Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Yes. You have asserted your argument as correct by fiat of definition. The problem is, as you are pointing out, that we are using a different definition of the word “faith”. There’s likely no resolution here as you simply state we are wrong in our definition.

 

[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.

Yes. You have asserted your argument as correct by fiat of definition. The problem is, as you are pointing out, that we are using a different definition of the word “faith”. There’s likely no resolution here as you simply state we are wrong in our definition.

No, you are wrong in that you are saying that the religious use definition A for "faith" while they actually use definition B.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Are you sure you aren't feigning ignorance to derail this thread?

 

[pood]

If both the religious and scientists use the word “faith” in the exact same way, then it‘s not true that scientists have “faith” in their conclusions.

 

[pood]

If, on the other hand, the religious see themselves using “faIth” in the same way scientists do, then they are wrong unless they adduce convincing evidence for their claims or at least produce a falsification project for them.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Are you sure you aren't feigning ignorance to derail this thread?

Back at you Soldier.

Faith as used colloquially has many shades and nuances of meaning and inference. Asdo many words.

Answer the question I gave you on the difference between an engineer designing aircraft using theories and religious faith healing and prayer.

How is an engineer desiging a jet employing faith, faith being believing in something which can not be proven.

Ar you afraid to answer?

Your argument is that both religion and science are 'faith based' both use faith, and you have lost that argument.

Not all evidence is objective or visible? Now you are making a theist argument. Religious fath and belief is on the same footing as physical science, therefore religious faith is as valid as the theories and conclusions of science.

I gave examples contrasting science and religion and asked how would yiu scientifically prove rekgius beliefs.

Provide examples of how religin ans cnce are nth based in faith.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Yes. You have asserted your argument as correct by fiat of definition. The problem is, as you are pointing out, that we are using a different definition of the word “faith”. There’s likely no resolution here as you simply state we are wrong in our definition.

No, you are wrong in that you are saying that the religious use definition A for "faith" while they actually use definition B.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Are you sure you aren't feigning ignorance to derail this thread?

I am neither saying nor care how the religious use the word “faith”. I am only claiming how *I* use the word. And the way I define the word is incompatible with my beliefs in science and scientific conclusions.

Your issue is that you are saying it is unfair of me to assume that religious people use *my* definition of the word and I get that so I will try not to make that assumption anymore.

But this still boils down to an argument about the definition of terms. Unless you truly believe that the religious find their beliefs in the exact same manner as scientists do. That is demonstrably false.

 

[Shadowy Man]

faith being believing in something which can not be proven.

this is the crux of the argument. He disagrees with this definition.

 

[abaddon]

Some of the atheists criticize religion with "it doesn't have the rigor of science!" as if anything else than science should have the rigor of science.

That's daft in itself. But then the other side, the fundy religionists, have a response that's much more daft. In effect it's "But religion IS like science, because you people have faith in your conclusions too!"

If they were smart they'd say "yeah, that's right, religion doesn't have the rigor of science (nor its limitation of working only with the 'objective' tidbits of reality)". Instead they insist their mythology is factual and can be proved with reason and evidence similarly to science. When all along the one and only chance of it being a truth, of a kind, is if it's accepted as a poetical, existential response to the lostness that humans feel in a brutally inhuman universe.

So one group thinks that science is the one correct way to know things, therefore any would-be competitors need to be eliminated. The other group stupidly accepts this Science-vs-Religion framing of the situation and feebly tries to liken religion to science: "we use reason and evidence too! faith is just part of that!" Instead they ought to do what they can to make "non-overlapping magisteria" into a true description.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yes, the science versus religion thing is tired. I’m not saying that science is the one true way to know anything but I still contend that the religious believers and the scientists come to believe their respective beliefs through different methods and conflating them by using the same term is unnecessarily, if not outright maliciously, confusing the issue. There’s no scientific device to measure the love I have for my children or the enjoyment I get from hiking in the mountains yet those are as “real” to me as any scientific knowledge I have.

