Atheism...the religion of...science?

[Scuba Pete]

NetDoc, we have been over this "two definitions of faith" debate a billion times. Do you honestly still not understand it?

Understanding an argument does not entail ACCEPTING it as valid. It still amazes me that you can not believe that there are people who might disagree with you and yet fully understand you.

Is that really something to be proud of? The Bible says you should have faith like a child, ie, blind faith. What's so bad about blind faith anyway?

So you say a child's FAITH in their mother or father is BLIND? Their love might be, but they quickly learn if they can rely on mom and dad. However, their trust is TOTAL. Something we adults have to really, really work on. In Scouts we have a "leap of faith" where the participant is on a platform about three feet high. They have spent all day with their team, practicing team building exercises. They see clearly that their team mates can handle ANYTHING so far. So now they stand on this platform and fall back into the waiting arms of their team mates! It is the RARE adult who can do this, and yet it seems that the younger they are, the more trusting they are. Is their faith "blind". Insinuating that would be an INSULT to them. No, it's apparent that many choose to defame the faith of others by referring to it as "blind", when in reality they have NO CLUE what evidences and reasoning exists as the basis for this faith. They mistake TOTAL trust for BLIND trust only because they can not understand it's underpinnings. Afterall, it is human nature to ASSUME that just because I disagree with you, that somehow my faith must be inferior. Again, from the outside it appears as nothing more than intellectual snobbery.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

To refer to it as anything else is a mere denial of reality, i.m.h.o.

Okay.

Again, from the outside it appears as nothing more than intellectual snobbery.

I don't think this is a case of intellectual snobbery, I think there are simply two very different definitions of "faith". Dictionary.com, for example, provides

Faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

These are two very different definitions, and it would be silly to equate the two. Whatever we call it, belief which is based on logical proof or material evidence is very different from belief which does not.

 

[Pah]

I don't know Spinks. It appears to me that there are several atheists, even on this forum, who ascribe to the Science of the Gaps. They express a faithful devotion that science will someday be able to answer questions that man has had for ages. They extrapolate that since Science has answered so many questions that it will certainly be able to answer most if not all questions. For many of us this is nothing more or less than faith.

There is certainly nothing wrong with faith. It does not mean that you are bereft of evidence or intelligence. It merely means that you see clearly what others regard as mere intuition.

The term is God of the Gaps and is less a "plug" for science then a limitation of God in a narrowing of his creation.

Faith, NetDoc, is not something to be avoided nor is reasoned or unreasoned faith unheathy. But it does lack a credibilty when observed by layman in nature.

 

[ladylazarus]

I like to think of scientists as "atheologians." They study the universe in a model without any "supernatural" forces. Whether or not they believe in them outside that model is irrelevant -- when they're scientists, they work without god. This view limits them to studying rather simple things, because our current state of technology only allows so many variables to be controlled in a given experiment. Religion and art, while focusing on much more complex concepts, are also much more inaccurate and vague. Mathematics is the most accurate science, because of how few variables are left uncontrolled.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Okay.

I don't think this is a case of intellectual snobbery, I think there are simply two very different definitions of "faith". Dictionary.com, for example, provides

Faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

These are two very different definitions, and it would be silly to equate the two. Whatever we call it, belief which is based on logical proof or material evidence is very different from belief which does not.

Spinks,
I fully agree. The first is a reasoned and/or evidenced faith while the second is what is commonly reffered to as "blind faith". Relegating a reasoned or evidenced faith to that of being a blind faith smacks of the snobbery to which I have referred. Just because you can't/won't/don't see the evidence or reasoning does not make any particular faith a blind one. Indeed, our point of reference will cause us to accept or reject evidence more than anything else.

To be sure, I embrace almost everything that science has brought down to us. However, I still don't see physical proof as superior to spiritual proof. In the end it is my "faith" in electricity that enables me to flip the light switch just as my "faith" in God enables me to serve others without fear. Both are evidenced AND reasoned positions based on either physical or spiritual aspects.

