Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[steve_bank]

What's so terrible about categorizing atheism as a religion?

Because religion (theism) and atheism are mutually exclusive.

As I say it, all human social groups have the same general forms.

The way I would say it is that organized science, religion, atheism, unions, business, and political parties all share a common set of characteristics.

Hierarchic power structures, social orthodoxy, myths, and metaphors.

In popular culture the BB has become IMO a modern creation myth. To me the BB is theoretcal, a good theory but testable as are Newton's Laws and quantum mechanics.

On scence shows cosmologists present the BB as absolute truth with no qualifiers or caveats, which I thibk is wrong.

 

[steve_bank]

Why are we at 541 posts?

My excuse is I am retired and it keeps me awake during the day.....

 

[TomC]

isn't a set of beliefs but the conviction that beliefs are true.

I grew up in a conservative Catholic family. I've lived my entire adult life in conservative Protestant southern Indiana.

I don't remember a single religious person agreeing with that. It's possible a few do. But near all make a distinction between their faith based beliefs and other, evidence based, beliefs.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If "faith" was merely a belief in anything, there would be no value of spiritual faith over whatone believed the weather would be the following day. This is why Unknown Soldiers' definition is either wrong or useless.

This is one of those, I'm inventing a problem to present my genius solution to it, sort of threads. Not their first. It'd been more honest to argue what they indicate later, that religious faith is based is rational and based on evidence. But that'd be a much harder sell. So redefine 'faith' it is.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Faith isn't really a way to attain knowledge but to be confident in knowing something.

So, in what way does the word “faith” add to the language and communication of ideas that the word “confidence” doesn’t? Are these simply interchangeable synonyms?

I don't know why the words "faith" and "trust" are synonyms. I didn't design the English language. In the context of religion, to have faith is to trust in a God, so faith is a special kind of trust.

By the way, I'm not religious, but I often use the word "faith" to describe my trust in something or somebody if I have reason to.

When’s a religious person uses the word “faith” can I just assume they mean “confidence”? That would definitely simplify my understanding of religious thought.

When using the word "faith," the religious probably mean that they are confident in a God or that what's said about that God is true.

 

[pood]

Faith isn't really a way to attain knowledge but to be confident in knowing something.

So, in what way does the word “faith” add to the language and communication of ideas that the word “confidence” doesn’t? Are these simply interchangeable synonyms?

I don't know why the words "faith" and "trust" are synonyms. I didn't design the English language. In the context of religion, to have faith is to trust in a God, so faith is a special kind of trust.

By the way, I'm not religious, but I often use the word "faith" to describe my trust in something or somebody if I have reason to.

When’s a religious person uses the word “faith” can I just assume they mean “confidence”? That would definitely simplify my understanding of religious thought.

When using the word "faith," the religious probably mean that they are confident in a God or that what's said about that God is true.

Were you intending to answer several posts of mine, and specifically to address the biblical version of faith that I showed you several times?

 

[Shadowy Man]

When using the word "faith," the religious probably mean that they are confident in a God or that what's said about that God is true.

So then that implies that a religious person would understand if someone said they have “faith in science” that person was intending a different meaning than the person who is confident in their god, yes?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

When using the word "faith," the religious probably mean that they are confident in a God or that what's said about that God is true.

So then that implies that a religious person would understand if someone said they have “faith in science” that person was intending a different meaning than the person who is confident in their god, yes?

The idea of faith is the same while the object of the faith differs: science versus a god.

 

[pood]

When using the word "faith," the religious probably mean that they are confident in a God or that what's said about that God is true.

So then that implies that a religious person would understand if someone said they have “faith in science” that person was intending a different meaning than the person who is confident in their god, yes?

The idea of faith is the same while the object of the faith differs: science versus a god.

No, it is not the same. See all the posts you skipped over. Why are you doing that?

 

[TomC]

No, it is not the same. See all the posts you skipped over. Why are you doing that?

Pretty much this.
Confidence in the existence of Paris, France, is not the same as confidence in the existence of The Trinity.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

When using the word "faith," the religious probably mean that they are confident in a God or that what's said about that God is true.

So then that implies that a religious person would understand if someone said they have “faith in science” that person was intending a different meaning than the person who is confident in their god, yes?

The idea of faith is the same while the object of the faith differs: science versus a god.

So, it seems like we are zeroing in your point. Is it your claim that atheists worship science as a god? I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, but this seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument.

 

[pood]

When using the word "faith," the religious probably mean that they are confident in a God or that what's said about that God is true.

So then that implies that a religious person would understand if someone said they have “faith in science” that person was intending a different meaning than the person who is confident in their god, yes?

The idea of faith is the same while the object of the faith differs: science versus a god.

So, it seems like we are zeroing in your point. Is it your claim that atheists worship science as a god? I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, but this seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument.

I dom’t think he actually knows what he is trying to say. If he did, he wouldn‘t be strategically skipping over posts he evidently can’t handle while regurgitating anodyne bromides restating claims that have already been soundly reubutted.

