Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[steve_bank]

Why use the same word in relation to different things? If having confidence in there being a sunrise tomorrow is the same as confidence that 'Brahman is manifesting the universe,' why categorize both as a matter of faith when one is clearly based on solid evidence, while the other has no evidence at all...

Because there are a finite number of letters in the alphabet and a subset of pronounceable combinations?

I am feeling blue.
My shirt is blue.
I am green with envy.

Soldier made a similar issue on a philosophy thread. In algebra 1 + 1 = 2, in another area of math 1 + 1 does not equal 1. He considered it a flaw in math conlcudng math is incnsistent.

There is a limited set of Greek letters. Across math,science, and engineering the meaning of a Greek symbol or English letter varies.

Soldier is ether feigning ignorance or he has little social experience. He read something by Dawkins and dlacred it to be truth, without defiiing what faith means in terms of the OP.

He makes a weak effort to prop up his position by quote miningg from theists.

 

[DBT]

Why use the same word in relation to different things? If having confidence in there being a sunrise tomorrow is the same as confidence that 'Brahman is manifesting the universe,' why categorize both as a matter of faith when one is clearly based on solid evidence, while the other has no evidence at all...

Because there are a finite number of letters in the alphabet and a subset of pronounceable combinations?

I am feeling blue.
My shirt is blue.
I am green with envy.

Soldier made a similar issue on a philosophy thread. In algebra 1 + 1 = 2, in another area of math 1 + 1 does not equal 1. He considered it a flaw in math conlcudng math is incnsistent.

There is a limited set of Greek letters. Across math,science, and engineering the meaning of a Greek symbol or English letter varies.

Soldier is ether feigning ignorance or he has little social experience. He read something by Dawkins and dlacred it to be truth, without defiiing what faith means in terms of the OP.

He makes a weak effort to prop up his position by quote miningg from theists.

Nobody equivocates 'feeling blue' with being the colour blue. Yet it's a different story when it comes to faith.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So, I guess if we must have faith in the existence of the moon and we must have faith in the existence of Brahman as the manifester of the universe, both 'beliefs' are on an equal footing.

What's so upsetting about that?

If after hundreds of posts on this thread you still don’t get why we balk at that then there’s little more to be said it would seem.

My general impression of this discussion is that atheists know full well that religious people say they base their faith on reason and evidence but atheists still deny it. All the talk about religious logic and evidence being inferior to that of science is an obvious red herring. Atheists, like theists, can be and often are fanatical and irrational stretching the truth to fit their highly valued preconceived notions.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, I guess if we must have faith in the existence of the moon and we must have faith in the existence of Brahman as the manifester of the universe, both 'beliefs' are on an equal footing.

What's so upsetting about that?

If after hundreds of posts on this thread you still don’t get why we balk at that then there’s little more to be said it would seem.

My general impression of this discussion is that atheists know full well that religious people say they base their faith on reason and evidence but atheists still deny it. All the talk about religious logic and evidence being inferior to that of science is an obvious red herring. Atheists, like theists, can be and often are fanatical and irrational stretching the truth to fit their highly valued preconceived notions.

I mostly agree with except for your red herring comment. You yourself asked the question why it would be upsetting to put the existence of the Moon and the existence of Brahman on the same footing. It’s clear they are not even if one has “reason” and “evidence” to back up belief in Brahman. So it seems that as much as atheists may not concede that they accuse the religious of lack of evidence you are not conceding that religious evidence and reasoning are not the same as scientific evidence and reasoning. That is an untenable position and you either know it and you’re just yanking our chains for the fun of the argument or you just really don’t understand science at all.

 

[steve_bank]

So, I guess if we must have faith in the existence of the moon and we must have faith in the existence of Brahman as the manifester of the universe, both 'beliefs' are on an equal footing.

What's so upsetting about that?

If after hundreds of posts on this thread you still don’t get why we balk at that then there’s little more to be said it would seem.

My general impression of this discussion is that atheists know full well that religious people say they base their faith on reason and evidence but atheists still deny it. All the talk about religious logic and evidence being inferior to that of science is an obvious red herring. Atheists, like theists, can be and often are fanatical and irrational stretching the truth to fit their highly valued preconceived notions.

Ouch!...wow that really hurts. Not really. It is your preconceived notions that are under attack.