 

[abaddon]

Yes, the science versus religion thing is tired. I’m not saying that science is the one true way to know anything...

I noticed that in your posts

... but I still contend that the religious believers and the scientists come to believe their respective beliefs through different methods and conflating them by using the same term is unnecessarily, if not outright maliciously, confusing the issue. There’s no scientific device to measure the love I have for my children or the enjoyment I get from hiking in the mountains yet those are as “real” to me as any scientific knowledge I have.

Yes I agree.

Christians could stick with religious faith as unscientific instead of reacting against "it ain't science" criticisms with a tu toque "you do faith too!" response. The notion of faith as common everyday trust makes it mundane and trite more than it makes it seem reasonable. As I understood it, back when I was a christian, faith was supposed to be superior to reason, as a kind of heartfelt or gutfelt way of knowing instead of a brainy analysis.

Disclaimer: This isn't me saying faith is good. I'm just saying, IF I wanted to salvage faith in supernatural beliefs, I wouldn't do it by insisting on how mundane and trivial that faith is.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

faith being believing in something which can not be proven.

this is the crux of the argument. He disagrees with this definition.

No, the religious disagree with that definition. Contrary to what many atheists assert, the religious do not define faith as belief in what can't be proved. So what I disagree with is what the atheists here claim is the meaning of faith according to the religious.

Since this is evidently so hard to understand, let's take it in steps. Do you realize that the religious do not define faith as without reason or evidence? All you need to do is search the internet for what various religious sects say about faith. I guarantee you that you will find few if any that say faith is without reason or evidence.

Once you've done that, then we can go to step 2.

 

[pood]

Great, so let then trot out their evidence and produce their arguments. And they’ve done that in many venues. And it turns out the evidence is bogus and the arguments are vapid.

 

[pood]

Maybe some of the more intellectual theists are subscribing to rational fideism. So, that could be worth discussing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

faith being believing in something which can not be proven.

this is the crux of the argument. He disagrees with this definition.

No, the religious disagree with that definition. Contrary to what many atheists assert, the religious do not define faith as belief in what can't be proved. So what I disagree with is what the atheists here claim is the meaning of faith according to the religious.

I am only stating what the word “faith” means to me.

There are lots of words people use with differing definitions from mine. I can’t control that.

Since this is evidently so hard to understand, let's take it in steps. Do you realize that the religious do not define faith as without reason or evidence? All you need to do is search the internet for what various religious sects say about faith. I guarantee you that you will find few if any that say faith is without reason or evidence.

Once you've done that, then we can go to step 2.

I have already conceded that. The religious use reason and evidence to reach Their beliefs. Not the same kind that I do, but I can see why you say they do. So let’s go to step 2.

But in the end you are equating two dissimilar things with the same word. Cats have tails. Dogs have tails. Therefore cats are dogs.

 

[pood]

Since this is evidently so hard to understand, let's take it in steps. Do you realize that the religious do not define faith as without reason or evidence? All you need to do is search the internet for what various religious sects say about faith. I guarantee you that you will find few if any that say faith is without reason or evidence.

Fideism does say this very thing.

The fideist argues that some truths can only be gasped by ditching rational inquiry and relying on faith. Many religious people argue in just this way, and fideism, literally faith-ism, has a long tradition.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

faith being believing in something which can not be proven.

this is the crux of the argument. He disagrees with this definition.

No, the religious disagree with that definition. Contrary to what many atheists assert, the religious do not define faith as belief in what can't be proved. So what I disagree with is what the atheists here claim is the meaning of faith according to the religious.

I am only stating what the word “faith” means to me.

There are lots of words people use with differing definitions from mine. I can’t control that.

Since this is evidently so hard to understand, let's take it in steps. Do you realize that the religious do not define faith as without reason or evidence? All you need to do is search the internet for what various religious sects say about faith. I guarantee you that you will find few if any that say faith is without reason or evidence.

Once you've done that, then we can go to step 2.

