Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[Shadowy Man]

Contrary to what you say, faith is an essential part of critical thinking.

You are torturing the word "faith" especially as it applies to religious belief. Having "faith" that the field engineer is recording all the information properly and I can use that data as an accurate representation to the materials at the site is not the same thing as believing in something people 2500 years ago said was real.

Actually, both engineers and historians have faith whenever they trust their conclusions. The same goes for the religious when they trust their conclusions.

What's the problem with that?

I have faith you’ll find the answer to your question in the responses in this thread.

 

[pood]

Contrary to what you say, faith is an essential part of critical thinking.

You are torturing the word "faith" especially as it applies to religious belief. Having "faith" that the field engineer is recording all the information properly and I can use that data as an accurate representation to the materials at the site is not the same thing as believing in something people 2500 years ago said was real.

Actually, both engineers and historians have faith whenever they trust their conclusions. The same goes for the religious when they trust their conclusions.

What's the problem with that?

The problem with that is this: engineers and historians have evidence to support their conclusions. The religious do not.

Big problem.

But I’m sure others have already pointed this out

 

[abaddon]

Unknown Soldier didn't ask that question in earnest. The irony of this poster is he badly wants to believe he's an expert critical thinker, but he blocked his own learning ability in defense of the ego that needs to believe that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Contrary to what you say, faith is an essential part of critical thinking.

You are torturing the word "faith" especially as it applies to religious belief. Having "faith" that the field engineer is recording all the information properly and I can use that data as an accurate representation to the materials at the site is not the same thing as believing in something people 2500 years ago said was real.

Actually, both engineers and historians have faith whenever they trust their conclusions. The same goes for the religious when they trust their conclusions.

What's the problem with that?

That isn't faith or if it is, it is such a weak example of faith render it a different word despite sharing the same pronunciation.

Engineers don't hinge their recommendations on faith, but on due diligence, codes, and experience (their's and other's).

At worst an engineer is using a hunch and tests it with math and software. Faith would be blindly using a computer and taking the output as gospel without looking at or double checking the results.

 

[steve_bank]

Faith an essential part of catchall thinking?

Thank you Soldier for ending my week with a great belly laugh.

Do you mean you take it on faith you are raeasing crically and logcaly to a truth, or do you means you trust your own judgemt based on exerince drawing verifiable conclusions?

When I was working as I gained experience I learned to be skeptical of my own reasoning, there were consequences to my being wrong which thankfully did not happen often. When I was thinking how I could be right I was also thinking how I could be wrong.

At least in my p[profession someone who was absolutely sure of being right in the face of peer criticism could be a dangerous reckless person.

When I was working on avionics for commercial jets and defense systems where lives could be at stake one reield on peer review and criticism.

If you flew Boeing jets in the 90s your safety in a small part may have been due to yours truly,

Scary thought aint it Soldier?

 

[DBT]

Contrary to what you say, faith is an essential part of critical thinking.

You are torturing the word "faith" especially as it applies to religious belief. Having "faith" that the field engineer is recording all the information properly and I can use that data as an accurate representation to the materials at the site is not the same thing as believing in something people 2500 years ago said was real.

Actually, both engineers and historians have faith whenever they trust their conclusions. The same goes for the religious when they trust their conclusions.

What's the problem with that?

Trust and faith are not the same.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Unknown Soldier didn't ask that question in earnest. The irony of this poster is he badly wants to believe he's an expert critical thinker, but he blocked his own learning ability in defense of the ego that needs to believe that.

Sheesh--I see that straw-man arguments aren't the only fallacies here; now it's ad hominems.

And just to be fair let me say that you cannot be right because you're a bad person!

 

[abaddon]

There's an element of trust to christian faith. But it's disingenuous to pretend that's all there is to it. It's more specifically trust that Jesus saves and will grant the person grace. It is not trust in one's own reasoning power... Rather, the reason to trust Jesus is the human isn't sufficient and doesn't have the power to save himself with his reasoning or any other merely human abilities. He has to trust in Jesus being who he says he is, trust that Jesus will do as he promises irt salvation.

 

[abaddon]

.... The faith God requires of us for salvation is belief in what the Bible says about who Jesus is and what He accomplished and fully trusting in Jesus for that salvation (Acts 16:31). Biblical faith is always accompanied by repentance (Matthew 21:32; Mark 1:15).

The biblical definition of faith does not apply only to salvation. It is equally applicable to the rest of the Christian life. We are to believe what the Bible says, and we are to obey it. We are to believe the promises of God, and we are to live accordingly. We are to agree with the truth of God’s Word, and we are to allow ourselves to be transformed by it (Romans 12:2).

Why is this definition of faith so important? Why must trust accompany agreeing with facts? Because “without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6). Without faith, we cannot be saved (John 3:16). Without faith, the Christian life cannot be what God intends it to be (John 10:10).

https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-of-faith.html

 

[DBT]

'Trust' in the truth of something without the support of evidence is 'faith.'

 

[DrZoidberg]

Contrary to what you say, faith is an essential part of critical thinking.

