Atheism is a faith

[Rolling_Stone]

If "believing in a God" is faith, then "not believing in God" must be to, they're just opposites. Since you cant prove either way both are faith's.

Exactly what the professor said. "My atheism isn't dogma" is, by definition, dogma.
So often do I see the dogmatic claim that "my atheism isn't dogma" and the irrational demand for evidence, that I am forced to conclude that disbelief is a kind of collective insanity.

 

[Smoke]

I would suggest that the change from either atheism to theism, or visa versa comes not from new evidence, but a re-interpretation of the evidence at hand.

Probably the funniest thing I hear is the phrase "There is no evidence". There is a LOT of evidence all around us. The difference comes not from the existence of the evidence, but rather our interpretation of that evidence.

I sort of agree with that, but I don't know if you'll agree my take on it.

I've been an atheist for less than two years. (It'll be two years in November.) But I was Greek Orthodox for twenty years, and Eastern Christian theology is much more apophatic than Western Christian theology. For many years, I've seen theology as provisional and metaphorical, and "God" as a sort of metaphor for something ineffable. Admittedly, I probably went farther in this way of thinking than most Eastern Christians.

So it wasn't as great a leap for me to go from theism to atheism as it would be for a lot of people. However, it would be a great leap for me to go back, because I've come to see the whole god-metaphor as something harmful and destructive, and dogma as something almost infinitely more harmful and destructive than theism itself.

My first husband believed he was abducted by aliens multiple times. (Yeah, my life has been more interesting than I would always have liked.) He was very offended that I didn't "believe" him. I tried to explain, I do believe you. I believe you're having these experiences, but I think these experiences are psychological, not factual. Well, as you can imagine, that was never good enough. He believed he was having factual experiences, and I could never believe the phenomena he was experiencing were factual. The things he adduced as evidence never seemed like evidence to me at all.

I look at God pretty much that way. When theists tell me they experience god, I believe they're having experiences, but I don't believe their experiences are factual. I believe they're making myths from psychological experiences. I can understand that. I understand having a sense of wonder; I understand the impulse to worship. But I can't see my way clear to believe what theists believe about it.

As for revelation and dogma, I don't believe they have any value. I think they're very harmful. When you tell people that they must factualize other people's subjective interpretations of their (the other people's) psychological experiences, that's really pretty crazy.

 

[Papersock]

Exactly what the professor said. "My atheism isn't dogma" is, by definition, dogma.
So often do I see the dogmatic claim that "my atheism isn't dogma" and the irrational demand for evidence, that I am forced to conclude that disbelief is a kind of collective insanity.

I assume you think saying that atheism is not a dogma is, by definition, a dogma is because it is "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds." What if one were to explain the reason for saying that atheism is not a dogma? Would it still be a dogma then?

The phrase itself might be without adequate grounds in some cases, but atheism, generally, is not. Atheism is not a belief held simply because someone of authority says it should be held. It is a conclusion based on one's understanding of evidence.
If that is a dogma, then everything is a dogma.

I'm not sure how "disbelief is a kind of collective insanity" makes any sense. Would you like to explain?

 

[Smoke]

Exactly what the professor said. "My atheism isn't dogma" is, by definition, dogma.

You're talking nonsense, and you plainly don't know what dogma means.

But even if "My atheism isn't dogma" were dogma, it wouldn't follow that my atheism was dogma.

So often do I see the dogmatic claim that "my atheism isn't dogma" and the irrational demand for evidence, that I am forced to conclude that disbelief is a kind of collective insanity.

If that were how all theists reasoned, I would be forced to conclude that theism was a kind of stupidity.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I knew people would ask, “Why is the demand for evidence of God irrational?”

Hidden assumptions are a part of life. They are unavoidable. A rational thought cannot be formed without a conceptual frame holding hidden assumptions. Even science is an enterprise acting on assumptions. To isolate a part of life, call it religion, and place demands on it that are not placed on all other aspects of life is to disintegrate life and distort religion. Is this rational?

Moreover, “God” is commonly understood as infinite. This makes the observer, you, part of the system and part of whatever evidence there is. By removing yourself from the system you distort it; you don’t see it as it is within itself. looking for evidence for the Infinite from the outside you destroy it because you are part of the evidence. But this isn’t anything new. People knew this thousands of years ago and even wrote about it in both the East and the West. Coincidence? Or are atheists so superior in their self-awareness that they can dismiss reason?

