Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[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.

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.

But it's a reasonable and fair question. Refusing to answer it isn't what an expert critical thinker would do.

It looks like the argument (if one of us were to spell it out instead of you only asserting the conclusion) goes something like this:

1. theists say faith is x
2. atheists say it's y
C: therefore atheists misrepresent x as being y.

If that's not your argument then what is?

 

[steve_bank]

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?

This is about as basic as it gets with Christianity.

A faith in the gospel story of the resurrection and an eternal life after death in a heaven.
A faith that the bible is the inspired words of god which represents an absolute morality and truth.
A belief in the Abrahamic god.

Without those there is no Christianity. Christians do not define what faith means as a word, they define the specific articles of faith to be a a Christian.

Of course Jews, Muslims, and Chistians have never all totally agreed among themselves.

The fundamental articles of RCC faith. I grew up reciting the Apostle's Creed.

As do Jews and Muslims.

Apostles' Creed

www.crcna.org

Background

This creed is called the Apostles' Creed not because it was produced by the apostles themselves but because it contains a brief summary of their teachings. It sets forth their doctrine "in sublime simplicity, in unsurpassable brevity, in beautiful order, and with liturgical solemnity." In its present form it is dated no later than the fourth century. More than any other Christian creed, it may justly be called an ecumenical symbol of faith. This translation of the Latin text was approved by the CRC Synod of 1988.


I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places

 

[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.

But it's a reasonable and fair question. Refusing to answer it isn't what an expert critical thinker would do.

It looks like the argument (if one of us were to spell it out instead of you only asserting the conclusion) goes something like this:

1. theists say faith is x
2. atheists say it's y
C: therefore atheists misrepresent x as being y.

If that's not your argument then what is?

No. Here's what I'm saying:

Most of the religious say faith is A.
Some atheists, knowing that the religious say faith is A, nevertheless assert that the religious say faith is not A.
Therefore, those atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say about faith.

 

[steve_bank]

Just when I get to thinking I know everything somebody posts something I do not know.

Learn something new every day, a good reason to be on the forum.

What is the theory of fideism?
Fideism is a view of religious belief that holds that faith must be held without the use of reason or even against reason. Faith does not need reason. Faith creates its own justification.

What is the meaning of rational faith?
The simple definition of rationality is – conformity of one's faith with one's reasons to have faith, and acting in accordance with the facts of reality (Davis 114). Rationality deals more with how one believes instead of what one believes.

That would appear to counter Soldier;s reasoning.

 

[pood]

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.

But it's a reasonable and fair question. Refusing to answer it isn't what an expert critical thinker would do.

It looks like the argument (if one of us were to spell it out instead of you only asserting the conclusion) goes something like this:

1. theists say faith is x
2. atheists say it's y
C: therefore atheists misrepresent x as being y.

If that's not your argument then what is?

No. Here's what I'm saying:

Most of the religious say faith is A.
Some atheists, knowing that the religious say faith is A, nevertheless assert that the religious say faith is not A.
Therefore, those atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say about faith.

OK, why don’t you supply what “A” is supposed to be here.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

No. Here's what I'm saying:

Most of the religious say faith is A.
Some atheists, knowing that the religious say faith is A, nevertheless assert that the religious say faith is not A.
Therefore, those atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say about faith.

OK, why don’t you supply what “A” is supposed to be here.

It doesn't really matter what A is. That's why I used a variable. What does matter is that some atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say faith is.

 

[James Brown]

And some religious folks are misrepresenting what atheists think, say, and care about.

Fun stuff.

 

[pood]

No. Here's what I'm saying:

Most of the religious say faith is A.
Some atheists, knowing that the religious say faith is A, nevertheless assert that the religious say faith is not A.
Therefore, those atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say about faith.

OK, why don’t you supply what “A” is supposed to be here.

It doesn't really matter what A is. That's why I used a variable. What does matter is that some atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say faith is.

Your OP doesn’t say “some” atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say faith is; is just says that “atheists” are doing this. Be that as it may, I am confused. Surely the variable does matter. What, exactly, are (some or all) atheists misrepresenting? You have to fill in the variable to trest whether your claims are correct. Otherwise the exercise is empty. I’m sure some atheists do what you say. So what?

 

[pood]

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

That’s directly from the bible. Is this what (some/many/all) biblical believers think faith is? Notice that strictly, what this passage is telling us is that faith itself is the evidence — no other evidence required. On that reading, there is no connection at all between religious faith and the confidence that scientists, for example, have in their conclusions. They couldn’t be more different.

