Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[No Robots]

You all operate on the assumption that there is a division between reason and faith. You cannot acknowledge that they share an essential unity. This is part of the dualism that underlies non-Judaic society. The advantage of Judaism is that it understands the whole of reality as essentially one: good and evil, truth and falsity, beauty and ugliness, life and death, all these opposites can exist only by virtue of the existence of their contraries.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

We just disagree that the reasoning is similar enough to justify the use of a single word to accurately describe both.

How similar the reasoning is doesn't matter. As long as there is reasoning and evidence plus trust in conclusions based on that reasoning and evidence, then there is faith. I put a lot of faith in science; you, apparently, don't put faith in science.

 

[DBT]

Equivocation.Trust in the proven reliability of someone or something you deal with regularly is not the same as believing in the existence of God because it is written in the bible, quran or gita, etc, regardless of using the word 'faith' in both instances. The former is not the same as the latter, yet some call both 'faith.'

It's the same understanding of faith if the religious person sees God as having proven reliability and as a person whom they deal with regularly. In fact, almost all of the religious see God that way.

How do they deal with God in the same way that they deal with the people or things in the physical world?

I don't recall saying that the religious deal with God in the same way that they deal with the people or things in the physical world. They just think they have a faith based on enough reason and evidence to convince them.

You didn't say it, but direct interaction with God is implied in 'the religious person seeing God as having proven reliability," where if God's reliability is proven there should be verifiable evidence rather than interpretation and inference in relation to events that most likely have mundane explanations, probability, coincidence, etc.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We just disagree that the reasoning is similar enough to justify the use of a single word to accurately describe both.

How similar the reasoning is doesn't matter. As long as there is reasoning and evidence plus trust in conclusions based on that reasoning and evidence, then there is faith. I put a lot of faith in science; you, apparently, don't put faith in science.

Yes, because we don’t agree on the definition of the word “faith”.

 

[bilby]

The principal advantage of Judaism over other thought systems is that it has a concept of human destiny.

If true, this would be a major flaw.

Humans are a product of evolution, like any other species, and there is no such thing as "destiny", it's a daft and hubristic concept that appeals to our desire to be more important than we actually are - destiny is just a symptom of narcissism.

Of course, it's also not true - Judaism has no monopoly on the concept of human destiny, which is an erroneous concept common to a vast number of belief systems and religions.

 

[DBT]

You all operate on the assumption that there is a division between reason and faith. You cannot acknowledge that they share an essential unity. This is part of the dualism that underlies non-Judaic society. The advantage of Judaism is that it understands the whole of reality as essentially one: good and evil, truth and falsity, beauty and ugliness, life and death, all these opposites can exist only by virtue of the existence of their contraries.

We just disagree that the reasoning is similar enough to justify the use of a single word to accurately describe both.

How similar the reasoning is doesn't matter. As long as there is reasoning and evidence plus trust in conclusions based on that reasoning and evidence, then there is faith. I put a lot of faith in science; you, apparently, don't put faith in science.

Trust or belief in the existence of a God or gods is not the same as trust in the things of the physical world and its verifiable features and attributes, the laws of physics, etc, where the latter is verifable while the former is not. To label both as examples of faith is to equivocate.

 

[abaddon]

A creationist was complaining about "blind faith" in IIDB a few years back. He was upset at that phrase because it implies "no thinking involved". He wanted people to know he had reason and evidence to back up his belief, that he hadn't only absorbed the beliefs like a sponge.

Which is basically correct, if you ignore the poor quality of his reason and evidence. He showed he was using reason and evidence as part of his faith. Thing is, the reasoning was inadequate to justify his beliefs so it was clear that there was something more going on than impersonal reasons and objective evidences. Namely, he WANTED the conclusion he came to (Bible-god exists and made the universe) and adjusted the reason and evidence to get there.

Faith isn't trust or confidence in conclusions. It's a leap into excess certainty based on some lame reasons that got used to trust in the leap.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You all operate on the assumption that there is a division between reason and faith. You cannot acknowledge that they share an essential unity. This is part of the dualism that underlies non-Judaic society. The advantage of Judaism is that it understands the whole of reality as essentially one: good and evil, truth and falsity, beauty and ugliness, life and death, all these opposites can exist only by virtue of the existence of their contraries.