I have already conceded that. The religious use reason and evidence to reach Their beliefs. Not the same kind that I do, but I can see why you say they do. So let’s go to step 2.

But in the end you are equating two dissimilar things with the same word. Cats have tails. Dogs have tails. Therefore cats are dogs.

Step 2: Please read what the atheists here are saying about what the religious mean by "faith." Are those atheists correct in that the religious have faith that is what atheists say it is?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Since this is evidently so hard to understand, let's take it in steps. Do you realize that the religious do not define faith as without reason or evidence? All you need to do is search the internet for what various religious sects say about faith. I guarantee you that you will find few if any that say faith is without reason or evidence.

Fideism does say this very thing.

The fideist argues that some truths can only be gasped by ditching rational inquiry and relying on faith. Many religious people argue in just this way, and fideism, literally faith-ism, has a long tradition.

Thank you very much for that information. I should point out that fideism is more of a philosophy than a religion. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about fideism:

Theologians and philosophers have responded in various ways to the place of faith and reason in determining the truth of metaphysical ideas, morality, and religious beliefs. A fideist is one who argues for fideism. Historically, fideism is most commonly ascribed to four philosophers: Søren Kierkegaard, Blaise Pascal, William James, and Ludwig Wittgenstein; with fideism being a label applied in a negative sense by their opponents, but which is not always supported by their own ideas and works or followers. A qualified form of fideism is sometimes attributed to Immanuel Kant's famous suggestion that we must "deny knowledge in order to make room for faith".

So "fideism" is a pejorative term that does not really accurately represent what some philosophers are saying.

I have seen the religious at least momentarily fall back on what they call faith if they encounter reasons to doubt their doctrines. You can bet they'll find reasons to believe anyway.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

...they insist their mythology is factual and can be proved with reason and evidence similarly to science.

That's right! So why are so many here asserting that the religious have faith that has nothing to do with reason or evidence?

 

[Shadowy Man]

faith being believing in something which can not be proven.

this is the crux of the argument. He disagrees with this definition.

No, the religious disagree with that definition. Contrary to what many atheists assert, the religious do not define faith as belief in what can't be proved. So what I disagree with is what the atheists here claim is the meaning of faith according to the religious.

I am only stating what the word “faith” means to me.

There are lots of words people use with differing definitions from mine. I can’t control that.

Since this is evidently so hard to understand, let's take it in steps. Do you realize that the religious do not define faith as without reason or evidence? All you need to do is search the internet for what various religious sects say about faith. I guarantee you that you will find few if any that say faith is without reason or evidence.

Once you've done that, then we can go to step 2.

I have already conceded that. The religious use reason and evidence to reach Their beliefs. Not the same kind that I do, but I can see why you say they do. So let’s go to step 2.

But in the end you are equating two dissimilar things with the same word. Cats have tails. Dogs have tails. Therefore cats are dogs.

Step 2: Please read what the atheists here are saying about what the religious mean by "faith." Are those atheists correct in that the religious have faith that is what atheists say it is?

I don’t know if they’re correct. what faith means to someone is an individual thing. I’m sure a religious person will have a specific meaning when they say faith. They likely would disagree with the characterization of it being without reason. I see your point there. But if they claim that *I* have faith in science and equate it to theirs because we both have reasons to believe then I would disagree with them according to *my* definition of faith. I believe there are critical distinctions between the reasoning leading to scientific knowledge and to religious belief that to conflate the two with the same word muddies the conversation and does a disservice to the communication of ideas. But you already know that because that’s been my stated position all along.

 

[pood]

So "fideism" is a pejorative term that does not really accurately represent what some philosophers are saying.

I have seen the religious at least momentarily fall back on what they call faith if they encounter reasons to doubt their doctrines. You can bet they'll find reasons to believe anyway.

Fideism is a negative term employed by some people. Others argue forcibly for it, including a variant called rational fideism. Fideism is well worth considering and worthy of a discussion in its own right.