The man who takes a placebo and miraculously heals himself has no less blind faith than the man listening to the faith healer.

 

[herospirit]

I am of a mind to think that the purpose of logic is to get rid of perspective.
To strip a thing down until you have only what can be evidenced.
To assume a premise is to destroy the validity of the conclusion.

Please, do elaborate. I have not been on in days so please forgive me for bringing up what undoubtably seems like the past to you now. As for the rest of the quote, it seem that I took your first quote out of context, or misunderstood the circumstance in which it was written. In theory it was a grave contradiction, but my logic failed due to an incorrect premise. It seems my mistake did well to prove 2 point. Making this discrepancy living proof of your intended meaning, and mine as an example of the dissimilar premise making the logic wrong. Funny how things work out sometimes huh?

You simply cannot invent your own premise in a logical construct and hope to have any universal validity for your conclusion. Spirituality cannot be broken down logically unless all who examine the logic are willing to assume the same premises. Some of us try to assume nothing.

By assuming nothing, are you referring to skeptics, or ignorance. Or perhaps neither. Perhaps universal validity is relativity. But unless we understand individual circumstances or premises what then can we liken them to? Perhaps this is too philisophical for this thread. I hope, however, that you do not think I was inventing my own premise. Mostly because it would mean you're right. (and debaters hate being wrong ) But the premise, should my memory serve me, was that logic takes place of evidense in unfounded theories (not supported with evidense). Perhaps I never managed to incorporate discernment with my earlier statements. And perhaps I was using my own premise, but I do not think it was I who 'invented' it. (Their is nothing new under the sun) The problem, though, with everything is what even you say in this quote: "Spirituality cannot be broken down logically unless all who examine the logic are willing to assume the same premises."
This was the only thing I had against Ceridwen's argument. He/She likened the premise to another founded premise in search of universal validity, yet did not find it because the premises were not the same. This is all I was arguing but on a much more complex and metaphysical level than I ever intended to go. Indeed, I have changed the wordings of this reply dozens of times so that the thoughts could be expressed clearly. If my relativity logic were immaculate then this would be an example of it proving itself. Funny again how these things work out.
P.S. I love your signiture. :clap If ever given the opporitunity, I wont to try it.

 

[Fade]

Spinks,
I fully agree. The first is a reasoned and/or evidenced faith while the second is what is commonly reffered to as "blind faith". Relegating a reasoned or evidenced faith to that of being a blind faith smacks of the snobbery to which I have referred. Just because you can't/won't/don't see the evidence or reasoning does not make any particular faith a blind one. Indeed, our point of reference will cause us to accept or reject evidence more than anything else.

It only smacks of snobbery because we disagree with your position. It's not that we can't see the evidence or reasoning. The simple fact is there is none. That alone means your are falling back on blind faith. You may disagree, but you are still wrong.

To be sure, I embrace almost everything that science has brought down to us. However, I still don't see physical proof as superior to spiritual proof. In the end it is my "faith" in electricity that enables me to flip the light switch just as my "faith" in God enables me to serve others without fear. Both are evidenced AND reasoned positions based on either physical or spiritual aspects.

As long as you pay your electric bill and the bulb is in good condition you will see the light. Making strawmen still does not make you right. Your Faith in God is still blind.

The man who takes a placebo and miraculously heals himself has no less blind faith than the man listening to the faith healer.

And?

 

[Scuba Pete]

It only smacks of snobbery because we disagree with your position. It's not that we can't see the evidence or reasoning. The simple fact is there is none. That alone means your are falling back on blind faith. You may disagree, but you are still wrong.

I take it back... Fade your statements do not "smack of snobbery" as much as they "reek of arrogance". The "simple fact" is that you are guilty of dismissing what you can not see and do not understand. There is no greater fool but he who can not see the other side of a discussion because he is just trying to "win".

As long as you pay your electric bill and the bulb is in good condition you will see the light. Making strawmen still does not make you right. Your Faith in God is still blind.

My faith in God, is just blind as your faith in electricity. BTW, when was the last time YOU saw an electron?