You are torturing the word "faith" especially as it applies to religious belief. Having "faith" that the field engineer is recording all the information properly and I can use that data as an accurate representation to the materials at the site is not the same thing as believing in something people 2500 years ago said was real.

Actually, both engineers and historians have faith whenever they trust their conclusions. The same goes for the religious when they trust their conclusions.

What's the problem with that?

Why use the word "faith" here? Isn't "trust" a better less spiritually loaded word?

I understand what you are doing. You are trying to conflate two different forms of belief to equate them. But they ARE different.

 

[steve_bank]

Actually, both engineers and historians have faith whenever they trust their conclusions. The same goes for the religious when they trust their conclusions.

Not faith. Confidence in self and in the science and math that are used based on history and experience.

Yawn...faith is a belief in something without objective evidence.


An excellent example of faith based critical reasoning.

P1 Dawkins a scienctist says science has a religious like faith.
P2 I have no experience with science.
P3 Faith is what I think faith is.
C I have faith I am right, science is faith based.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Actually, both engineers and historians have faith whenever they trust their conclusions. The same goes for the religious when they trust their conclusions.

What's the problem with that?

Why use the word "faith" here? Isn't "trust" a better less spiritually loaded word?

Well, "trust" is perhaps a word you'll be more willing to accept. It's too vague, though, because faith is a special kind of trust.

I understand what you are doing. You are trying to conflate two different forms of belief to equate them. But they ARE different.

Obviously there are some differences between religious faith and nonreligious faith, but at heart they are much the same.

 

[steve_bank]

Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not that it diminishes his work, Dwkins was-is an academic scinctsit wit a narrow range of experience.

If you take his personal philosophic conclusions about religion and science as 'gospel' truth then you are having a blind religious kind of faith.

Soldier has yet to articulate exactly why religion and science are the same kind of faith,

A simple sy;ogism from an 'expert' at logic and math puzzes will suffice

P1...
P3...
C I am right...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yawn...faith is a belief in something without objective evidence.

The closest I've been able to find regarding religious faith like that is what the Mormons say:

Alma said faith is believing that something is true without actually seeing it.

Of course, not all objective evidence is visible. I have faith that Amazon will deliver what I order before the order arrives.

Don't you believe it's true that you will receive your orders prior to delivery?

 

[DBT]

I have experience with Amazon, they have always delivered within the given timeframe. This tells me that their service is as reliable as one can expect, where things may go wrong but their policy is to resolve problems.

It is not faith that tells me this, but experience and reasonable trust.

Trust is not faith.

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier you are doing a lot of hnad waving and deflection.

An engineer know planes have been flying for a long time. He or she has designed and tested airplanes.

He or she believe the theories of aerodynamics can be trusted.

A Chirtisian reads the bible whic says god created the Earth. H or she g\has faith it is true. He or she beleves if god wants to god can cure diseases, but he or she has bever witnessed such a healing.

I once got invited to a prvate meeting of about 20 Evanglicals at someone's house. It was in an out building. I witnessed first hand laying of hands praced for healing.One person told me his cardioligist told him based on an echo crdiagram the walls of his heart were dangerously thin. When they operarted it was ont as bad as predicted. He aiad it was divine intervention.

Are both science and religion the same kind of faith?

If so, why? And please no quotes, in your own words.

How would you put religion on the sane evidence and experimental basis is as science?

Back in ear;y 90s a claim was made of a successful cold fusion experiment. If true it would have been tremendous.

Witin a few days noody around the world could duplicate the claims. It was rejected. That is the way science works, there is no central authority or faith.


On the other hand relgious faith is a belief in the unrovable and unsseen and undemonstrative.

For a beilever praying to god and having something go your way is experimental evidence, but it can not be repeated. All the times prayer did not work is rationalized away.

 

[DBT]

There are no different kinds of faith. There is a blanket term, faith, common usage, multiple references and whole lot of equivocation.

 

[No Robots]

The fundamental issue here is epistemology, encompassing the dialectic of knowledge on one hand and belief/faith on the other. Kant established the terms of this division with his Critique of Pure Reason, in which he negated the possibility of absolute knowledge in order to create a place for belief. This allows belief/faith to exist in a protected zone free from skeptical critique. But it also allows radical skepticism to dominate the intellectual landscape. So we end up with a culture that is thoroughly saturated with unknowing.

This contrasts with Spinoza, who establishes philosophy on the basis of certain knowledge. In the Spinozist view, as expounded by Constantin Brunner, belief is a type of thinking, albeit a confused, superstitious, miracle-mongering thinking. Belief is here contrasted with clear thinking based on reason and scientific intuition.

Skeptics attack the Spinozist position as being identical with common religious belief. Thus Spinozists are at odds with the predominant intellectual landscape of radical skepticism. Those who wish to pursue this subject can look at Brunner’s Spinoza contra Kant.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Soldier has yet to articulate exactly why religion and science are the same kind of faith,

I posted several times how both religion and science use faith as trust or confidence in conclusions. But if I've fallen short of explaining how they both use faith, you are welcome to ask for clarifications if you really want to know.