This is precisely the same thing that happens when scientists investigate matter at the quantum level: the moment they put themselves into the system, all sorts of paradoxes arise, like Schrodinger’s cat; but observing the system from the outside limits their knowledge to probabilities. So, in order to avoid paradoxes and still be inside the system, scientists resort to all kinds of unfalsifiable, that is, unscientific, theories (many-universe theory, for example).

You're talking nonsense, and you plainly don't know what dogma means.

I suppose this means university professors don't either.

 

[Smoke]

I knew people would ask, “Why is the demand for evidence of God irrational?”

However, nobody did.

I suppose this means university professors don't either.

Sometimes they don't. Does that surprise you? If Lawrence Principe said what you say he said, and meant what you think he meant, then he was talking through his hat. However, I do allow for the possibility that you haven't accurately communicated what he said or accurately understood what he meant.

 

[MoonWater]

I would suggest that the change from either atheism to theism, or visa versa comes not from new evidence, but a re-interpretation of the evidence at hand.

Probably the funniest thing I hear is the phrase "There is no evidence". There is a LOT of evidence all around us. The difference comes not from the existence of the evidence, but rather our interpretation of that evidence.

I have to agree with you on that one. It certainly explains why two people who have the exact same experiences will react to and interpret them in diffrent ways. You ask one person what causes a house to be haunted and he/she will likely say wandering spirits. Ask another and he/she will likely say it's an halucination or it's electromagnetic energy or something. Who is right is a matter of opinion but it does not change the fact that people experience "something" in that "haunted house". When you experience something you will interpret and react to that something in your own way. And as we grow and change we interpret and react to things differently even if the situation is the same as a previous experience. But regardless of interpretation or reaction it does not change the fact that the experience itself occured. I have a great deal of "evidence" for the existence of the divine and the supernatural but it is only evidence because I have interpreted it in that way. Another person with the same experiences might interpret them as "evidence" that he/she is going crazy. So in the end it is about the interpretation of the experience rather than the experience itself.

 

[doppelganger]

Peanut butter is a faith. So is rainbow trout and the RonCo Inside-The-Egg Egg Scrambler.

 

[MoonWater]

Peanut butter is a faith. So is rainbow trout and the RonCo Inside-The-Egg Egg Scrambler.

Care to explain?

 

[Nanda]

I have to agree with you on that one. It certainly explains why two people who have the exact same experiences will react to and interpret them in diffrent ways. You ask one person what causes a house to be haunted and he/she will likely say wandering spirits. Ask another and he/she will likely say it's an halucination or it's electromagnetic energy or something. Who is right is a matter of opinion but it does not change the fact that people experience "something" in that "haunted house".

No, someone is right, we just can't agree on who.

 

[doppelganger]

Care to explain?

If "Faith" can mean whatever I want it to, then I can define it to include peanut butter and the Inside-The-Egg Egg Scrambler, right? Doing so makes the symbol "Faith" increasingly useless as a communicative tool, but it simply is the case that words have the meanings we choose to pack into them and those meanings change with the user.

So if you want to imagine the absence of belief in something is "faith," that's fine, but your use of the term begins to stretch way out to the fringes of the meaning commonly associated with the word "faith." That's okay, it can mean whatever you want it to mean. But for purposes of communication, such use of "faith" is trending toward "useless."

For many people, I suspect "atheism is a faith" is about as meaningful as "peanut butter is a faith." Don't be surprised if your rhetorical stretching of the word leaves most people unconvinced.

 

[doppelganger]

BTW, there are aspects of experience that tend to be present in those who identify as "atheist" (whether "strong" or "weak" atheism) that can meaningfully be characterized as "faith" but the absence of belief is generally not one of them without serious remodelling being performed on the word "faith."

I have a post in the works that I plan to post tomorrow hopefully that deals specifically with the core similarity between "atheists" and "theists" and breaks down the real differences. Hint: I don't think it really has to do with the issue of "belief in God."

 

[Scuba Pete]

Peanut butter is a faith. So is rainbow trout and the RonCo Inside-The-Egg Egg Scrambler.

Have you EVER gone fishing for rainbow trout? It takes a lot of faith and a great deal of research.

