Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[Jarhyn]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Name one religious group that defines faith that way and post a link to document it.

I don't do arguments from authority.

Then no religious group defines faith the way you do. Let's be fair and honest, shall we?

Of course, religious groups will attempt to define faith in a way that favors their outlook.

It is like the distinction folks make between organized religions and cults. Of course religious people would carve an exemption for themselves out of the idea of cult, because if they didn't, they would need to admit they were cultists.

When someone looks from the outside, in, however, we can see how neurotic and insane it is to make such special pleas.

All organized religions are cults, and if people in organized religions dislike this, they should quit being members of a cult.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Many astronomers get excited over their work, and that includes their work on both dark matter and dark energy both of which have not been observed and possibly cannot be observed. Under your definition those astronomers are showing faith.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Many astronomers get excited over their work, and that includes their work on both dark matter and dark energy both of which have not been observed and possibly cannot be observed. Under your definition those astronomers are showing faith.

So you are claiming that a blind person cannot observe, and that all human "observations" are visual?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Do you just dislike the word "faith"?

The word is fine.

Thank you for a straight answer! I don't get very many of those.

It just doesn't mean to me what it means to you. So when you use it in a sentence like "faith in that science" it implies something that isn't true to me.

But what faith means to me is irrelevant. I'm discussing what faith means to the religious and how their atheist critics use faith with a different meaning to strawman what the religious say about faith. So if you use the word "faith" when critiquing theology, then make sure you're using "faith" with the same meaning they do. Otherwise, you're committing a strawman fallacy.

If you aren’t arguing a position on the issue then there’s no point in discussing this further. I guess I should wait for a religious person to show up to this discussion and present their definition.

I, personally, have found that the evidence and logic that religious people use to justify their beliefs is fundamentally different than the evidence and logic that scientists use to justify their beliefs. That is what I meant by me not being a religious scientist.

Then religious persons must be "fundamentally different people" than scientists are

That does not follow from what I said.

“which seems unlikely considering that many religious persons are scientists. It is very true that people like Christians are often bullheaded and irrational believing what they want despite evidence to the contrary, but anybody can be like that. Scientists can be that way too.” (Sorry. Editing on the phone is messing up the quotes here)

This is a tangent that isn’t really where I am going with the the discussion so I won’t comment.

If the tenets of religion could be determined using the same paths of evidence and logic as the science I have studied then I would believe religion just as I believe science. However, whenever I have been presented with religious arguments that attempt to follow the same kind of reasoning as the science I have studied the results have come up extremely short.

That's your own point of view which I basically agree with. Yes, to me at least the evidence for religious claims seems weak, and the logic for those claims seems weak if not fallacious. Nevertheless, it appears that there's nothing blind about what most theologians say when they argue for the truth of their beliefs.

I guess it depends now on what you mean by “blind”. I have seen a lot of anti-science people argue against science using logic that follows a “if a then b, not b therefore not a” type of approach. Which I guess could be said to not be a “blind” argument. However if the “if a then b” part is actually a false premise then even though one is following logic the argument ultimately fails. What I have seen from pro-religious arguments often follow the same path as the anti-science. A so-called logic is used but the premises upon which the logic rests are either false or unproven. That is what begins to differentiate faith from trust.

All you need to do is tell me what you mean by "foozle," and then I will understand what you are talking about. I won't use other definitions because I would be misrepresenting what you're saying about "foozle." It would be dishonest and unfair for me to do that. Yet in the same way so many atheists keep twisting what the religious say about faith.

Fair enough. I won't claim I know what you mean by the word "faith".

Again, the issue isn't what I mean by faith but what the religious mean by faith. All you need to do is search for what they mean by faith rather than rely on stereotypes or slogans. I guarantee that you won't find one sect that officially defines faith as blind acceptance of dogma.

If they can’t support their dogma with sound, valid logical arguments but still require acceptance of the dogma, what would you call that? If the so-called “logic” is unreasonable what word should we use? Should we equate that same logic to the logic of the scientists, like you do when applying the same word (“faith”) to both approaches?

Think about it: Do you rely want to avow that you have no faith in science? Would you want to cross a bridge designed by engineers who put no faith in engineering?