In any case, the conversation seems to keep equivocating between how theists define faith according to atheists, and whether the “faith” of theists is the same as the “faith” of scientists or atheists. These are two separate subjects. I would like you to do more than specify a variable. I would like you say precisely how you think atheists misrepresent what theists mean by the word “faith.” Then I’d like you to address the subject of whether you think the word “faith” really accurately covers both the belief systems of theists and non-theists. Unless you can do these two things this thread will go nowhere.

 

[abaddon]

Here's what I'm saying:

Most of the religious say faith is A.
Some atheists, knowing that the religious say faith is A, nevertheless assert that the religious say faith is not A.
Therefore, those atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say about faith.

It doesn't really matter what A is. That's why I used a variable. What does matter is that some atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say faith is.

pood's right. The variable matters a LOT.

I'm not going to wait for you to specify A though cuz I've waited on responses before only to watch you dodge.

So let's try it with A as "trust":

1. Most of the religious say faith is trust.
2. Some atheists, knowing that the religious say faith is trust, nevertheless assert that the religious say faith is not trust.
3. Therefore, those atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say about faith.

1. I don't know how you think you know what most of "the religious" say, or why you believe them about it so readily.

2. Do you know of ANY atheist saying "the religious say faith is not trust"? Or "the religious say faith is not reasoned"? Or "the religious say faith is not evidenced"?

3. The conclusion is non sequitur. Not only are the premises invalid, but the conclusion contains an element that just suddenly appears out of the blue. There's no mention in the premises of how disagreeing or contradicting the theists is an act of misrepresentation. But the justification for that needs to be there.

 

[steve_bank]

Christians—2.2 billion followers (representing 31.5% of the world's population)
Muslims—1.6 billion (23.2%)
Non-religious people—1.1 billion (16.3%)
Hindus—1 billion (15.0%)
Buddhists—500 million (7.1%)
Indigenous religions—400 million (5.9%)
Other religions—58 million (0.8%)

Faith is on the rise and 84% of the global population identifies with a religious group.

The word faith is synonymous with religious beliefs when used by Christians. To have faith is to believe. For example a Christian might say 'I am a man of faith'. Conservative politicians prmote 'faith based charities' over govt spending on social programs.

What percentage of Christians are Catholic and Protestant?
The Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population ...
Christians are diverse theologically as well as geographically, the new study finds. About half are Catholic. Protestants, broadly defined, make up 37%. Orthodox Christians comprise 12% of Christians worldwide.Dec 19, 2011

The RCC is the dominate Christian sect, and thir faith or what you are supposed to believe 'on faith' is defined in the priviously posted Apostle's Creed.


So Soldier, you apprenty refuse to commnt on the Apostle's Creed. And it is plainly obviius faith has many nuamces. So when you campare science and religion on a faith basis you haveb to precisely define what you mean. Examples.

I know and have faith you can't.

 

[DBT]

No. Here's what I'm saying:

Most of the religious say faith is A.
Some atheists, knowing that the religious say faith is A, nevertheless assert that the religious say faith is not A.
Therefore, those atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say about faith.

OK, why don’t you supply what “A” is supposed to be here.

It doesn't really matter what A is. That's why I used a variable. What does matter is that some atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say faith is.

Paul was a Christian. Paul defined faith based belief as self assuring, a conviction held on faith.

English Standard Version
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Berean Standard Bible
Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

NASB 1977
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Amplified Bible
Now faith is the assurance (title deed, confirmation) of things hoped for (divinely guaranteed), and the evidence of things not seen [the conviction of their reality—faith comprehends as fact what cannot be experienced by the physical senses].

American Standard Version
Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The word faith is synonymous with religious beliefs when used by Christians. To have faith is to believe. For example a Christian might say 'I am a man of faith'.

So, if a religious believer’s faith is simply his trust in the truth of his conclusions and a scientists trust is the exact same thing, then I, as a scientist, could tell a believer “I am a man of faith” and I should expect him to understand what I mean and not assume I am religious. Is that a sensible result of Unknown Soldier’s argument here?

 

[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.

But it's a reasonable and fair question. Refusing to answer it isn't what an expert critical thinker would do.

It looks like the argument (if one of us were to spell it out instead of you only asserting the conclusion) goes something like this:

1. theists say faith is x
2. atheists say it's y
C: therefore atheists misrepresent x as being y.

If that's not your argument then what is?