 

[Fade]

I take it back... Fade your statements do not "smack of snobbery" as much as they "reek of arrogance". The "simple fact" is that you are guilty of dismissing what you can not see and do not understand. There is no greater fool but he who can not see the other side of a discussion because he is just trying to "win".

I am dismissing what I cannot see and DO understand. What you are asking me to 'see' is completely irrational and has no basis in reality. I would be a fool to accept your argument, as I would be a fool to buy snake oil from a faith healer.

My faith in God, is just blind as your faith in electricity. BTW, when was the last time YOU saw an electron?

I do not believe in electrons. I believe electricity is the God of Thunders anger manifesting itself in our reality.

BTW- I see electrons all the time. I pray to them and ask them to grant that my computer boots up in the morning.

Please stop compairing faith with religious Faith. You know well enough that there is a difference and to continue pretending that they are the same is dishonest.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I am dismissing what I cannot see and DO understand. What you are asking me to 'see' is completely irrational and has no basis in reality. I would be a fool to accept your argument, as I would be a fool to buy snake oil from a faith healer.

I have asked you to do nothing. You show your disrespect to other's beliefs all on your own. You have yet to address the difference between a blind and a reasoned faith. Do you grasp the concept? You belittle religion because of it's "blind faith", and I have attempted to show you how arrogant and condescending that is. However, it is your choice to continue in your bias and unfounded beliefs (which would be a blind faith that all theists have blind faith).

Please stop compairing faith with religious Faith. You know well enough that there is a difference and to continue pretending that they are the same is dishonest.

So now I am dishonest. To what further depths will you take this discussion? Faith is faith is faith is faith. The person who denies this is the one who is not being honest with themself. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, flies like a duck and many say it's a duck: calling it a pigeon to soothe your psyche makes no sense.

Obviously, my having an alternate belief is upsetting to you. Why don't you just pretend that I don't exist. It's how many deal with God.

 

[Pah]

...If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, flies like a duck and many say it's a duck: calling it a pigeon to soothe your psyche makes no sense.

Unless of course if it (Faith is faith is faith is faith) is numbered definition from Webster. Some would say that seeing only a duck is a matter of blindness, tunnel blindness.

 

[Fade]

I have asked you to do nothing. You show your disrespect to other's beliefs all on your own. You have yet to address the difference between a blind and a reasoned faith. Do you grasp the concept? You belittle religion because of it's "blind faith", and I have attempted to show you how arrogant and condescending that is. However, it is your choice to continue in your bias and unfounded beliefs (which would be a blind faith that all theists have blind faith).

I do grasp the concept. It is you who doesn't considering how you are trying to convince me that they are the same.
Spinks posted a perfectly good dictionary definition for you to consider. You obviously disagree with it so what more can I do?

So now I am dishonest. To what further depths will you take this discussion? Faith is faith is faith is faith. The person who denies this is the one who is not being honest with themself. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, flies like a duck and many say it's a duck: calling it a pigeon to soothe your psyche makes no sense.

You are wrong.
Remember the Ugly Duckling? LOL

Obviously, my having an alternate belief is upsetting to you. Why don't you just pretend that I don't exist. It's how many deal with God.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Fade,

I fully agreed with Spinks on his definition and stated as such. Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. I have no problem identifying two types of faith: reasoned/blind. I do have a problem with your bias that theists only have a blind faith, while the noble atheist must ergo have a reasoned faith.

A belief in science can be JUST as blind as any belief in God. Your bias against all things spiritual causes you to assume that theists have no evidence and no reasons to believe what they do. In reality, we use almost the same evidence as the athiest and yet come to a different conclusion. To relegate a belief as being "blind faith" simply because you disagree with it is the height of intellectual arrogance.

 

[Fade]

Fade,

I fully agreed with Spinks on his definition and stated as such. Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. I have no problem identifying two types of faith: reasoned/blind. I do have a problem with your bias that theists only have a blind faith, while the noble atheist must ergo have a reasoned faith.