 

[No Robots]

Harry Waton on faith, science and the intellect:

And may scientists write infinite bulky volumes to prove that we have no soul and that there is no God, no attention should be paid to this pretended learning. Science may be the product of reason and the lower faculties, but thus far the scientists did not yet attain to the intellect. Reason may infer that there is a soul and that God exists, but reason can perceive neither the soul nor God: it is the soul as intellect that becomes conscious of herself and perceives God. Now, all our faculties are only faculties of the soul. In all other faculties, the soul is still implicit; she becomes wholly explicit as intellect. Hence, most of the scientists have not yet attained even to explicit reason, and therefore they can tell us nothing about the soul and God. Since, however, the soul speaks through all faculties, though through the lower faculties she speaks an implicit and inadequate language, it follows that through all the faculties the soul spoke to mankind, telling them that there is a soul and that God exists. As this was yet an implicit perception, it manifested itself in faith. Thus far, most religions, with the exception of Judaism, still rest on faith. Judaism is the only religion that is the product of the intellect. For this reason, Judaism demands that we know Jehovah. Faith was a virtue in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because they had not yet attained to the intellect. The Bible tells us that Jehovah told Moses that he had not revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by the name Jehovah. But, after Jehovah revealed himself to the Jews from the Mount Sinai - which is only the symbol of the intellect - faith in the Jews was no longer the highest requirement: now the highest requirement was knowledge and understanding of Jehovah. Jehovah is the Infinite Intellect, and the Infinite Intellect is God. All mankind are destined to attain to the intellect, and by this they will attain to the knowledge and understanding of God. Men are wiser in their conduct than they are in their philosophy; for, while through their philosophy speaks only their immature mind, through their conduct speaks life itself. Life - this is the Absolute. And life always spoke to mankind the deepest language, though it was an implicit language. This is the reason why mankind always believed in God and in their soul.

Our science, like our religion, is contaminated by superstition. Mankind must rise to the level of the intellect in order to rid science and religion of their superstitious contaminants.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

isn't a set of beliefs but the conviction that beliefs are true.

I grew up in a conservative Catholic family. I've lived my entire adult life in conservative Protestant southern Indiana.

I too was raised Catholic and live in a predominately Protestant town.

I don't remember a single religious person agreeing with that.

Often the word "faith" is used as a synonym for "religion," but I'm discussing faith as in the phrase, "to have faith in."

It's possible a few do. But near all make a distinction between their faith based beliefs and other, evidence based, beliefs.

It's amazing that you know that nearly all the Protestants in your hometown "make a distinction between their faith based beliefs and other, evidence based, beliefs." In any case, what is that distinction they make between "faith-based" beliefs and evidence-based beliefs? Have they told you that there is no evidence for their religious beliefs?

 

[DBT]

I have no need to believe or disbelieve in the existence of the natural world, it exists regardless.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Harry Waton on faith, science and the intellect:

And may scientists write infinite bulky volumes to prove that we have no soul and that there is no God, no attention should be paid to this pretended learning. Science may be the product of reason and the lower faculties, but thus far the scientists did not yet attain to the intellect. ...

Our science, like our religion, is contaminated by superstition. Mankind must rise to the level of the intellect in order to rid science and religion of their superstitious contaminants.

That there are scientists who may write about the soul and gods does not mean that that represents what actual scientific pursuit is. In my thirty years of being a professional scientist I have never written about the soul or any gods in my scientific papers or considered either in any aspect of my research. I do not believe your contention that "our science...is contaminated by superstition." I would need some better evidence of that.

 

[TomC]

Harry Waton on faith, science and the intellect:

And may scientists write infinite bulky volumes to prove that we have no soul and that there is no God, no attention should be paid to this pretended learning. Science may be the product of reason and the lower faculties, but thus far the scientists did not yet attain to the intellect. ...

Our science, like our religion, is contaminated by superstition. Mankind must rise to the level of the intellect in order to rid science and religion of their superstitious contaminants.

That there are scientists who may write about the soul and gods does not mean that that represents what actual scientific pursuit is. In my thirty years of being a professional scientist I have never written about the soul or any gods in my scientific papers or considered either in any aspect of my research. I do not believe your contention that "our science...is contaminated by superstition." I would need some better evidence of that.

I find it easy to dismiss anyone who believes:
"Thus far, most religions, with the exception of Judaism, still rest on faith. Judaism is the only religion that is the product of the intellect. For this reason, Judaism demands that we know Jehovah."

Anyone who believes that the assortment of ancient superstitions known as Judaism is intellectual, but science is not, isn't worth much effort IMHO.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

When using the word "faith," the religious probably mean that they are confident in a God or that what's said about that God is true.

So then that implies that a religious person would understand if someone said they have “faith in science” that person was intending a different meaning than the person who is confident in their god, yes?

The idea of faith is the same while the object of the faith differs: science versus a god.

So, it seems like we are zeroing in your point. Is it your claim that atheists worship science as a god?

Uh, no. I said "...the object of the faith differs..." I then listed two possible objects of faith: science and a god. So some people have faith in science meaning they see science as a good source of truth, and other people put faith in a god seeing that god as a good source of truth.

I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, but this seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument.

I have no idea how you got I was saying that atheists worship science as a god while I used the phrase "science versus god." When you read my post, did you read the word "versus" thinking I wrote "as"?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I dom’t think he actually knows what he is trying to say. If he did, he wouldn‘t be strategically skipping over posts he evidently can’t handle while regurgitating anodyne bromides restating claims that have already been soundly reubutted.

This post would be more appropriate in a thread entitled "Unknown Soldier is really dumb."

 

[bilby]

I dom’t think he actually knows what he is trying to say. If he did, he wouldn‘t be strategically skipping over posts he evidently can’t handle while regurgitating anodyne bromides restating claims that have already been soundly reubutted.

This post would be more appropriate in a thread entitled "Unknown Soldier is really dumb."

Is it possible for enthusiastic agreement with someone to violate the ToU?

Asking for a friend...