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.

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.

It's the same as saying that, if the Earth is a sphere, then believing it is a sphere should give us a more accurate understanding of the Earth. This can be easily tested by circumnavigation.

 

[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.

It's the same as saying that, if the Earth is a sphere, then believing it is a sphere should give us a more accurate understanding of the Earth. This can be easily tested by circumnavigation.

I disagree. A sphere has a concrete definition that can be agreed to by all and quantitatively described and measured. And the consequences of a sphere follow from the mathematics of geometry, which can be provably demonstrated to all. “God” has no such definition. Nor does it have the structural framework ( a la geometry) agreed to by all from which the consequences of its existence naturally flow. It’s not the same.

To follow your logic you must be able to show that certain consequences *necessarily* (your word not mine) flow from the existence of “God”.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

Name one theologian who said that faith is blind.

People here have been quite helpful in helping you find all the quotes and references.

Like you they've failed to come up with one theologian who says faith is blind.

But you're just stubbornly sticking to your guns in spite all the evidence.

I'm stubbornly refusing to believe misinformation posted in an internet forum.

I think you are now demonstrating how blind faith works.

I demonstrated that when I started the thread knowing the denials of the facts that would ensue.

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.

Name one--oh, skip it. What's the use?

Secularists with a skeptical/scientiffic bent tend not to.

Is it OK if I disagree with this assertion?

 

[No Robots]

I disagree. A sphere has a concrete definition that can be agreed to by all and quantitatively described and measured. And the consequences of a sphere follow from the mathematics of geometry, which can be provably demonstrated to all. “God” has no such definition. Nor does it have the structural framework ( a la geometry) agreed to by all from which the consequences of its existence naturally flow. It’s not the same.

To follow your logic you must be able to show that certain consequences *necessarily* (your word not mine) flow from the existence of “God”.

I use Spinoza's definition of God.

We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal.--Einstein

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

It's the same as saying that, if the Earth is a sphere, then believing it is a sphere should give us a more accurate understanding of the Earth. This can be easily tested by circumnavigation.

You mean by using two towers like a Greek Mathematician did over 2000 years ago?

I disagree. A sphere has a concrete definition that can be agreed to by all and quantitatively described and measured. And the consequences of a sphere follow from the mathematics of geometry, which can be provably demonstrated to all. “God” has no such definition. Nor does it have the structural framework ( a la geometry) agreed to by all from which the consequences of its existence naturally flow. It’s not the same.

To follow your logic you must be able to show that certain consequences *necessarily* (your word not mine) flow from the existence of “God”.

I use Spinoza's definition of God.

We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal.--Einstein

So a completely useless definition that flies in the face of the more generalized public use of the word.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Atheists tend to see the idea of faith as weak, irrational, and the product of religion only while many of the religious think faith is quite sensible, universal and strong. I think that on this issue I must side with the religious. Faith doesn't need to be "blind," lacking in logic and evidence but can just as easily be supported be supported by sound thinking. Faith is essentially the trust or confidence we place in a conclusion.

Close. Faith is the trust or confidence we place in an arbitrary position on an indeterminate problem.

As such, it is not necessarily religious. So, for example consider a climatologist who has studied the melting ice in Antarctica.

Whoop, right there you are already out of bounds. We know there is CO2, an atmosphere, measurements within it. We have the laws of thermodynamics that govern these sorts of things regarding energy exchange. So we are already well outside the venue of "faith".

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.

You are mistaking scientific conclusion (which can be tested) with faith. If you define that as "faith", it really robs the word of any particular meaning. Faith is about arbitrarily held positions on problems we can't know the answers to. Theories are not faith.

Faith for a theist is often used to justify multiple positions, especially by those trying to show they aren't wrong. When useful, faith in god is a fact, other times, faith is left to unknown which makes it faith. Having done the web board thing back when it was a thing in the theism v atheism days, this much is has been experienced by many atheists. A theist can use faith as an unknown and show that if knowing god exists would rob the importance of the principle of faith and choice in believing (again, a paraphrase of several theists over the years, but that is the general line of it). However, at other times theists know their god exists... which flies in the face of faith.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I disagree. A sphere has a concrete definition that can be agreed to by all and quantitatively described and measured. And the consequences of a sphere follow from the mathematics of geometry, which can be provably demonstrated to all. “God” has no such definition. Nor does it have the structural framework ( a la geometry) agreed to by all from which the consequences of its existence naturally flow. It’s not the same.

To follow your logic you must be able to show that certain consequences *necessarily* (your word not mine) flow from the existence of “God”.

I use Spinoza's definition of God.

We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal.--Einstein

And I use the following definition for sphere:

the locus of all points in three-space equidistant from a given point.

Then it can be shown through the axioms of geometry that specific observable facts necessarily flow from this definition, such as the horizon distance for a point above the sphere, the arc length between two points on the sphere, and many others. And these can be measured and verified by any person using unbiased, mechanical measuring tools.

Can you tell me what specific consequences *necessarily* flow from the definition you provided and provide the theoretical framework that shows how they flow?

 

[Shadowy Man]

You are mistaking scientific conclusion (which can be tested) with faith. If you define that as "faith", it really robs the word of any particular meaning. Faith is about arbitrarily held positions on problems we can't know the answers to. Theories are not faith.

