Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[No Robots]

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

Nonsense. People test their faith all the time. If god exists, then X necessarily follows, where X is whatever you want to verify.

 

[abaddon]

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.)

My guess is he read somewhere that people can define their terms at the start of a discussion. People can reasonably assert "For this discussion I will define X as such-n-such". This is allowable in rational discourse. Then people can show the definition doesn't work when you compare it against reality.

But Unknown Soldier twisted "can define their terms" into "you can't compare their definition against reality, you must just agree".

 

[abaddon]

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

Nonsense. People test their faith all the time. If god exists, then X necessarily follows, where X is whatever you want to verify.

That's the comparing to reality I just mentioned above. It's not an issue of the definition being a true claim by a select set of people. It's "if it's like this, then X should follow".

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

And when that evidence is shown to be false do they stop believing?

 

[DBT]

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

Nonsense. People test their faith all the time. If god exists, then X necessarily follows, where X is whatever you want to verify.

Test their faith....how? Can you give an example?

 

[Shadowy Man]

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

Nonsense. People test their faith all the time. If god exists, then X necessarily follows, where X is whatever you want to verify.

Test their faith....how? Can you give an example?

Like this?

God is the creator of the universe. The universe exists. Therefore god exists.

Am I doing it right?

 

[steve_bank]

The religious test of faith is whether you keep believing when things go bad for you.

God rained a shit storm on Job to test his 'faith'.

You are sick and pray for a healing and it does not come. A test of faith, do you continue to believe?

There are no objective measurable tests for a faith in religion. Otherwise it would be science not religion.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The religious test of faith is whether you keep believing when things go bad for you.

God rained a shit storm on Job to test his 'faith'.

You are sick and pray for a healing and it does not come. A test of faith, do you continue to believe?

There are no objective measurable tests for a faith in religion. Otherwise it would be science not religion.

But we are being told that faith in science is the same as faith in religion.

 

[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.

And when that evidence is shown to be false do they stop believing?

The unreasonable fools! It just goes to show that belief can go on happily despite the strongest evidence to the contrary. You know--like the proof that the religious don't base their faith on reason or evidence.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

And when that evidence is shown to be false do they stop believing?

The unreasonable fools! It just goes to show that belief can go on happily despite the strongest evidence to the contrary. You know--like the proof that the religious don't base their faith on reason or evidence.

I already conceded that the religious base their faith on reason and evidence. So don’t argue that with me.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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

Nonsense. People test their faith all the time. If god exists, then X necessarily follows, where X is whatever you want to verify.

And how would assure that X *necessarily* follows?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

No, you didn't. Quite the opposite. You have made some statements that go right against all the major theolgians of Christianity. People here have been quite helpful in helping you find all the quotes and references. But you're just stubbornly sticking to your guns in spite all the evidence.

I think you are now demonstrating how blind faith works.

Yes, in practice faith can be blind, but that's true for the irreligious as well as the religious.

Another false statement. Christians/Christianity who have paid attention to what the Bible actually says take pride in their faith being blind. Secularists with a skeptical/scientiffic bent tend not to.

This BTW is one of those interesting contradictions in early Christianity. Because the early church fetishised reading and writing. If you wanted to be a priest it was an absolute requirement that you could read and write. Which for the early church was a pretty stiff requirement. Since so few could read and write. Those that could read and write had gone through the rigorous and high quality Roman schooling system. They would have been required to have absorbed the standard Roman curriculum, which included Greek philosophy (Aristotelian logic). This means that when those (early Christian theologians) who wrote the Bible argued for blind faith, they knew exactly what they were doing. It's not something that slipped in because they were stupid. They wrote it into the Bible on purpose. The contradition is that they were extremely well educated yet were arguing against education. And this extreme focus on higher learning kept going after Christianity became the official state religion. Not only did it keep going, but it expanded. Ignoring the little unfortunate incident of the Dark Ages (AD 470 to about 900 AD when a succession of Germanic rulers took over western Rome and strong armed the church into accepting illiterate crony bishops, popes and priests related to the kings).

 

[steve_bank]

The religious test of faith is whether you keep believing when things go bad for you.

God rained a shit storm on Job to test his 'faith'.

You are sick and pray for a healing and it does not come. A test of faith, do you continue to believe?

There are no objective measurable tests for a faith in religion. Otherwise it would be science not religion.

But we are being told that faith in science is the same as faith in religion.

Around the circle we go. back to defining what faith and what science means.

As I said for me I have a trust in science not a relgious kind of faith.

The religious Christian belief is absolute. God exists and Jesus rose from the dead.