First you have to more than believe that they exist in a particular stream or pond. You also must believe that you can actually catch one and feel confident that you know the right path to do so. Then you have to ACT on that belief. Some believe that an emerger will catch the elusive trout and some are convinced that they are after nymphs. I am certain that they will bite on a wooly bugger and so I carefully select one that I have already tied and attach it to my line. Then my search starts in earnest. Fortunately, I seek and I find.

But what of my companion. He believes that there are no fish in the pond. He scoffs at me as I go to fish. He tells me that I am wasting my time. He is surprised at each and every fish that I catch, but he makes excuses as to why he will not fish. At the end of the day, we both eat fish. As he tries my fish (wrapped in tinfoil and cooked on coals) he admits that there may be fish in there after all.

Was there evidence? Both ways. I could see signs of fish, but my friend could not. Did my friend exhibit faith that there were no fish? As soon as he crossed from benign disbelief into an active mocking, he did. The more he denied the very existence of the fish, the more apparent his faith in their non-existence became.

Now, if you want, I can show you faith in eating peanut butter or buying that Ronco device as well. Your call.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you EVER gone fishing for rainbow trout? It takes a lot of faith and a great deal of research.

And perhaps prayer ...

 

[MoonWater]

If "Faith" can mean whatever I want it to, then I can define it to include peanut butter and the Inside-The-Egg Egg Scrambler, right? Doing so makes the symbol "Faith" increasingly useless as a communicative tool, but it simply is the case that words have the meanings we choose to pack into them and those meanings change with the user.

So if you want to imagine the absence of belief in something is "faith," that's fine, but your use of the term begins to stretch way out to the fringes of the meaning commonly associated with the word "faith." That's okay, it can mean whatever you want it to mean. But for purposes of communication, such use of "faith" is trending toward "useless."

For many people, I suspect "atheism is a faith" is about as meaningful as "peanut butter is a faith." Don't be surprised if your rhetorical stretching of the word leaves most people unconvinced.

I fail to see how using the basic definition of a word can "stretch it's meaning". The basic definition of faith is "belief not based on proof." An atheist by definition is someone who believes God does not exist. However God's existence cannot be disproven anymore than it can be proven. Thus by definition Atheism IS a faith. Though I agree that words mean slightly diferent things to different people I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I was "stretching the meaning" of the word faith When I've simply used the basic definition.

 

[Smoke]

The basic definition of faith is "belief not based on proof."

However, atheism is not a "belief not based on proof." It is the absence of a particular belief that is not based on proof. When you say that someone is an atheist, you have not said anything at all about what he believes or why he believes it. You've only noted one thing type of belief that he does not hold.

An atheist by definition is someone who believes God does not exist.

No, an atheist, by definition, is someone who does not believe that God exists. There is a difference.

Thus by definition Atheism IS a faith.

There is, likewise, a significant difference between "faith" and "a faith." Not that atheism necessarily has anything to do with either.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And perhaps prayer ...

Nah, those trout don't have a prayer when I break out the super special, extra gaudy NetDoc Wooly bugger! Brown chenille body with a chartreuse glitter tail and black/white feather twisted around the body to give it lots of hair! One gold bead to make her sink and she is perfect for mid day fish catching. 6 trout in about 20 minutes

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I fail to see how using the basic definition of a word can "stretch it's meaning". The basic definition of faith is "belief not based on proof." An atheist by definition is someone who believes God does not exist. However God's existence cannot be disproven anymore than it can be proven.

That was more clever than accurate, and rendered clever solely by the sophistic appeal to 'proof' rather than 'evidence' ...

You return to your desk and notice that the glass was once full of milk is now lying on its side, its erstwhile contents now pooling on yur desk and dripping onto the carpet below. The cat, perhaps noticing your distress, leaps from the desk and scurries out of the room.

But what happened?

• Perhaps the cat knocked over the milk.
• Perhaps a Pixie knocked over the milk and the cat was opportunistically taking advantage of the result.

In fact, 'the Pixie's culpability cannot be disproven any more than the cat's can be proven".​

To characterize a provisional belief in each scenario as equivalently faith-based is simple sophistry.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nah, those trout don't have a prayer when I break out the super special, extra gaudy NetDoc Wooly bugger! Brown chenille body with a chartreuse glitter tail and black/white feather twisted around the body to give it lots of hair! One gold bead to make her sink and she is perfect for mid day fish catching. 6 trout in about 20 minutes

I'll bring the beer ...

 

[Scuba Pete]

You're up in the Chicago area, right? Not sure what type of trout you have over there, but I am game!