This is the thesis of this thread. Unknown Soldier is arguing that you are creating a definition of the word "faith" that is at odds with how religious believers define it. Therefore, your argument is a strawman fallacy.

As far as I can tell from the exchanges in this thread, the common aspects of "faith" as applied to both religion and science are this: faith is the belief in something based on having reasons to believe in it. Now, religious people and scientists have different reasons and different kinds of logic applied to those reasons, but Unknown Soldier seems to be arguing that the word "faith" applies equally to those two despite their differences.

I agree with you, Jimmy, that using a single word to describe two disparate situations indeed robs the word of meaning and lessens the ability of the language to distinguish between shades of meaning.

 

[steve_bank]

The words for today are contextual and nuance

Something contextual relies on its context or setting to make sense. If you touch someone and shout "You're it!" in a game of tag, people get it, but if you're in the grocery store tapping strangers on the shoulder and yelling at them, it's less contextual.

You can use the adjective contextual to describe what something means as it relates to a place, or meaning in a written text. If someone asks you what contextual reason you have for choosing an answer after reading a chapter, for example, you'll have an opinion in the context of what you read — it is contextual because it came out of the text. Activities are contextual too: riding a skateboard in a dance studio is not contextual, but doing ballet there would be.

Nuance
: a subtle distinction or variation

Can you use the new words in a sentence?

The word faith has several contextual and nuanced meanings.

 

[No Robots]

Can you tell me what specific consequences *necessarily* flow from the definition you provided and provide the theoretical framework that shows how they flow?

I have provided one already, namely, that belief in such a god, if he does exist, necessarily entails a superior understanding and therefore superior relationship with the world and oneself.

Einstein has also indicated that the existence of such a god necessarily reveals itself "in the order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal."

 

[steve_bank]

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.

RATHER than contend science there is a new Christian approach, science proves faith and god's existence.

In the context of the day and history what those 'slavers' did was remarkable.

Note tart Jefferson was a Deist who produced a version of the NT without the supernatural elements of Jesus. He was attacked by Christians politically for his relgious views.

They were complex people in complex times. Without COTUS as it ended up we might have had a Christian theorcay with a state religion.

Jefferson pushed separation of church and state.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I disagree that it is contextual. While I agree the word "faith" can be used in a more diluted sense, this is much more about trying to apply a false analogy. Like people calling atheism a religion.

Using the word faith with science is close to an insult.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can you tell me what specific consequences *necessarily* flow from the definition you provided and provide the theoretical framework that shows how they flow?

I have provided one already, namely, that belief in such a god, if he does exist, necessarily entails a superior understanding and therefore superior relationship with the world and oneself.

But how does this work? The person believing in the false god and the person believing in the true god, both believe their god exists, therefore they'd both think they have a superior relationship with the world, but only one of them would.

Einstein has also indicated that the existence of such a god necessarily reveals itself "in the order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal."

Einstein was wrong about stuff too. Pretty big things. It is important to remember that the universe is beholden to no one's gut feeling.

 

[James Brown]

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 people choose their religion with the same thought and care that they use to choose their primary language.

 

[No Robots]

But how does this work? The person believing in the false god and the person believing in the true god, both believe their god exists, therefore they'd both think they have a superior relationship with the world, but only one of them would.

The proof is in the pudding. The person with the superior understanding of the true nature of god should manifest superior relationships with himself and with the world. A single person can try different conceptions in order to test their validity in this way.

 

[steve_bank]

The Pudding Proof Of The Existence Of God.

An astounding leap forward in theology.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But how does this work? The person believing in the false god and the person believing in the true god, both believe their god exists, therefore they'd both think they have a superior relationship with the world, but only one of them would.

The proof is in the pudding. The person with the superior understanding of the true nature of god should manifest superior relationships with himself and with the world. A single person can try different conceptions in order to test their validity in this way.

Superior relationship with the world? WTF does that even mean? What a nonsensical and useless measuring stick.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Can you tell me what specific consequences *necessarily* flow from the definition you provided and provide the theoretical framework that shows how they flow?

I have provided one already, namely, that belief in such a god, if he does exist, necessarily entails a superior understanding and therefore superior relationship with the world and oneself.

You have not shown how it *necessarily* does anything. You are just stating it. There's not logical framework presented that allows one to go from the premises to necessary consequences. Like there is with geometry and the consequences of a spherical Earth.

 

[bilby]

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 people choose their religion with the same thought and care that they use to choose their primary language.

Sure, but English is clearly the one true language. It has more converts than most other languages, is more widely spoken, and is quite obviously the best. Indeed, other languages are really just misunderstandings and corruptions of English.

Those who speak languages other than English are obviously ridiculous, and those who (heretically) speak dialects or with accents other than mine are just ridiculous.

It's very obvious to me that the world would be a much better place if everyone would just convert to my dialect of English, and stop pretending that other dialects, or even more ridiculously, other languages, are real languages at all.

English enables people to have a superior relationship with the universe.

/parody

 

[Shadowy Man]

Einstein has also indicated that the existence of such a god necessarily reveals itself "in the order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal."

Can you point me to a physics journal article in which he shows this? I'd be happy to read it.