Yet again.

Yes religion is based on reasoning and evidence like science and all forms of reasoning. The question is always the nature of the evidence. Do you understand this simple statement?

For a very long time a primary debate with theists on the forum has been over what theists believe is evidence for the supernatural tales of Jesus, the truth of the bible stories, and the existence of god.

Savvy?

Science reduces to a claim supported by an experiment anyone around the world can duplicate. An experiment that works regardless of the secular philosophy or the religious faith of the experimenter. If I measure gravitational acceleration a a point on the surface I know from physcal experiment that Newton's Law Fore = Mass * Acceleration applied to a falling object is correct. Anyone can repeat the experiment.

Religion reduces to claims that are not provable experimentally. Alleged results of religious faith vary with the believer. Different Christians can and do differ on what it means to be a Chrisian and what one does to get into heaven with Jesus.


Are we having fun yet? Feel free to dispute the above dichotomy. Or ignore if it is too challenging of a logic puzzle for you.

 

[pood]

So, I guess if we must have faith in the existence of the moon and we must have faith in the existence of Brahman as the manifester of the universe, both 'beliefs' are on an equal footing.

What's so upsetting about that?

If after hundreds of posts on this thread you still don’t get why we balk at that then there’s little more to be said it would seem.

My general impression of this discussion is that atheists know full well that religious people say they base their faith on reason and evidence but atheists still deny it.

No, a great many base their belief on the biblical definition of faith, viz., “faith … is the evidence of things unseen.“ This means that faith itself, according to the bible itself, IS the evidence of God. Ironically enough, in your post 251, which you commended to me as a rebuttal of my post, your yourself bizarrely invoke a different translation of this line (there are number of different translations), which only makes my case for me, and undermines your own claims.

I know there are theists who claim they base their faith on reason and evidence — like young earth creationists and evoloution deniers. As I argued earlier, my own suspicion is that most religious people believe what they believe because they were raised to believe it, and don’t give much thought to faith, reason, evidence, or anything else in this discussion.

I ask again, since you did not answer this question the first two times I asked it, how did you become the arbiter of what religious people believe about faith, and about what atheists say they believe about faith? Did you do a scientific survey, and if so, can you cite it, please?

 

[DBT]

So, I guess if we must have faith in the existence of the moon and we must have faith in the existence of Brahman as the manifester of the universe, both 'beliefs' are on an equal footing.

What's so upsetting about that?

Rather than upsetting, it's just not true. It's not true that they are the same or even similar and you refuse to accept the reasons why they are not related.

 

[ideologyhunter]

ONE wave power formula on the physics side of the street.
FOUR THOUSAND different faith traditions on the religion side.

Evidence and reasoning do not mean the same thing -- at all -- to both sides.

You can tell me that the religious have an aesthetic and idealistic experience, that their narratives seem whole and complete to them, but when there are so many conflicting and irreconcilable versions of what faith in a deity means, you make the words evidence and reason incoherent when you try to compare the scientific method with religious belief. It's fallacious.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

My general impression of this discussion is that atheists know full well that religious people say they base their faith on reason and evidence but atheists still deny it.

No, a great many base their belief on the biblical definition of faith, viz., “faith … is the evidence of things unseen.“

Yes--evidence is part of Christian faith. You just posted it so you know.

This means that faith itself, according to the bible itself, IS the evidence of God.

It's still evidence no matter how much you don't like God being cited as evidence.

Ironically enough, in your post 251, which you commended to me as a rebuttal of my post, your yourself bizarrely invoke a different translation of this line (there are number of different translations), which only makes my case for me, and undermines your own claims.

What "different translation" of mine do you have a problem with?

I know there are theists who claim they base their faith on reason and evidence — like young earth creationists and evoloution deniers.

Don't forget Thomas Aquinas.

As I argued earlier, my own suspicion is that most religious people believe what they believe because they were raised to believe it, and don’t give much thought to faith, reason, evidence, or anything else in this discussion.

Well, your opinion is noted.

I ask again, since you did not answer this question the first two times I asked it, how did you become the arbiter of what religious people believe about faith, and about what atheists say they believe about faith?

I generally don't answer loaded questions.

Did you do a scientific survey, and if so, can you cite it, please?