Yes. I don't have "faith in science". My beliefs and understanding of science do not rely on anything I use the word "faith" for. I cross bridges with a TRUST that engineers have put in the due diligence to understand the science necessary to construct bridges and that there are governmental organizations that have been put in place to manage specifications and requirements on engineering that are based on centuries of tried and true physical laws backed up by experimentation and reliable quantitative results predicted by those laws.

That's right! Everything you've posted here is trust in relevant truth. To be sure that bridges are safe, engineers take steps to be confident that their judgments about the structural integrity of those bridges are correct. That's basically what the religious mean by faith.

So, where do the religious develop their understanding of their beliefs in the same way that engineers have developed theirs? Any time I have seen a scientific approach to investigating religious claims they don’t bear fruit. That’s what I meant by saying if the religious could back up their claims the same way that scientists do I would be religious. I would be compelled to believe by the cogency of the evidence and the logical
framework of the theories in which the evidence is interpreted. I have never seen they with religious claims.

This is purely a semantic disagreement between us. I have a definition for the word "faith" that's different than yours.

What exactly is your definition of faith? It appears to be the same as that of the religious.

In case you haven’t figured it out by what I’ve written so far I define it as belief in something despite the absence of reasonable proof.

And it need not be solely in the realm of religion. For example, I could say I have faith that humanity will solve the problem of climate change. I don’t trust that we will based on all available evidence but I might believe we will despite that. I could have faith that some drug-addicted friend of mine will quit his harmful behaviors and get on the straight and narrow despite seeing no evidence that he’s working on changing himself.

 

[Tristan Scott]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Name one religious group that defines faith that way and post a link to document it.

Hebrews 11 comes close--Now faith is the confidence of things hoped for and the assurance about what we do not see.

 

[steve_bank]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Many astronomers get excited over their work, and that includes their work on both dark matter and dark energy both of which have not been observed and possibly cannot be observed. Under your definition those astronomers are showing faith.

Your premise appears to be religious faith and science are the same.

OK. so far.

Now, can you articulate WHY astronomers have a faith that is analogous to a religious faith.?

I have 10 apples in one bag and 5 apples in another. Is it a religious kind of faith to conclude I have a total of15 apples?

P1 I have faith the bible is true.
P2 The bible says god created the Earth.
C I have faith god created the Earth.


P1 Astronomy says the Earth circles the Sun.
P2 Observation from Earth and from space prtove P1.
C I have faith the Earth travels around the Earth.

Is the validity of these two logical arguments equivalent 'faith'?

Dark matter is an hypothesis developed to explain why observation did not match the existing cosmology models. That is the way science advances. A hypothesis to explain observation .

It is the history of science. Newtonian physics was not able to cr4ctly model black body radiation. Along comes quantum mechanics which can model it.

What I have faith in is that the process of science over time rejects bad theories and false claims and elvates better theories.

A good example was the claim of cold fusion back in the early 90s. If true it could have potentially solved the energy demands. Within a few days thanks to he Internet it was globally rejected. No one could duplicate the experiment.

That is how science works.

Relgious faith requires no physical demonstrable proof, that is why it is called faith.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That is the way science advances. A hypothesis to explain observation .

I think Soldier doesn't appreciate what an "observation" is. If I'm a kid and I never shop for food but there is always food for me in the fridge or at home or at school I can "observe" that someone else is providing the food for me. I don't have to see them doing it but it must be happening. Maybe he thinks that the kid has "faith" that there will always be food without knowing where or how it comes to him, no observations involved.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Faith is essentially the trust or confidence we place in a conclusion. As such, it is not necessarily religious. So, for example consider a climatologist who has studied the melting ice in Antarctica. She gathers a lot of data regarding the reduction of ice there and compares it to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere over the past decades. Based on the evidence available to her she concludes that yes, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is causing the ice to melt in Antarctica. The confidence she places in that conclusion is her faith.

So, here you give an example of a scientist putting “faith” in her conclusion . Could you now provide what you think is a comparable example of religious faith that results from the same level of evidentiary findings bolstered by a sound logical framework.

Maybe then I’ll have a better of idea of what you think the word “faith” means in a scientific context.

I know of no examples of religious dogmas that have supporting evidence and logic that approach the respective quality and validity of the evidence and logic for climate change--no religious dogma is even close. But that's irrelevant to my position. I'm not saying that since both science and religion are based on faith then their conclusions have the same likelihood of being true. What I am saying is that ultimately both religion and science are faith based in that their supporters place a level of confidence in their truths by citing evidence and reasoning.

