Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[abaddon]

...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?

The answer's in the same post you quote-mined.

Again, it's because they want to see scientific evidence instead of the sophistic bullshit that fundies come up for treating myths as mere facts.

 

[abaddon]

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?

You should do this. Quote an atheist who's saying "theists conceive of faith as beliefs with no evidence".

Don't quote any atheists who describe faith as beliefs with no evidence. Because your claim is that atheists assert that theist's define faith as void of evidence, which is entirely different.

Theist: "I define faith as trust in one's conclusions".
Atheist: "No, you define faith as having no reasons or evidence!"

Hmm, no, I have no memory of ever seeing any such thing...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

Did you compare what the religious actually mean by faith to what the atheists here say the religious mean by faith?

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Did you compare what the religious actually mean by faith to what the atheists here say the religious mean by faith?

I’m not religious so I can’t speak for them. according To your definition they are not correct. But I don’t find your definition particularly useful especially when you conflate it with scientific beliefs.

 

[DBT]

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.

Trust built through objective experience is not the same as trust in one's belief in subjective ideas or concepts, where it is believing without evidence that turns trust into faith.

Using the same word in both instances is to equivocate.

They are different, one is trust, the other is faith.

 

[bilby]

No, the religious disagree with that definition.

"the religious " don't have a single monolithic opinion about that definition.

Some may agree; Some may disagree; None made you their spokesman, and you have no unique insight that could justify your claim to speak for "the religious " on any topic.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

Did you compare what the religious actually mean by faith to what the atheists here say the religious mean by faith?

I’m not religious so I can’t speak for them. according To your definition they are not correct. But I don’t find your definition particularly useful especially when you conflate it with scientific beliefs.

OK, you're dancing around this issue like John Travolta. Nobody can be that dumb that they don't get what I'm saying. I'll need to conclude that atheists deliberately straw-man what the religious say about faith and won't admit it. I've seen Christians play games like this too.

 

[bilby]

Nobody can be that dumb that they don't get what I'm saying.

I suspect you overestimate your ability as a communicator.

If nobody understands you, the problem probably isn't your audience...

 

[abaddon]

Did you compare what the religious actually mean by faith to what the atheists here say the religious mean by faith?

What do the atheists here say the religious mean by faith?

Don't tell me to re-read the thread. The question isn't intended to find what they said, the question is intended to find what you think they said.

If you could fill in the blank: "Atheists are saying that what the religious mean by faith is ________".

Thanks

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nobody can be that dumb that they don't get what I'm saying.

I suspect you overestimate your ability as a communicator.

If nobody understands you, the problem probably isn't your audience...

I don't think that is the problem. We understand Unknown Soldier's argument. We just disagree with his conclusion.

There's also historical precedent. Since David Hume (300 years ago) theologians and religious fanatics have tried to equate the findings of science with stuff they just pulled out of their ass. Pretty quickly there was a realisation that the scientific method was the superior method for finding what is true. Since then the less philosophically inclined theologians have embarked on a mission to reformulate Christianity in scientific terminology. Completely missing the point of what a religion is, IMHO. But I digress. This is what became Evangelical Christianity and the loony fringe associated with that. Jehova's Witnesses a great example. For us Sketpically Inclined at IIDB continually have to deal with these guys showing up all the time. It got old a long time ago. Because they never have a foot to stand on. For people like me with a higher degree, and therefore have proper training in scientific methodology, it's an insult to everything I hold sacred. I also like religion, so I also think it's an insult to religion. Trying to make religion into a science demeans both religion and science.

I think Unknown Soldier is a good example of this category of visitors to IIDB.

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier

You hve lost your argument.. You can dig in your heels and be stubborn, or you can do a lessons learned exercise. Up your game. Learn from mistakes.

Review your thinking in wring the OP, the responses to your op, and how you dealt with criticisms and questions. It is ok to change positions as debate progresses.


I think you said you want to be able to make a good logical argument. Part pf that is anticipating responses and being prepared to answer. Your shtick across threads is ending up caliing ohers stupid and ignorant, your last line of defense. Trump like.

Given what most of us over time you had to know equating science to religion would get a response, maybe you were just trying to stir thigs up.

Your thinking appears limited to quoting Dawkins without a context.


An old paradigm about making an argument.

1. Assume who you are addressing knows nothing about what you are talking about. Lead up to the argumen with a preartion, like definition of terms as you are using them. Like faith..
2. Communicate like your audience are 3rd graders.
3. Tell them what you are going to say.
4. Tell them.
5. Tell them what you just said.

Heard these way back in the 80s.

It is incumbent on you to effectively communicate to us, not for us to puzzle over what you mean.

 

[steve_bank]

...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?

Well duhhh..science is not a myth. It manifests in physical reality when theory is used to design computers.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Yet you repeatedly say both religion and science have the same kind of faith.

