Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[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.

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.

Yes. The reasons and the evidence they have that my neighbor is the second coming of Christ is that they believe he's the second coming of Christ.

That's all they need, right?

 

[TomC]

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.

Exactly. They have the sort of evidence that religious people use to support their faith.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

If "scientists" don't understand faith that way, then they don't understand what religious faith is. That's why I used the phrase "where faith is understood..." In case you don't understand what that phrase means, I am ready to explain what I mean by "faith." Whether or not scientists define faith the same way doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not they have the kind of faith I'm referring to. And they do. Otherwise, they would never be sure their own theories are right!

And FYI, here's a list of 34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians all of whom had religious faith based on reason and evidence.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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

Obviously, B is sectarian while A is more commonly accepted. A and B are alike in that people have reason and evidence to accept them as true.

And for the millionth time, I'm not saying that the reasoning and evidence for religion is as good as the reasoning and evidence for scientific discoveries. I'm just arguing that the religious do have reasoning and evidence.

Why don't you get that? Are you afraid to accept it?

 

[TomC]

A and B are alike in that people have reason and evidence to accept them as true.

This is the problem

You don't see someone lying as different from someone telling the truth, because both are claims and therefore have evidence.

I believe that you are extremely religious. You can say you aren't, but I have better evidence than a religious person making a claim.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Here's another episode of Faith causing disaster.

Millions of people firmly believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 election in a landslide. But Biden and the Democratic Deep State committed so much election fraud that they Stole the Presidency.

They have been asked to provide objective evidence, but they never do. But enough liars like Trump and Carlson keep repeating the lies to bolster their Faith and so they keep on Believing. Even though there's tons of evidence against their Faith based beliefs, they continue to Believe.

Faith is when people believe lies because they really want something to be true. Knowledge is when people believe something because the evidence is strong. Religious people, like the OP, don't see the difference.
Tom

 

[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.

If "scientists" don't understand faith that way, then they don't understand what religious faith is.

They don’t have religious faith in science so it doesn’t matter what religious faith means vis a vis their scientific conclusions.

That's why I used the phrase "where faith is understood..." In case you don't understand what that phrase means, I am ready to explain what I mean by "faith." Whether or not scientists define faith the same way doesn't matter.

It does matter when you claim they have it in their conclusions.

What matters is whether or not they have the kind of faith I'm referring to. And they do. Otherwise, they would never be sure their own theories are right!

They are never 100% sure their own theories are “right”. They always allow for New and better theories to come along. “Right” just means how accurately a theory can predict measurable behaviors of the universe. It’s not analogous to religious truths.

You seem to be arguing about what scientists think and feel without actually knowing what scientists think and feel. You are committing the same error that you are accusing them of when you say they tell The religious what they mean by”faith”.

You appear to have a conclusion you would like to have be true and are trying to come up with an argument to support it.

And FYI, here's a list of 34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians all of whom had religious faith based on reason and evidence.

That’s a red herring. I have known religious scientists too and that’s not what we are talking about.

 

[TomC]

You appear to have a conclusion you would like to have be true and are trying to come up with an argument to support it.

That's Faith.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

We are having a mostly semantic, not substantive, argument here. You would like the word “faith” to simply mean “the trust in one’s conclusions as reached through evidence and reason”.

There is good reason to believe that the word is not typically used in this simple sense. Even by the religious.

And you also want the colloquial definition to be used in a technical sense when applied to scientists. And this is definitely inappropriate.

ETA: if a scientist says they have “faith” in their theories they mean it in that colloquial sense. Just as if they said “I don’t have the energy to work this weekend” they aren’t taking about kinetic or gravitational potential energy like they might when talking about science, they mean it colloquially.

 

[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.

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.

Sheesh.

Why didn't you say that in the OP. It took you a while to put it togeher directly and succinctly. You have benefited from the debate. I know it would kill you to admit it. I'd say most of us benifit and grow with forum debate.

Not done yet. One final point if you will respond.

I believe you said faith is faith, there is no difference between religious and scientific faith.

Would you say religious and scientific conclusions are equally valid? Theists would say yes, I'd say no.

Watched part of this show thos morning. Refuting evolution in favor of creationism.

The speaker is a science philosopher,PHD of course argument from crdentials and authority, with the Discovery Instate here in Seattle. They publish science looking theories on Creationism and Intelligent Design.

johm ankerberg show evolution - Google Search

Is creationism as valid as a scientfic theory based on experiment?

 

[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.

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.

Yes. The reasons and the evidence they have that my neighbor is the second coming of Christ is that they believe he's the second coming of Christ.

That's all they need, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus

 

[DBT]

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.

Knowledge, belief/conviction, confidence, trust and faith have articles. It is the article that makes it a matter of faith, trust, confidence or knowledge, where knowing the moon exists is not the same as believing that Braham manifests the universe.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

A and B are alike in that people have reason and evidence to accept them as true.

This is the problem

You don't see someone lying as different from someone telling the truth, because both are claims and therefore have evidence.

OK, if you know that somebody is lying, then that's obviously different from the truth. So for example if a group of atheists lie about what a religion means by faith, then we have a problem on our hands.

I believe that you are extremely religious.

That could be true depending on what you mean by my being religious. So for now it's only right for me to wait until you have a chance to define "religious." No doubt you'd be very upset if I told people you mean that I'm extremely intelligent when you mean something else.

