Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[DBT]

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

That's not faith.

Unlike dogma based on faith, there is evidence for an oort cloud, which is open to review as new evidence comes along.

Faith tends to rationalize, while science tests and modifies its model of the physical world.

 

[Shadowy Man]

"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.

And yet I’ve never seen a religious argument that follows the way the scientific one for the Oort Cloud does.

I guess your point is that there’s no difference between bad logic and good logic because they are both logic.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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?

If that’s what I was saying, which it isn’t. You are arguing that I don’t know what “height” is because both the baby and Shaquille have it. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that they both aren’t “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.

I'm arguing that there is no difference.

I understand that now. I just disagree with you wholeheartedly. Maybe it’s just that you don’t understand science and I don’t understand religion and somewhere in between there’s room for agreement?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I guess your point is that there’s no difference between bad logic and good logic because they are both logic.

Great point. And the same applies to "evidence."

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

You've made an assertion here that involves a word, "suspect," which you've chosen arbitrarily to try to make what I said look wrong. But I can assert that the idea of the Oort cloud seems so compelling that its existence is more than merely suspected.

In any case, I can point to astronomers' belief in dark matter. That belief is rather sure although dark matter is unseen.

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.

And what's wrong with your faith in airplane pilots and mechanics?

 

[TomC]

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.

I've never seen Paris or Beijing.
I don't think my belief that they exist qualifies as faith.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

Colloquially the term faith is often synonymous with trust.

Religious faith is a specific case. It implies a belief in that which has no objective demonstrable physical evidence foundation.

I have faith n god. I prayed for a positive outcome for a situation. It did not go well. I have faith god knows what is best for me.

I see planes flying. I fly on planes. From what I objectively know I trust that a plane is not going to just stop flying and crash without mechanical failure or pilot error. Objective evidence based trust, aka faith.

I know panes can crash. When I fly I have faith god will protect me. Religious faith.

I have faith that next year and 10 years from now things will be as they are today. I have faith that in 50 years I will be able to retire comfortably with an IRA. Misplaced faith, and like religious faith it alleviate anxiety.

I have faith that some people can never change.

 

[DBT]

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.

You've made an assertion here that involves a word, "suspect," which you've chosen arbitrarily to try to make what I said look wrong. But I can assert that the idea of the Oort cloud seems so compelling that its existence is more than merely suspected.

In any case, I can point to astronomers' belief in dark matter. That belief is rather sure although dark matter is unseen.

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.

And what's wrong with your faith in airplane pilots and mechanics?

Dark matter is a proposition being tested rather than dogma being taught as truth on the basis of faith.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

I've never seen Paris or Beijing.
I don't think my belief that they exist qualifies as faith.
Tom

Apparently that’s because you’re using the wrong definition of the word “faith”.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe religious faith is just denial. A complete lack of credible, quality evidence for a comforting lie can lead a person to deny the likelihood that their comforting lie is just another lie. And that denial can be conscious or unconscious. If the denial is conscious it's just irrational behavior. If the denial is subconscious it's a pathology.

Or maybe it's a manifestation of the human need to suspend rational belief, to pretend, no different than when we read a book or go see a movie. Humans love to be entertained and much of that entertainment, if it to be enjoyed, requires that we pretend things are real when we know they are not. The movie Avatar is an example as is any enjoyable work of fiction.

And then there's the need to have social support. I think most priests and all educated clerics fit into this category. They know it's just a business and so they toe the line. Your typical church goer has faith because they are taught to have faith. Maybe their cognitive skills don't take them any further or maybe they toe the line because they enjoy the rituals and the community.

Some people obviously need more than information and scientific knowledge to face life. Faith is their placebo and a placebo that works to get them through all the big hairy bullshit. Many of us here once practiced religious faith and then outgrew it. Some people don't.

 

[Tristan Scott]

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.

You've made an assertion here that involves a word, "suspect," which you've chosen arbitrarily to try to make what I said look wrong. But I can assert that the idea of the Oort cloud seems so compelling that its existence is more than merely suspected.

In any case, I can point to astronomers' belief in dark matter. That belief is rather sure although dark matter is unseen.

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.

And what's wrong with your faith in airplane pilots and mechanics?

Dark matter is a proposition being tested rather than dogma being taught as truth on the basis of faith.

Oh please.
NASA says that it is believed to exist. Suspect is synonymous with believe.
Your argument seems specious.

 

[Tristan Scott]

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.

Sure, and the odds of a psycho pilot getting through screening is also unlikely. My point is that I get on the plane without analyzing the maintenance records for that aircraft, nor do I do a background check of the pilot. I have faith in the system.
Faith is a word that can have other than spiritual connotations.

 

[DBT]

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.

You've made an assertion here that involves a word, "suspect," which you've chosen arbitrarily to try to make what I said look wrong. But I can assert that the idea of the Oort cloud seems so compelling that its existence is more than merely suspected.

In any case, I can point to astronomers' belief in dark matter. That belief is rather sure although dark matter is unseen.