Can you elaborate on e difference between science and religion?

Is an engineer designing a jet trusting established aerodynamic theory and a Christian having faith the bible is true the smae?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

The red line is not faith.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Yet you repeatedly say both religion and science have the same kind of faith.

The issue here is that there is a dichotomy between religion and science. Religion historically hasn't played fair with science. But here is the key...

The founding fathers of science all had faith in Christianity... but they didn't let that interfere with their science work and their efforts bear laws with their names on them. Some of them tried to prove god through their science, but couldn't. Why? Because science demands reproducibility, which is inherently contradictory to FAITH. This is where the two things verge.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Did you compare what the religious actually mean by faith to what the atheists here say the religious mean by faith?

What do the atheists here say the religious mean by faith?

Don't tell me to re-read the thread.

It won't make any difference anyway if you already have your mind made up.

Anyway, I think it's time to move on to a new topic. Why do atheists so often misrepresent what the religious mean by faith? One answer is because many atheists are unskilled in coming up with sound arguments and use the "religious faith is blind" slogan for a rhetorical impact.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think Unknown Soldier is a good example of this category of visitors to IIDB.

That's a blatant ad hominem fallacy. Wasn't your straw-man fallacy enough?

Anyway, I think it's time to move on to a new topic. Why do atheists so often misrepresent what the religious mean by faith? One answer is because many atheists are unskilled in coming up with sound arguments and use the "religious faith is blind" slogan for a rhetorical impact to replace the sound arguments they cannot formulate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Did you compare what the religious actually mean by faith to what the atheists here say the religious mean by faith?

What do the atheists here say the religious mean by faith?

Don't tell me to re-read the thread.

It won't make any difference anyway if you already have your mind made up.

Anyway, I think it's time to move on to a new topic. Why do atheists so often misrepresent what the religious mean by faith? One answer is because many atheists are unskilled in coming up with sound arguments and use the "religious faith is blind" slogan for a rhetorical impact.

We'll ignore that most atheists were theists at one point.

 

[pood]

I think Unknown Soldier is a good example of this category of visitors to IIDB.

That's a blatant ad hominem fallacy. Wasn't your straw-man fallacy enough?

Anyway, I think it's time to move on to a new topic. Why do atheists so often misrepresent what the religious mean by faith? One answer is because many atheists are unskilled in coming up with sound arguments and use the "religious faith is blind" slogan for a rhetorical impact to replace the sound arguments they cannot formulate.

You can’t move on to this new topic unless you first demonstrate the truth of the proposition that atheists so often misrepresent what the religious mean by faith. Your proposed new topic is at the moment entirely question-begging.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Did you compare what the religious actually mean by faith to what the atheists here say the religious mean by faith?

I’m not religious so I can’t speak for them. according To your definition they are not correct. But I don’t find your definition particularly useful especially when you conflate it with scientific beliefs.

OK, you're dancing around this issue like John Travolta. Nobody can be that dumb that they don't get what I'm saying. I'll need to conclude that atheists deliberately straw-man what the religious say about faith and won't admit it. I've seen Christians play games like this too.

I get what you are saying. Some atheists likely do deliberately straw man what the religious say about faith. I, personally, don't know what the religious say about faith. I have no academic interest in religion (so haven't read all the theologians and philosophers mentioned in this thread) and I don't interact with religious people or entertain religious thoughts in my daily life. But, that being said, I use a definition of the word "faith" that conflicts with everything I know and have experienced about the way that scientists gain knowledge and trust in their conclusions. The word has a *specific meaning to me* and I feel icky if I say stuff like "I have faith the Sun will rise in the morning" or "I have faith that the full Moon will occur on a specific date" and other such statements.

You can say that my usage of that definition unfairly implies that the religious also use that definition when they say that word, and perhaps that is true. I am willing to concede that point. But I also believe that when the religious use the word "faith" in the aforementioned kinds of phrases for science, then they are unfairly projecting whatever they mean by the word onto me if they equate it, as you have, to their kind of faith.

I think it goes without question that the religious use different means to reach their beliefs than scientists do, irrespective of whether they use "reason" and "evidence" to get there. There is no measurement device to measure God. There is no attempt by the religious to mitigate systematic bias by performing double-blind studies on the effectiveness of prayers (this has been done by actual scientists, by the way). They may be susceptible to known biases like confirmation bias and other logical fallacies when evaluating their evidence. Does this mean their god doesn't exist, or that they shouldn't have faith? No.

I just contend, and have contended in this discussion, and see no reason to not continue to contend, that the use of the single word "faith" to describe both the religious and the scientific trust in their conclusions to be a diminution of language, a watering down of important distinctions that inhibits fruitful discussion rather than enhances it.

I'm not sure I can be any clearer about my position, so I think I'll bow out as I'm just repeating myself.