Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[Unknown Soldier]

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

It's basically the same in form if not in quality. So far you've argued the quality which is irrelevant to what faith is. Edsels were a marketing disaster while Mustangs are a big hit, but both models are Fords.

I happen to disagree with this and use a different definition of “faith” that negates your statement.

Which is a fallacy of relevance. If I say that A is B, and you sneak in C which is not B saying it's B and then argue that A isn't C, you "disprove" that A is B by actually comparing A to C. That's dishonest and unfair, of course.

But I’m willing to concede that others use a different definition of “faith” than I do and I can’t speak for them.

Did you ever bother to read the OP? I pointed out there that if we criticize the religious for having faith while using a different meaning of the word "faith," then we are committing the fallacy I just outlined above.

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.

That's another fallacy. Ideas can have very different consequences depending on how they are put into practice. Some people drive cars safely their whole lives while others get drunk and kill people while driving.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Look. I get what you are saying and have already conceded the semantic point to you.

I just feel that if someone approaches me and says that they have faith that Jesus will protect them from Covid and claim that’s the same as me having faith that the long period comets arose from the Oort Cloud (to use your example) then I don’t see how the word “faith” is adding to the conversation.

If we wanted to be most accurate to your point wouldn’t it be better to say he has “reasons” to believe in Jesus and I have “reasons” to believe in science. In that we are the same.

I guess you’re correct that I can’t seem to give up the connotations of the word “faith”. Sometimes words have multiple meanings but usage causes one to dominate over the other. I could say that I’m “gay” when I’m in a lively mood but most people wouldn’t necessarily take it that way. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.).

In general I am against language changes that result isn’t the diminishment of our ability to distinguish shades of meaning. Like how people use “anxious” when they mean “eager”. So, using “faith” for these two meanings seems to diminish the distinction I’m trying to make and that’s why I don’t use it for myself.

 

[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.'

 

[AJ113]

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."

Basically equivocation. Faith can mean trust, but religious faith - by definition - requires suspension of disbelief. Some may say that is weak and irrational.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The issue really isn't contextualizing the word 'faith'. Rather, it's "What can you demonstrate?" On that question, I'm with the materialists.

 

[No Robots]

Harry Waton on faith:

In addition to the intellectual faculty, the will also brings out a moral faculty — a faculty to endure hardship, to bear suffering, and to remain steadfast in its effort to attain the ideal. This faculty is faith. Faith is not a passive faculty for mere belief. On the contrary, faith is an active power of the will. Faith, as St. Paul tells us, is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. A veil of darkness usually enshrouds us, obscuring our vision, and overwhelming us with fear of the untried and the future. But faith lifts up that veil of darkness, showing us the bright future in the making. By this we are assured of the realization of the things hoped for. Faith enables us to remove mountains of difficulties, and encourages us to persist in our struggle for a better world, despite universal opposition and disappointment. Faith enables us to identify ourselves with our ideal to such extent as to seem to us a present living reality. One that has faith cannot anymore doubt the successful outcome of the struggle for the ideal.--The Philosophy of Marx, 9.145

Faith underlies all positive action oriented toward the future success of an endeavor. It applies as well to science as it does to religion.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The establishment of the Assumption of Mary and the establishment of the ABO blood group system came from entirely different mental processes. Couldn't be more dissimilar.

 

[No Robots]

Herbert Spencer on faith:

Not as adventitious, therefore, will the wise man regard the faith which is in him. The highest truth he sees he will fearlessly utter, knowing that, let what may come of it, he is thus playing his right part in the world—knowing that if he can effect the change he aims at—well; if not—well also; though not so well.--First principles, p. 104

No positive action of any kind can be undertaken without some aspect of faith. The scientist has faith that natural phenomena are subject to rational investigation.

 

[Rhea]

No positive action of any kind can be undertaken without some aspect of faith. The scientist has faith that natural phenomena are subject to rational investigation.