Or more succinctly, it's just plain wrong to say that religious faith is not based on evidence.

 

[steve_bank]

Faith is essentially the trust or confidence we place in a conclusion. As such, it is not necessarily religious. So, for example consider a climatologist who has studied the melting ice in Antarctica. She gathers a lot of data regarding the reduction of ice there and compares it to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere over the past decades. Based on the evidence available to her she concludes that yes, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is causing the ice to melt in Antarctica. The confidence she places in that conclusion is her faith.

So, here you give an example of a scientist putting “faith” in her conclusion . Could you now provide what you think is a comparable example of religious faith that results from the same level of evidentiary findings bolstered by a sound logical framework.

Maybe then I’ll have a better of idea of what you think the word “faith” means in a scientific context.

I know of no examples of religious dogmas that have supporting evidence and logic that approach the respective quality and validity of the evidence and logic for climate change--no religious dogma is even close. But that's irrelevant to my position. I'm not saying that since both science and religion are based on faith then their conclusions have the same likelihood of being true. What I am saying is that ultimately both religion and science are faith based in that their supporters place a level of confidence in their truths by citing evidence and reasoning.

Or more succinctly, it's just plain wrong to say that religious faith is not based on evidence.

Oh brother, that is one hell of a whopper.

There was a lengthythread on philosophy on subjective vs objective evidence.

What theists take for evidence is subjective interpretation of reality in the context of the bible. Selection bias to say the least.

I know you can not, provide an example of evidence based religious arguments that are on a par with science that proves their faith.
They argue from than a priori conclusion that god does exist.

Theists can make a valid logical argument, which simply means no logical falacies and the comclusion follows from the premises.

The truth of concusion of any logical argument is based on the truth of the premises.

Theists alwys argue from the beleif that god exists to begin with.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Faith is essentially the trust or confidence we place in a conclusion. As such, it is not necessarily religious. So, for example consider a climatologist who has studied the melting ice in Antarctica. She gathers a lot of data regarding the reduction of ice there and compares it to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere over the past decades. Based on the evidence available to her she concludes that yes, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is causing the ice to melt in Antarctica. The confidence she places in that conclusion is her faith.

So, here you give an example of a scientist putting “faith” in her conclusion . Could you now provide what you think is a comparable example of religious faith that results from the same level of evidentiary findings bolstered by a sound logical framework.

Maybe then I’ll have a better of idea of what you think the word “faith” means in a scientific context.

I know of no examples of religious dogmas that have supporting evidence and logic that approach the respective quality and validity of the evidence and logic for climate change--no religious dogma is even close. But that's irrelevant to my position. I'm not saying that since both science and religion are based on faith then their conclusions have the same likelihood of being true. What I am saying is that ultimately both religion and science are faith based in that their supporters place a level of confidence in their truths by citing evidence and reasoning.

Or more succinctly, it's just plain wrong to say that religious faith is not based on evidence.

but your final statement here becomes meaningless. If I say a baby is “tall” and so is Shaquille O’Neal because they both have height, how meaningful is the word “tall”.

I’m willing to grant that I understand your point here I just believe it doesn’t add value to the ability to discern the difference between two ideas.

 

[abaddon]

Or more succinctly, it's just plain wrong to say that religious faith is not based on evidence.

So the actual bone of contention is that atheists are mistaken to say "no evidence".

I agree with that, but not with the notion that atheists are unfair about what faith is. I think some atheists have a loaded idea of what evidence is... namely they accept only evidences that support scientific theories. Any evidences given for religious beliefs don't qualify as evidence, in their minds, because it's not the sort of evidence that THEY value.

It should be enough to say "that's not enough evidence to feel confident in your belief" instead of declaring "you have NO evidence at all for your belief".

Is there evidence for Jesus's resurrection? Yes. The testimony, exactly as the believers keep saying. That IS their evidence. It's garbage evidence and can be dismissed as too little evidence to justify trust and confidence in the belief. But it's false to say "that's not evidence".

Is there evidence for spirits/souls? Yes. Lots of testimony about ghosts, for one thing. They are very real experiences, in fact I've seen some ghosts myself... just I don't accept them as independent entities outside my imagination.