No. I just listen to what the religious say about faith, and then I honestly and fairly represent what they said about faith.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

ONE wave power formula on the physics side of the street.
FOUR THOUSAND different faith traditions on the religion side.

Evidence and reasoning do not mean the same thing -- at all -- to both sides.

You can tell me that the religious have an aesthetic and idealistic experience, that their narratives seem whole and complete to them, but when there are so many conflicting and irreconcilable versions of what faith in a deity means, you make the words evidence and reason incoherent when you try to compare the scientific method with religious belief. It's fallacious.

Is the Shroud of Turin evidence for the resurrection of Christ? How about answered prayers and testimonies of miracles?

If it makes you feel any better, I generally find scientific reasoning and evidence more convincing than the reasons and evidence offered by religion, but I won't deny that the religious have reasoning and evidence.

Here's your fallacy:

I think A is of poor quality.
Therefore, there is no A.

That kind kind of reasoning is worse than anything I've seen the religious offer.

 

[DBT]

Some claim that answered prayer is their evidence for the existence of God, yet studies have shown that praying has no greater effect on outcome than placebo and the comfort of something being done.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes--evidence is part of Christian faith. You just posted it so you know.

Maybe you are just mentally blocking out recent posts.

Your argument seems to be.

Science has a faith in its work based on evidence.
Christians have a faith in their beliefs based on evidence.
Therefore both science and religion are based in faith, the same kind of faith.

Is this what you are saying?

 

[James Brown]

This means that faith itself, according to the bible itself, IS the evidence of God.

It's still evidence no matter how much you don't like God being cited as evidence.

Cool. That means that I have evidence that my neighbor is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

And my evidence is that I firmly and strongly believe it to be so.

 

[Thomas II]

This means that faith itself, according to the bible itself, IS the evidence of God.

It's still evidence no matter how much you don't like God being cited as evidence.

Cool. That means that I have evidence that my neighbor is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

And my evidence is that I firmly and strongly believe it to be so.

 

[Learner]

More contenders to the list.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yes--evidence is part of Christian faith. You just posted it so you know.

Maybe you are just mentally blocking out recent posts.

I wish I could block them out.

Your argument seems to be.

Science has a faith in its work based on evidence.
Christians have a faith in their beliefs based on evidence.
Therefore both science and religion are based in faith, the same kind of faith.

Is this what you are saying?

I'm arguing:

• When scientists are convinced that their reasoning and evidence support a hypothesis, then they have faith where faith is understood as being confident in a conclusion.
• Christians have faith in that they are convinced that their beliefs are true based on evidence and reasoning.
• Therefore both science and religion are based in faith which is to say that both disciplines accept the truths of claims when the reason and evidence for those claims is convincing.

And for the thousandth time, I'm not arguing that the logic and evidence for religious beliefs is as good as the logic and evidence for science. The quality of the logic and evidence is a different issue. I'm arguing that the religious cite logic and evidence for their beliefs, and it is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive to deny they do so.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This means that faith itself, according to the bible itself, IS the evidence of God.

It's still evidence no matter how much you don't like God being cited as evidence.

Cool. That means that I have evidence that my neighbor is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

And my evidence is that I firmly and strongly believe it to be so.

Most people who believe your neighbor is the second coming of Christ, whatever that means, would have reasons and evidence to believe he is that second coming.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Consider some statements.

1. My neighbor is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
2. I think that my neighbor is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
3. I believe that my neighbor is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Which of those is a statement of faith?

Does it matter? Aren't they all sufficient evidence for someone else having faith in your neighbor?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm arguing:

• When scientists are convinced that their reasoning and evidence support a hypothesis, then they have faith where faith is understood as being confident in a conclusion.

Except that that is not how scientists understand “faith”. So your premise is flawed.

 

[TomC]

And for the thousandth time, I'm not arguing that the logic and evidence for religious beliefs is as good as the logic and evidence for science. The quality of the logic and evidence is a different issue. I'm arguing that the religious cite logic and evidence for their beliefs, and it is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive to deny they do so.

Would you explain what you see as the important difference between two different beliefs:

A) The scientific belief that the earth orbits the sun.

B) The religious belief that Jesus Rose from the Dead and ascended to Heaven.

What I see as the difference is that the first belief is based on evidence that can be shared and examined by everyone. The second is based on a personal preference for a religious world view despite the evidence against it.
Tom