Nope. That is not faith. That is “initial assumption, based on previous evidence”. Then we test it.
By definition, that initial assumption is open to refutation, since the proper scientific experiment is to try to refute it to see if it stays a viable hypothesis. Give it the harshest test you can think of.

Could not be more different. The faith that religionists have is not an assumption based on previous experience that is nevertheless open to refutation.

 

[DBT]

Herbert Spencer on faith:

Not as adventitious, therefore, will the wise man regard the faith which is in him. The highest truth he sees he will fearlessly utter, knowing that, let what may come of it, he is thus playing his right part in the world—knowing that if he can effect the change he aims at—well; if not—well also; though not so well.--First principles, p. 104

No positive action of any kind can be undertaken without some aspect of faith. The scientist has faith that natural phenomena are subject to rational investigation.

Not faith, risk assessment and probability where we understand that things can go wrong.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The scientist has faith that natural phenomena are subject to rational investigation.

On the contrary, this is observable fact.

 

[bilby]

No positive action of any kind can be undertaken without some aspect of faith.

If you define "faith" sufficiently broadly for this to be true, it becomes meaningless.

No positive action of any kind can be undertaken without some aspect of thingy.

 

[No Robots]

Faith is a general property of the human soul, an aspect of the will.

 

[Rhea]

Faith is a general property of the human soul, an aspect of the will.

What does that mean?
Doesn’t it rely on 3 words with multiple ambiguous and sometimes conflicting definitions?
Faith, soul, will. What do those even mean to everyone?

 

[DBT]

Faith is a general property of the human soul, an aspect of the will.

You need to define your terms; soul, will and faith should be described, including how they relate.

 

[TomC]

Faith is a general property of the human soul, an aspect of the will.

What does that mean?
Doesn’t it rely on 3 words with multiple ambiguous and sometimes conflicting definitions?
Faith, soul, will. What do those even mean to everyone?

Totally this.
Faith is one of many words for which there is no clear definition, not one.

Similar to soul, knowledge, will, science, good...
The list of such words is endless. Words with less meaning than connotation.

What the OP doesn't seem to grasp is that, in the common vernacular, Faith is usually whatever some religious person means in the context. This varies wildly. And often changes in the middle of a paragraph.
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

Faith is a general property of the human soul, an aspect of the will.

You need to define your terms; soul, will and faith should be described, including how they relate.

Paging David Hume.

 

[No Robots]

The vast majority of humans exist without developed souls. Their souls are in an implicit or embryonic state. They are essentially blind to the soul and its properties. To define the soul and its properties to them is like defining colour to someone who is blind from birth.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The vast majority of humans exist without developed souls. Their souls are in an implicit or embryonic state. They are essentially blind to the soul and its properties. To define the soul and its properties to them is like defining colour to someone who is blind from birth.

You can define the soul and its properties all you like -- but I'm assuming these are things you just "know", and that if we don't know what you know, there's no way to demonstrate to us that there are embryonic souls, developed souls, BluRay souls, designer souls, or any other kind of soul. After watching my great aunt die with Alzheimers, which cratered out every trace of consciousness, identity, agency, memory, and cognition, I'm not inclined to accept the Christian notion of an ongoing identity that's somehow and somewhere inside us. Show us that there's any evidence of human consciousness that's independent of nourishment from a functioning circulatory system.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The vast majority of humans exist without developed souls. Their souls are in an implicit or embryonic state. They are essentially blind to the soul and its properties. To define the soul and its properties to them is like defining colour to someone who is blind from birth.

A blind person may not be able to experience the sensation of color, but one could describe what it means when we say it and demonstrate that it exists through other means.

I get where you're going with the analogy, but it breaks down unless you have other ways you can demonstrate the existence of the soul that someone could understand even without directly experiencing it.

Much of physics isn't directly experienced by people, yet there's a logical framework within which theoretical constructs exist that make quantitative predictions that are accurately reflected in reality when measured by unbiased apparatus. This has not been shown to be true for concepts like the soul.