We just disagree that the reasoning is similar enough to justify the use of a single word to accurately describe both.

How similar the reasoning is doesn't matter. As long as there is reasoning and evidence plus trust in conclusions based on that reasoning and evidence, then there is faith. I put a lot of faith in science; you, apparently, don't put faith in science.

Trust or belief in the existence of a God or gods is not the same as trust in the things of the physical world and its verifiable features and attributes, the laws of physics, etc, where the latter is verifable while the former is not. To label both as examples of faith is to equivocate.

I never said that faith is trust or belief in the existence of a God! According to the religious, faith is trust in the conclusion that their reasoning and evidence supports their beliefs in God and/or the supernatural.

So read that again if you don't get it:
Faith is not trust in the existence of a God.
Faith is trust in reasoning and evidence that supports a conclusion that can be of a religious nature.

Like most atheists, you keep on straw-manning the religious concept of faith after repeated corrections.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

A creationist was complaining about "blind faith" in IIDB a few years back. He was upset at that phrase because it implies "no thinking involved". He wanted people to know he had reason and evidence to back up his belief, that he hadn't only absorbed the beliefs like a sponge.

Which is basically correct, if you ignore the poor quality of his reason and evidence.

There you go! The religious do not say they rely on blind faith/wishful thinking.

He showed he was using reason and evidence as part of his faith. Thing is, the reasoning was inadequate to justify his beliefs so it was clear that there was something more going on than impersonal reasons and objective evidences.

What's clear is that you disagree with him.

Namely, he WANTED the conclusion he came to (Bible-god exists and made the universe) and adjusted the reason and evidence to get there.

Did he tell you he wanted the conclusion to be true? Even if he did, that doesn't make him wrong or illogical.

Faith isn't trust or confidence in conclusions. It's a leap into excess certainty based on some lame reasons that got used to trust in the leap.

What religious group defines faith that way? If you base that conclusion on what you think about one guy, then it is you who are using lame logic. What you've posted here is known as a weak inductive argument that has weak premises used to support a strong conclusion.

 

[steve_bank]

Robot does not appear to have read anything but his dead guru's book.

I'd still like to know what those 'Jewish tools' are that r Robot referred to.

 

[abaddon]

Did he tell you he wanted the conclusion to be true?

Yes, indirectly by insisting on a lame argument that he had unwarranted confidence in.

If I eat lots of cake, I don't have to explicitly say that I want to eat cake. It doesn't matter much what a person tells you when the behavior is enough to figure it out.

Even if he did, that doesn't make him wrong or illogical.

Right but it's beside the point. The point was, it's a lame reason to have trust in a conclusion. The reasons and evidence weren't enough to get there so all that insistence on the rightness of his argument (even after its weaknesses were shown) can't have been anything else but wanting the conclusion.

But maybe his argument was actually valid and sound and I'm mischaracterizing it, yeah? Well, if you want to explore that, then the argument was WLC's kalam cosmological argument. If you know it, and you know logic, and you're not a believer, then am I wrong to say that "trusting" in its conclusion involves wanting to believe?

Faith isn't trust or confidence in conclusions. It's a leap into excess certainty based on some lame reasons that got used to trust in the leap.

What religious group defines faith that way?

I'm describing what I see, not accepting their sophistry.

If you base that conclusion on what you think about one guy...

I'm not. It's one example to illustrate a general point. And it's not thoughts about the guy, it's thoughts about what faith is. Faith is wanting to believe, that's what the grounding for the "trust" is... the desire to feel sure about the conclusion.

What you've posted here is known as a weak inductive argument that has weak premises used to support a strong conclusion.

It's a fair description of faith in supernaturalist beliefs. Give one example of a supernaturalist belief that can be well-reasoned and evidenced in case, maybe, I've committed a hasty generalization (I'll guess that's my purported fallacy of weak induction).

 

[Shadowy Man]

So read that again if you don't get it:
Faith is not trust in the existence of a God.
Faith is trust in reasoning and evidence that supports a conclusion that can be of a religious nature.

so why are there two words “faith” and “trust”? Are they identical terms to you? No distinction in meaning at all?

