Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[No Robots]

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

If your idea of the world conforms closely to the reality of the world, you will get along better within the world than if your idea of the world is widely divergent from the reality of the world.

 

[steve_bank]

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

If your idea of the world conforms closely to the reality of the world, you will get along better within the world than if your idea of the world is widely divergent from the reality of the world.

And of course that begs the ancient question 'What Is Reality?'.

So far science has the best model for dealing with physical reality. Physical reality is reduced to quantifiable measurable variables and quantities.

The extremes of religion include faith healing. Parents have rejected medical science and let kids die in modern times believing a cure and treatment is up to a supernatural god.

Or that natural dsastraers are punishments from god for homosexuality. And so on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

If your idea of the world conforms closely to the reality of the world, you will get along better within the world than if your idea of the world is widely divergent from the reality of the world.

Repating it doesn't actually explain it.

 

[ideologyhunter]

"If every trace of... religion was wiped out and nothing was passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again...If all of science was wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again." -Penn Jillette

ONE periodic table.
ONE blood typing system
ONE accepted analysis of...
botanical taxonomy
anatomy & function of the eye
geologic time scale
lifespan of stars
formula for centifrugal force
With the caveat that some of the science of the above (stars, for instance) is still being refined, THIS IS WHAT 'EVIDENCE-BASED' LOOKS LIKE.

Versus:
Number of religious traditions in the world today: at least 4000
Number of known gods and goddesses in history: a minimum of 18,000. That is what cultural transmission of community-specific lore looks like.
Which list has a strong tradition of verification and observation and the search for evidence? Which list has no overriding requirement for the norms of verification?

 

[Tigers!]

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

Professor Henry Higgins would have loved you.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

Well, that's your definition of faith. I don't know where you got it. Here's my understanding of faith which you can find in Wikipedia: Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.

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".

If the climatologist is confident that her conclusions are right, then she has faith at least as far as my definition is concerned.

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.

Uh no--I'm not saying that conclusions and faith are the same. Yes, conclusions can be tested or more accurately retested, and if they pass the tests, then that successful testing should inspire faith in the conclusions. In other words, if a conclusion is based on successful testing, then any sensible scientist will have confidence (i.e. faith) in that conclusion.

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.

That's not how the religious nor I define 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.

I've read this twice, and I'm still not sure what you're talking about.

 

[bilby]

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.

I believe it was Sir Issac Newton who observed "Name dropping Einstein, in an attempt to make his non-scientific musings appear as scientifically authoritative as his prize winning work in physics and mathematics, is just a variation on the tired old argument from authority fallacy".

 

[bilby]

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

If your idea of the world conforms closely to the reality of the world, you will get along better within the world than if your idea of the world is widely divergent from the reality of the world.

Yes, you probably would. But as you seem completely wedded to your bizarre religious beliefs, you will just have to get along as best you can despite them.

 

[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.

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.

The shape of the earth can be tested by anyone who cares to. But what about God? How are we to test the existence of God?

 

[Shadowy Man]

The shape of the earth can be tested by anyone who cares to. But what about God? How are we to test the existence of God?

According to No Robots “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.” So we need just measure the accuracy of understanding of reality and amount of harmony with oneself and the world that believers have and compare with non-believers. If believers are more harmonious and more accurately understand reality then god exists.

Simple, no?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The shape of the earth can be tested by anyone who cares to. But what about God? How are we to test the existence of God?

According to No Robots “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.” So we need just measure the accuracy of understanding of reality and amount of harmony with oneself and the world that believers have and compare with non-believers. If believers are more harmonious and more accurately understand reality then god exists.

Simple, no?

Oh oh oh!

My theory is God doesn't give a fuck about us.

Test:
Does God give a fuck about us?

Analysis:
WWII, The Holocaust, The Great War, The Black Death, children with cancer, Donald Trump no cancer, Partition, Firefly canceled.

Result:
I win!

 

[bilby]

If believers are more harmonious and more accurately understand reality then god exists.

Believers are, according to the historical record, constantly at war. Usually against people who believe something very similar, but subtly different. So much for 'more harmonious'

If you want to know how harmonious and in-touch with reality believers are, check out the grown-ass adults in Northern Ireland spitting at children for going to the school belonging to the "wrong" flavour of Christianity, or the fuckwits in the Middle East dropping bombs on each other for following the "wrong" version of Islam.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

The shape of the earth can be tested by anyone who cares to. But what about God? How are we to test the existence of God?

According to Jürgen Habermas God is the name we give to our hopes and dreams. As long as we have hopes and dreams God exists.

 

[James Brown]

Sounds like Daniel Dennett's "Belief in Belief."

If believing in the existence of God makes you a better person, then you should believe that God exists. What's more, if you become a better person by believing in the existence of God, then your belief is validated, and cannot be debunked.

At that point, whether God actually exists or not becomes irrelevant.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sounds like Daniel Dennett's "Belief in Belief."

If believing in the existence of God makes you a better person, then you should believe that God exists. What's more, if you become a better person by believing in the existence of God, then your belief is validated, and cannot be debunked.

At that point, whether God actually exists or not becomes irrelevant.

That would entirely depend on one's conception of what constitutes a "better person." Many religious folk are fixated on being rewarded for their behavior in a magical afterlife. That in itself is pretty selfish and juvenile.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Definitely a desperate drive for some to justify that faith is rational.

It is so important, yet it is based on very ancient claims.

To defend against that, the term and underlying concept gets manipulated in order to make it seem like faith is more common and within realms of the scientific or historic, falsifiable stuff.see, you think that is rational, so this is totally like that.

The odd thing is that faith is personal. So it really shouldn't matter to them how others see their faith. Yet it bothers them a great deal to defend it after bragging about it.

Strangely odd, the conflicting bravado and solemnity of faith.

 

[No Robots]

^There are two reasons for engaging with the materialist atheists. First, there may be some among them who are ripe for conversion. Second, their blather left unchallenged may continue to impact the general culture in a negative way.

 

[No Robots]

Oh, yeah, and a third reason is that engagement with an adversary can deepen and broaden our own views.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

^There are two reasons for engaging with the materialist atheists.

just to get something clear, almost all Christians, especially in the first world, are materialists.

First, there may be some among them who are ripe for conversion. Second, their blather left unchallenged may continue to impact the general culture in a negative way.

So insults then?

 

[No Robots]

^Present company excepted, of course.