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.

And what's wrong with your faith in airplane pilots and mechanics?

Dark matter is a proposition being tested rather than dogma being taught as truth on the basis of faith.

Oh please.
NASA says that it is believed to exist. Suspect is synonymous with believe.
Your argument seems specious.

Equivocation. Belief comes in various forms and degrees of certainty. Faith is also a form of belief.

 

[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.

Sure, and the odds of a psycho pilot getting through screening is also unlikely. My point is that I get on the plane without analyzing the maintenance records for that aircraft, nor do I do a background check of the pilot. I have faith in the system.
Faith is a word that can have other than spiritual connotations.

You don't have to set out to analyze, we know through experience that there are countless flights every day all over the world, yet very few plane crashes. So even though the possibility is there, the odds are your aircraft won't crash. That is not a faith based belief, just a basic understanding of how the world works.

 

[bilby]

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.

Sure, and the odds of a psycho pilot getting through screening is also unlikely. My point is that I get on the plane without analyzing the maintenance records for that aircraft, nor do I do a background check of the pilot. I have faith in the system.
Faith is a word that can have other than spiritual connotations.

You don't have to set out to analyze, we know through experience that there are countless flights every day all over the world, yet very few plane crashes. So even though the possibility is there, the odds are your aircraft won't crash. That is not a faith based belief, just a basic understanding of how the world works.

Yeah, if you're looking for a faith based belief about industrial safety, then what you're looking for is the widely held belief that nuclear power plants are dangerous.

Most people believe this; It's probably more widely accepted as true than the supposed resurrection of Jesus.

The evidence shows that it's nonsense; If commercial aviation were as dangerous as nuclear power, there would have been three plane crashes since 1956, two of which were non-fatal, and one of which caused a few hundred deaths.

People also believe that nuclear power plants produce dangerous waste products; Yet nobody has ever been hurt (much less killed) by nuclear power plant waste, in the almond seventy years that it has been being produced.

Such is the power of a false idea, when it is backed by large numbers of believers.

 

[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.

Sure, and the odds of a psycho pilot getting through screening is also unlikely. My point is that I get on the plane without analyzing the maintenance records for that aircraft, nor do I do a background check of the pilot. I have faith in the system.
Faith is a word that can have other than spiritual connotations.

You don't have to set out to analyze, we know through experience that there are countless flights every day all over the world, yet very few plane crashes. So even though the possibility is there, the odds are your aircraft won't crash. That is not a faith based belief, just a basic understanding of how the world works.

Yeah, if you're looking for a faith based belief about industrial safety, then what you're looking for is the widely held belief that nuclear power plants are dangerous.

Most people believe this; It's probably more widely accepted as true than the supposed resurrection of Jesus.

The evidence shows that it's nonsense; If commercial aviation were as dangerous as nuclear power, there would have been three plane crashes since 1956, two of which were non-fatal, and one of which caused a few hundred deaths.

People also believe that nuclear power plants produce dangerous waste products; Yet nobody has ever been hurt (much less killed) by nuclear power plant waste, in the almond seventy years that it has been being produced.

Such is the power of a false idea, when it is backed by large numbers of believers.

There may be different interests at work towards pushing their own agenda, sometimes through misinformation, outright lies, appeal to emotion, etc...

 

[Learner]

(Non relevant post deleted)

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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.

And yet I’ve never seen a religious argument that follows the way the scientific one for the Oort Cloud does.

Uh--please--if there's one thing I'm not arguing it is that the evidence for religious claims is as good as the evidence for scientific theories or that the logic used by theologians is generally as valid as the logic used by scientists. OK? What I am arguing is that both camps use evidence and logic as bases for their claims.

Is that understood?

I guess your point is that there’s no difference between bad logic and good logic because they are both logic.

That's obviously not my point. Whether good or bad, the religious normally use logic. You might see mistakes in that logic, but it is logic nevertheless.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

And yet I’ve never seen a religious argument that follows the way the scientific one for the Oort Cloud does.

Uh--please--if there's one thing I'm not arguing it is that the evidence for religious claims is as good as the evidence for scientific theories or that the logic used by theologians is generally as valid as the logic used by scientists. OK? What I am arguing is that both camps use evidence and logic as bases for their claims.

Is that understood?

I guess your point is that there’s no difference between bad logic and good logic because they are both logic.

That's obviously not my point. Whether good or bad, the religious normally use logic. You might see mistakes in that logic, but it is logic nevertheless.

Fine. I will concede the semantic argument.

You said “ the religious concept of faith is basically the same as the faith in science.”.

I happen to disagree with this and use a different definition of “faith” that negates your statement. But I’m willing to concede that others use a different definition of “faith” than I do and I can’t speak for them.

If you start with two things that are “conceptually“ the same but then when put into practice end up being practically quite opposed to each other it becomes essentially useless to continue to harp on the conceptual similarity of their basis.

 

[steve_bank]

There is an old saying about 'walking into a buzz saw'.