 

[DBT]

You all operate on the assumption that there is a division between reason and faith. You cannot acknowledge that they share an essential unity. This is part of the dualism that underlies non-Judaic society. The advantage of Judaism is that it understands the whole of reality as essentially one: good and evil, truth and falsity, beauty and ugliness, life and death, all these opposites can exist only by virtue of the existence of their contraries.

We just disagree that the reasoning is similar enough to justify the use of a single word to accurately describe both.

How similar the reasoning is doesn't matter. As long as there is reasoning and evidence plus trust in conclusions based on that reasoning and evidence, then there is faith. I put a lot of faith in science; you, apparently, don't put faith in science.

Trust or belief in the existence of a God or gods is not the same as trust in the things of the physical world and its verifiable features and attributes, the laws of physics, etc, where the latter is verifable while the former is not. To label both as examples of faith is to equivocate.

I never said that faith is trust or belief in the existence of a God! According to the religious, faith is trust in the conclusion that their reasoning and evidence supports their beliefs in God and/or the supernatural.

So read that again if you don't get it:
Faith is not trust in the existence of a God.
Faith is trust in reasoning and evidence that supports a conclusion that can be of a religious nature.

Like most atheists, you keep on straw-manning the religious concept of faith after repeated corrections.

Ignoring semantic drift and common usage, equivocating faith with trust, confidence, etc, which are seperate and distinct concepts, faith in relation to a conviction of truth is a belief held without the support of evidence, therefore you have 'faith' that what you believe in is indeed true.

 

[steve_bank]

Going aronud in these circles is making me dizzy.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It reminds me of how anti-science people conflate the words “theory” and “hypothesis” in a kind of strawman attack on science. So, I guess I sympathize a little with Unknown Soldier who believes we are mischaracterizing his use of the term “faith”.

I’m willing to admit that I don’t know enough about how religious people use their terms to define the term for them. But, I still think it is inappropriate to conflate religious faith and trust in science. Regardless of what the religious think the term means I have never seen someone show that they can reach their beliefs through the same process as scientists reach theirs.

 

[DBT]

I'd say the word 'faith' is defined by its context.

In the case of religious belief, we have the given definition;

​

Faith

noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. a specific system of religious beliefs - Collins.

 

[bilby]

2. a specific system of religious beliefs - Collins.

Indeed, faith is so central to religious belief that a religion's members will refer to it as "the faith" or "my faith".

Whereas faith is utterly antithetical to science; When religions say "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", science says "Not only should we look in detail at everything that we can find behind the curtain, but we should also be looking closely at the curtain itself, and testing every single element of anything that has even the remotest connection, or possibility of a connection, to the phenomenon in which we are interested".

The difference could not be more stark.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Atheists tend to see the idea of faith as weak, irrational, and the product of religion only while many of the religious think faith is quite sensible, universal and strong. I think that on this issue I must side with the religious. Faith doesn't need to be "blind," lacking in logic and evidence but can just as easily be supported be supported by sound thinking. 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 we all have a certain level of faith, and there's nothing wrong with that. Having logic and evidence isn't enough. At some point we need to put our brains in gear and judge if it's enough to trust our ability to see the truth. That's faith, and it's unfortunate that many atheists have made it "the new f-word."

Nobody needs any faith. Jews invented to concept of faith to be able to stone heretics. Within paganism faith isn't a thing. It was totally cool for a pagan to have a speculative or vague notion of God.

I think you're misapplying the concept of faith somewhere it doesn't belong.

This is abundantly clear in western politics or the global warming debate. So much of it is about ferreting out who is the blasphemer who needs to be stoned.

Nobody needs faith in anything

 

[steve_bank]

Some people have a faith in their own superiority and infallibilty without any proof at all.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

so why are there two words “faith” and “trust”? Are they identical terms to you? No distinction in meaning at all?

Faith is a special kind of trust--it is trust in the truth of a conclusion. That's what a Christian man told me regarding what he means by "faith." It's what I've repeatedly explained on this thread.