Science has been wrong. The history of science has been one of continuous revolution. All theories are in principle subject to revsion.


Carver Meade was not as well know as others like AE. In n intervene Meade was asked if an electron exists.

He said he did not know if an electron exists as envisioned, but he knows he can do useful things with the concept. That is my view. Using theories transistors and lasers are designed. The efficacy of scientific theories manifest in physical reality.



You can argue existence of an electron is circumstantial, and all particles are an interpretion of macro scale respnoses on instrumentation. Like a mass spectrometer.

Is it a religious kind of faith to have confidense in the modern particle model of reality? The Stadard Model.

I don't think so. There is no supernatural ivolved Experiments of the model are repeatable.

Whether prayer works or not is an unrepeatable subjective interpretation. The polar opposite of sciience.

Science and religion use the same mnetal faculties of logic and reasoning. That reilgion and scince use the same reaong and logic to reach conclusions does not make religious faith and trust n science the same. Which is Soldiers apparent argument.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If being "evidence based" was an important quality in religious faith, there wouldn't be approximately 4000 religions being practiced today, and history wouldn't record a pantheon of 18,000 gods and goddesses (mostly defunct.)
How many periodic tables are there?
Atheists are in the main correct in their assessments of faith (in the religious sense, not in the sense of knowing where your car keys are) and correct in their cautions that it cancels out the most powerful attribute we can have as humans: critical thinking.

I don't give a damn what a religionist says about his faith or how he defines it. Our Declaration of Independence was written by a slaver. Mission statements are by their nature deceptive.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It never ceases to amaze me about this forum, that it is a skeptics forum, so mostly atheists, and is a magnet for Evangelical Christians, who without fail get schooled on the Bible by us, a bunch of atheists. I don't understand how it's possible for someone who calls themselves religious, to lack an interest in that same religion.

 

[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.

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?

Some of column A, some of column B. Christians like to cite Jesus as to why some of the laws and rules of the Old Testament no longer apply (Column A). And of course, Christian folk don't give a bleep about the Sabbath (Column B).

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.

You're familiar with? That is a weak attempt of trying to ignore Christianity as a whole, argument via ignorance. Christianity is generally ignoring a number of the rules of the Tanakh. Don't take my word for it, ask the Christians.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Nonsense. People test their faith all the time. If god exists, then X necessarily follows, where X is whatever you want to verify.

This is usually the theist trap on faith.

A) Faith can't be tested, because otherwise it isn't faith. (implies faith means trust in the unknown)
B) I have faith because I know in my heart it is true. (implies faith in something known to be true)

We also see the testing of faith in the faith trap of tragedies, as people cope or celebrate via relief.

A) It was God's plan for her to go.
B) It was a miracle of God she survived!

The problem with your statement that people "test their faith" is that in science, it isn't remotely enough for one person to test something. It has to be verifiable by others. This doesn't work with faith., I mean not without a ton of obfuscation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It never ceases to amaze me about this forum, that it is a skeptics forum, so mostly atheists, and is a magnet for Evangelical Christians, who without fail get schooled on the Bible by us, a bunch of atheists. I don't understand how it's possible for someone who calls themselves religious, to lack an interest in that same religion.

On the face of it, it would seem peculiar, but there is a notable thing to keep in mind. People usually don't seek out faith and religion, they are born into it. It isn't a hobby, it is a just-so thing that stands on its own, not to be questioned well.

Many atheists don't have a religious agenda, and that allows them to review this material with a clear mind. Granted, a good deal of stuff that I learned on the Tanakh and New Testament was taught at a Christian College, but in no way in a manner that was using the Bible to justify its legitimacy. So it is possible for Christians to do it too, but they have to seek it, and as I noted, most Christians are born to it. It is nothing more than a routine.

 

[No Robots]

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

Nonsense. People test their faith all the time. If god exists, then X necessarily follows, where X is whatever you want to verify.

And how would assure that X *necessarily* follows?

Well, here's an example. If god exists, then believing that he exists should result in a more accurate understanding of reality and thus a more harmonious relationship with oneself and with the world at large. This is pretty easily verified. Of course, a lot depends on how one defines god.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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

Nonsense. People test their faith all the time. If god exists, then X necessarily follows, where X is whatever you want to verify.

And how would assure that X *necessarily* follows?

Well, here's an example. If god exists, then believing that he exists should result in a more accurate understanding of reality and thus a more harmonious relationship with oneself and with the world at large.

Can you prove this assertion? If an argument’s premises are flawed the argument is flawed even if the logic is sound.

You said “necessarily” so the onus is on you to prove the necessity.