Also many humans feel they're distinct from their bodies, since they identify as consciousness and notice their aging "thing" of a body is quite distinctive from their consciousness. This IS evidence for the conclusion that a soul wears the body like a suit. And that evidence is evidence anyway regardless that the interpretation of the evidence is faulty.

"We all have a certain level of faith" isn't a good way to address the atheists trying to deny any evidence to the theists. The more apt argument is to say what you eventually said: "it's just plain wrong to say that religious faith is not based on evidence".

 

[DBT]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Name one religious group that defines faith that way and post a link to document it.

Hebrews 11 comes close--Now faith is the confidence of things hoped for and the assurance about what we do not see.

Which is essentially the same as holding a belief without the support of evidence: faith.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Many astronomers get excited over their work, and that includes their work on both dark matter and dark energy both of which have not been observed and possibly cannot be observed. Under your definition those astronomers are showing faith.

So you are claiming that a blind person cannot observe, and that all human "observations" are visual?

No, I'm obviously saying that you're using a definition of "faith" that can be applied to anybody including scientists.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Or more succinctly, it's just plain wrong to say that religious faith is not based on evidence.

but your final statement here becomes meaningless. If I say a baby is “tall” and so is Shaquille O’Neal because they both have height, how meaningful is the word “tall”.

I have no problem understanding that at all. Let's outline your logic:

A has far more x than B has x.
Therefore, I don't know what x is.

Do you see how dumb that is?

I’m willing to grant that I understand your point here I just believe it doesn’t add value to the ability to discern the difference between two ideas.

I'm arguing that there is no difference.

 

[steve_bank]

So far Soldier is making a claim not a logical a argument with supporting facts.

Astronomers have fdrk matter, therefore science and religion have the same faith. Why does dark matter represent a relgious like faith?

The silence is deafening.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Name one religious group that defines faith that way and post a link to document it.

Hebrews 11 comes close--Now faith is the confidence of things hoped for and the assurance about what we do not see.

Astronomers have never seen the Oort cloud of comets, yet they have the assurance that it exists. You've just demonstrated that yes, scientists as well as the religious have faith.

 

[Tristan Scott]

"Faith" is when a person believes something emotionally but the "something" cannot be observed.

Name one religious group that defines faith that way and post a link to document it.

Hebrews 11 comes close--Now faith is the confidence of things hoped for and the assurance about what we do not see.

Astronomers have never seen the Oort cloud of comets, yet they have the assurance that it exists. You've just demonstrated that yes, scientists as well as the religious have faith.

Astronomers suspect that it exists. Not a good example.
I have faith that the mechanics are taking good care of the aircraft I'm boarding, or that the pilot is not a suicidal maniac, even though I have not observed any of this.

 

[DBT]

Mechanics are trained to repair and maintain aircraft and other machinary. Some are better than others at their work, and mistakes happen. Given the rate of failure and the number of serious accidents, it's not likely that your plane will crash. The possibility of crashing is there, but it is too small to worry about. Probability and reason, not faith.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Astronomers have never seen the Oort cloud of comets, yet they have the assurance that it exists.

That's not faith.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Set One: Some representative findings in theism
1- There is a creator god who is omniscient and omnipresent.
2- Man has an eternal soul.
3- Salvation comes from grace, not works.
4- Faith without works is meaningless.
5- <Specific scripture> is divinely inspired.
6- There is an afterlife.

Set Two: Some representative findings from the sciences
1- At one time, whales had four limbs.
2- Marble is metamorphosed limestone.
3- A vaccine stimulates the body to produce antibodies against a specific infectious disease.
4- Aerodynamics explains how a 450 ton jumbo jet can go airborne.
5- Atomic theory explains the reactions among chemical elements.

The items in set two have firm evidentiary support. They can be demonstrated by empirical standards. Still, they are open to reinterpretation and reformulation if new and contrasting evidence is brought to bear on them.
The same cannot be said about the items in set one; in fact, there are hundreds if not thousands of contrasting viewpoints on all 5 statements. The best that can be said about them is that each one, as understood in a specific tradition, is thought to be consistent with the declared faith of its adherents. The "evidence" for set one is not comparable with the evidence available for set two.