No. Here's what I'm saying:

Most of the religious say faith is A.
Some atheists, knowing that the religious say faith is A, nevertheless assert that the religious say faith is not A.
Therefore, those atheists are misrepresenting what the religious say about faith.

I'm curious about B, because what has been said in here that wasn't an accurate depiction of faith?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm not going to wait for you to specify A though cuz I've waited on responses before only to watch you dodge.
tion for that needs to be there.

I said what A is in the OP:

Faith is essentially the trust or confidence we place in a conclusion.

So in the context of religion, the religious see faith as their confidence that their doctrines are true, and they trust their God(s) to make good on His/Her/Their promises.

 

[steve_bank]

The word faith is synonymous with religious beliefs when used by Christians. To have faith is to believe. For example a Christian might say 'I am a man of faith'.

So, if a religious believer’s faith is simply his trust in the truth of his conclusions and a scientists trust is the exact same thing, then I, as a scientist, could tell a believer “I am a man of faith” and I should expect him to understand what I mean and not assume I am religious. Is that a sensible result of Unknown Soldier’s argument here?

Not so clever sophistry.

Same question as I posed to Soldier unanswered.

An engineer knowing the hostory of flight and experinced desiging and testing planse has trust that the theories of aerodynamics are reliable.

A Christian belives in paryer. When he prays for someting and it happens he declres prayerr works and god exists but dimesses all te tmes he prayed and nothing happened.

Are the two situations both 'faith'?

Both use logic, IOW IF AND OR and so on. The difference is premise and nature of the evidence.

If science says the theories of aerodynamics only work part of the time and the plans flies in part on much faith the pilot has and the passegers have on tscinve wold youasa raiomal pragmatost fly on a jet?

As a rational pragmatist if you need serious medical attention would you go to a doctor or a religious faith healer? And why one or the other?

It is not just an academic debate, it is about how people live and make choices.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The word faith is synonymous with religious beliefs when used by Christians. To have faith is to believe. For example a Christian might say 'I am a man of faith'.

So, if a religious believer’s faith is simply his trust in the truth of his conclusions and a scientists trust is the exact same thing, then I, as a scientist, could tell a believer “I am a man of faith” and I should expect him to understand what I mean and not assume I am religious. Is that a sensible result of Unknown Soldier’s argument here?

Not so clever sophistry.

Same question as I posed to Soldier unanswered.

An engineer knowing the hostory of flight and experinced desiging and testing planse has trust that the theories of aerodynamics are reliable.

A Christian belives in paryer. When he prays for someting and it happens he declres prayerr works and god exists but dimesses all te tmes he prayed and nothing happened.

Are the two situations both 'faith'?

Both use logic, IOW IF AND OR and so on. The difference is premise and nature of the evidence.

as far as I can tell, and I’d be happy to admit I’ve been misunderstanding him, yes this appears to be his argument. Both of those situations are to be called “faith”. If you have reasons to believe something and you believe you have evidence for that then your trust in the truth of your conclusions is what is being called “faith”.

He is arguing that atheists are incorrectly attributing their own definition of the word faith to religious peoples.

 

[James Brown]

Am I wrong? This sounds like the old "atheism is a religion, too" argument.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Am I wrong? This sounds like the old "atheism is a religion, too" argument.

Or, alternatively, “religious beliefs are as logical as scientific ones.”

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not going to wait for you to specify A though cuz I've waited on responses before only to watch you dodge.
tion for that needs to be there.

I said what A is in the OP:

Faith is essentially the trust or confidence we place in a conclusion.

And you are wondering why people have a problem with that statement. Even theists would likely contest that definition.

I have confidence that the sky is blue.
I have confidence that the world will be here, as we know it, tomorrow.
I have confidence that there is life on other planets.
I have confidence that there is no supernatural origin of the universe.

To consider those confidences as all "faith" is silly. "Faith" is a result of the UNCERTAINTY of said conclusions.

You seem to aim to make faith into a binary litmus test, when in reality faith is a matter of magnitudes. You want to equate any inkling of uncertainty into a positive test for faith, therefore anything that requires a tremendous amount of hopeful thinking is on even ground with that think where there is an inkling of doubt. All so that religious faith is "rational".

So in the context of religion, the religious see faith as their confidence that their doctrines are true, and they trust their God(s) to make good on His/Her/Their promises.

And their faiths conflict with each other, with the varying religions. Their faiths can't all be right (presumably... it'd be pretty messed up if they were), but they can all be wrong. Regardless, "faith" is a red herring. A person's religious faith isn't relevant, it is how they choose to act on it that does.