician.

Most mathematicians read math books to learn math, of course. I also "explore" by trying to come up with my own ideas.

Then he told us we did not get math, math is wrong...

I noticed on a thread in the logic section that some members here were making some vague comments about the relation between logic and math. I explained that that relation is much more precisely defined than what was being posted on that thread.

...and we are all stupid.

We all earn our own reputations. Try reading a math book and see if that helps.

Now he reads Carrier and presumes to tell us we are all wrong.

Yes, I've read some of Carrier's works and watched his videos, but I have no idea why you raised that issue.

I am sensimg a recurring theme here.

I am sensing that you lost me.

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier, I hear you knockin' but you can't come in.

This kind of debate is entertaining and passes the time, but it has no effect on anything. The wrorld still turns and science moves forward and established science still works regardless of one's opinions.

I was immersed in science for most of my adult life, so I can speak from experience.

You are making gross arguments with gross generalizations. The big one is referring to science as some knd of monolithic view.

The iconic image of an Einstein standing in front of a blackboard writing equations all day is mostly a cultural stereotype. AE certainly had his share of idiosyncrasies.

Abstract academic science is a small part of science. For example cosmology and partcle physics.

Most of science includes industrial research and applied science, which includes engineering.

Different people with different beliefs, views, and goals. Just like everybody else.

People like Carrier have no meaning for me. For me and the people I knew we all just enjoyed the work. Science was an experience not a concept or view. Not a philosophy.

The opinion of a Carrier is just that. It carries no authority. It is science for the masses.

Seriously,put down the books and join a local astronomy club and hang out with some people who talk and do science. Kids today are becoming immersed in science.

 

[DBT]

Theory in science is tested while theology in religion is taught and accepted on faith....and never the twain shall meet.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Claiming that the faith in X is evidence-based -- and defining the faith as such -- is no substitute for demonstrating that the faith is evidence-based. That's the flaw in this OP (and especially in the deathless post at #251 where the case was supposedly proved.)

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Claiming that the faith in X is evidence-based -- and defining the faith as such -- is no substitute for demonstrating that the faith is evidence-based.

Yes. Of course. The religious offer some tangible evidence like the Shroud of Turin.

That's the flaw in this OP (and especially in the deathless post at #251 where the case was supposedly proved.)

I proved that the religious for the most part officially don't define faith as "blind." To deny this fact is blind. Yes, in practice faith can be blind, but that's true for the irreligious as well as the religious.