Please provide logical proof or material evidence for your belief. Until such time as you can present me with this your faith is blind.
I will for electrons if you will for God.

A belief in science can be JUST as blind as any belief in God. Your bias against all things spiritual causes you to assume that theists have no evidence and no reasons to believe what they do. In reality, we use almost the same evidence as the athiest and yet come to a different conclusion. To relegate a belief as being "blind faith" simply because you disagree with it is the height of intellectual arrogance.

I have no bias against spirituality. I don't assume anything, I know you have no evidence. The fact that athiest use a lack of evidence as evidence for their belief puts you in the odd position of believing in a God because there is no evidence for God. Is this really what you believe? If not please don't pretend that your conclusions are based on the same thing that an atheists are. It is you who has the biased position here.

Call it what you like. Arrogance, condecension...whatever. At the end of the day it is really just intellectual honesty.

 

[Quiddity]

If God designed our minds in such a way that we can discover Him through experience, we do not need evidence for God. The human animal is capable of much more then just those things measured. Does this open the flood gates for infinite possibilites? It sure seems like it. But I won't let that stop me.... .

 

[Pah]

...I do have a problem with your bias that theists only have a blind faith, while the noble atheist must ergo have a reasoned faith.

All theists start from a premise that must be accepted on blind faith. Everything from that point on must also be blind faith.

This atheist has no faith at all, comparable to religious faith and what faith (again, not your kind of faith) I have is reasoned.

 

[Pah]

If God designed our minds in such a way that we can discover Him through experience, we do not need evidence for God. The human animal is capable of much more then just those things measured. Does this open the flood gates for infinite possibilites? It sure seems like it. But I won't let that stop me.... .

Not to be antagonistic, Victor, The presumption is that God deisgned our minds. A race of advanced aliens could have easily done the deed and left us to ourselves.

But I do agree that no evidence is required for faith and, in fact, often muddies the water when sought. A statement of faith is sufficent for others to recognize.

 

[Scuba Pete]

All theists start from a premise that must be accepted on blind faith. Everything from that point on must also be blind faith.

I hear the bias speaking. I don't rely on blind faith and never have and I happen to be a theist.

This atheist has no faith at all, comparable to religious faith and what faith (again, not your kind of faith) I have is reasoned.

Denial: it's not just a river in Egypt. I would suggest that my faith is every bit as reasoned and evidenced as yours.

Again, faith is not a virus that affects only theists. In my humble opinion, those who claim that they don't have faith and yet flip a light switch are hypocrites.

 

[Pah]

All theists start from a premise that must be accepted on blind faith. Everything from that point on must also be blind faith.

I hear the bias speaking. I don't rely on blind faith and never have and I happen to be a theist.

Aw, there's that blanket personal slam again. You've been shown so many times that it is not true, I'm still surprised to cling to it.

Please show that your presumption is reasoned or self-evident. Then, Netdoc, you could say you don't have blind faith. Until that time, you will only be convincing to yourself.

This atheist has no faith at all, comparable to religious faith and what faith (again, not your kind of faith) I have is reasoned.

Denial: it's not just a river in Egypt. I would suggest that my faith is every bit as reasoned and evidenced as yours.

Again, faith is not a virus that affects only theists. In my humble opinion, those who claim that they don't have faith and yet flip a light switch are hypocrites.

Cute! But it doesn't change that fact that you are committing the fallacy of definition. You probably have as much confidence in science as I do. However, you have more than confidence in God and in fact there is probably very little room for doubt in your confidence in God. That makes it a different faith. It is reluctance on your part to accept the various definitions of "faith". I think that is because your falacious argument fails unless you stick to ignoring what you have been show many times in this thread..

...My faith in God, is just blind as your faith in electricity. BTW, when was the last time YOU saw an electron?

http://ab-abp-rlc.web.cern.ch/ab-abp-rlc-ecloud/ shows how we can measure them. No "faith" needed here. What is the procedure for measuring God?

 

[linwood]

What is the procedure for measuring God?

Y`know, when it comes right down to it thats all I`ve been asking in this forum going on two years now.