You can say you aren't, but I have better evidence than a religious person making a claim.

Once you've told us what you mean by religious, then please explain what evidence you have that I am religious. I won't deny you have evidence just because I judge that evidence to be flimsy. It would be really stupid for me to come to that conclusion.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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 say religious and scientific conclusions are equally valid?

What did I just get done posting?

 

[steve_bank]

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 say religious and scientific conclusions are equally valid?

What did I just get done posting?

Can you codiser the possibility that what you think are clear exressions of yiur thinking are not so clear to the rst of us? Of course yur argument is yu are being clear and therest of us are stuipid.

The last quetion I asked you is important. Your reasoning is that which is used to argue that Creationism and Intellgent Design should be taught alomgside science in oublic schools.

In fact in the 90s a Christian legislator in Wa floated a bill that would require all public school sceince tects includimg higher education to have a cavet that allows the entry of Creationism and ID.

I exchanged emails with the author of the bill and was prepared to go Olympia to debate it and I exchanged emails with the chair of the committee. The bill never got out of committee.

So, the debate on this thread is not just academic or philosophical debate, it has real world consequences. At least for us atheists who want separation of church and state and religion kept out of public education.

So again. Do you consider the reasoned concussions from science and religion equally valid? Shold they be treatd as equally valid? Your mantra is us atheists don't get relgious faith and that science and religion are both faith based and that atheists demean the faith of theists.

It is not that we demaean the faith per se, itis what they try to impose based on faith.

You were clearly justifying or rationalizing religious and scientific faith as the same, which it is not. You continue to conflate faith with trust in terms of science.

So should religious and scientific 'faith' be given equal credence?

A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If "scientists" don't understand faith that way, then they don't understand what religious faith is.

They don’t have religious faith in science so it doesn’t matter what religious faith means vis a vis their scientific conclusions.

Obviously there are some differences in the logic and evidence that scientific faith rests on and the logic and evidence. religious faith rests on.

That's why I used the phrase "where faith is understood..." In case you don't understand what that phrase means, I am ready to explain what I mean by "faith." Whether or not scientists define faith the same way doesn't matter.

It does matter when you claim they have it in their conclusions.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that scientists can have faith as I understand the word without being consciously aware of it or understanding what I mean. Sure, many scientists might balk at anybody saying they have faith, but they nevertheless tend to be very convinced that many of their theories are true. In so doing they have faith without being aware of it. There's nothing wrong with trusting ideas that are validly logical and well supported by robust evidence. It would be stupid to see that as bad.

What matters is whether or not they have the kind of faith I'm referring to. And they do. Otherwise, they would never be sure their own theories are right!

They are never 100% sure their own theories are “right”. They always allow for New and better theories to come along. “Right” just means how accurately a theory can predict measurable behaviors of the universe. It’s not analogous to religious truths.

What scientists say that relativity, quantum mechanics, or evolution is not right? It's common for scientists to say that evolution is a fact. Carl Sagan said so. Scientists know that these theories are so logical and well supported by evidence that they are convinced they are true. That's faith, and there's nothing wrong with it.

You seem to be arguing about what scientists think and feel without actually knowing what scientists think and feel.

I don't recall saying that I know what scientists think, but I've been reading about science for forty years. I think I have a good idea what scientists generally think and feel.

You are committing the same error that you are accusing them of when you say they tell The religious what they mean by”faith”.

Uh--I was referring to what some atheists say what the religious mean by faith--not what scientists say they mean by faith.

With all due respect your reading comprehension is poor. You keep reading words that I never posted.

You appear to have a conclusion you would like to have be true and are trying to come up with an argument to support it.

What's wrong with that? I wouldn't say I want my conclusion to be true but that if it is true, then everybody should recognize that truth.

And FYI, here's a list of 34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians all of whom had religious faith based on reason and evidence.

That’s a red herring.

How is that fact a red herring? It's darn good evidence that contrary to what some atheists say, faith can be supported by logic and evidence.

I have known religious scientists too and that’s not what we are talking about.

What's not what we are talking about?

 

[DBT]

If an article of faith is supported by evidence, it is no longer believed on faith. Evidence coming to light transforms faith into a justified belief.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What's not what we are talking about?

We are talking about different things so continuing is not fruitful. We are talking past each other. I am happy to take the blame and I apologize if I have misread what you’ve written. Thanks for the chat.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If an article of faith is supported by evidence, it is no longer believed on faith. Evidence coming to light transforms faith into a justified belief.

That's a good point. The evidence for Santa Claus never changes. Why do children lose their faith in Santa? According to Unknown Soldier's argument that should not happen.

 

[abaddon]

The worse problem for faith is when there's new and better evidence but it doesn't result in a loss of confidence. It proves their confidence/trust is from something other than reason and evidence.

The creationists who come to IIDB to demonstrate their reasons and evidence also get their reasons and evidence torn apart. But do they lose faith in their conclusions? NOPE. And if the reasons fail but the faith's still there, their faith must be emotion-based and not reason-based.

Such "reasons and evidence" are called "rationalizations". Rationalization is "the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate: most people are prone to self-deceptive rationalization | they justify themselves with ingenious rationalizations" (New Oxford American Dictionary).