Do Atheists Have Faith?

[Magical Wand]

That is correct I have no justification for believing it is true that Wales will win the world cup, but I do believe, because I am not being rational.

Then it is not hope. It is faith.

Now, the question the presup would ask is simple: if you can believe X based on faith, then why can't he (regardless of his religion) accept whatever doctrine he wants based on faith?

 

[Justanatheist]

Then it is not hope. It It is faith.

Now, the question the presup would ask is simple: if you can believe X based on faith, then why can't he (regardless of his religion) accept whatever doctrine he wants based on faith?

He can, just as I do, what he or I cannot do is argue that it is based on sound justification or reason.
I have faith Wales will win the World Cup, others have faith that a god exists, there is no sound justification or reason for either.

 

[Magical Wand]

You said Faith is "belief without sound justifications". Sound according to who? And what is your definition of "sound"? Please explain if you can.

A justification is generally presented in the form of an argument. To say the argument is sound is to say the premises are true. For example,

P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates is a man.
C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In order for this argument to be considered sound, the premises must be true. That would mean the argument can justify my belief that Socrates is mortal.

 

[Magical Wand]

He can, just as I do, what he or I cannot do is argue that it is based on sound justification or reason.
I have faith Wales will win the World Cup, others have faith that a god exists, there is no sound justification or reason for either.

Sure. The presup would be glad to agree with that. Their only goal is to attack the atheistic claim that people can't accept the belief in God on faith.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

I don't think you understand what reason actually is. Let me help by first defining reason:
Definition of reason
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a statement offered in explanation or justification gave reasons that were quite satisfactory
b: a rational ground or motive
a good reason to act soon
c: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE the reason for earthquakes the real reason why he wanted me to stay— Graham Greene
d: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense especially : something (such as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact the reasons behind her client's action
2a(1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE
(2): proper exercise of the mind
(3): SANITY
b: the sum of the intellectual powers

So reason is just the application of your mind using things like logic, evidence to come up with conclusions. We don't have "faith in reason", reason is just one facet of our faculties that we as humans utilize along with everything else to justify a course of action, or a conclusion. In other words, reason can be wrong and it can be right and the only way to know if you have "reasoned" something properly is by the application of the objective facts and evidence, or applying logic. It's weird that you would say "faith in reason", when reason isn't an absolute, it's just a process of thought that utilizes things independent of it. Now if you wanted to say we have faith in logic, or evidence..that would make more sense, although it would still be false.

Second, you stated that "Therefore, scientists believe in their empirical results." No, you have it precisely backwards, let me correct for you. The empirical results tell scientists what to believe. A scientist can and does all the time make incorrect inferences based upon limited data or an observation, but their beliefs don't dictate what the empirical results show or what final conclusions are drawn. This is why peer review, multiple tests and independent confirmation is so important in science so that personal bias or belief doesn't come into play and it's all about the data and test results. There have been lots of things scientists have believed over the centuries that were wrong, that were proven wrong by the empirical data. They don't have to believe the data for something to be true objectively.

 

[Justanatheist]

Sure. The presup would be glad to agree with that. Their only goal is to attack the atheistic claim that people can't accept the belief in God on faith.

But that is not what the atheist does, that is the strawman, atheists just lack a belief in god. I have never seen an atheist say you cannot accept a belief in god on faith, in fact, I would suggest that atheists in general say the opposite, you cannot justify your belief with reasoning, which is what the theist gets upset about. And of course if the theist wishes to impose his beliefs which are based on faith alone then the atheist is going to push back. Atheists in general do not care what others believe until they try to impose their beliefs on others, then they ask for justification.

 

[Magical Wand]

Right. The dilemma is that we are not consciously aware of what goes on in our subconscious. Studies show that many of our decisions process in our subconscious, which then gets projected into the conscious mind and we think we made the decision deliberately and consciously, like when we stop at a red light.

That doesn't answer the question. You're simply repeating what you wrote before. My question is why do you trust the subconscious processes are reliable? What is the faculty that you use to determine these processes are reliable?

Because I routinely nail Christians to their crosses with it.

Did you use reason to reach that conclusion?

No, reason has an excellent set of rules. If we have well defined elements to the issues being considered we can acknowledge reasoning being effective as a method of resolving true versus false meanings. It's like the scientific method aims to control variables and eliminate assumptions. If a person is successful at these things then the experiment is by definition accurate.

How do you know that? Have you used your reasoning faculties?

We know what hammers can do. We know what reasoning can do. ... We can observe either one work for the intended purposes we set, yes?

Have you used your reasoning faculties to reach the conclusion that your reasoning faculties work like a hammer works?

 

[Magical Wand]

I have never seen an atheist say you cannot accept a belief in god on faith

Then you have to expand your circle of friends. For example, in the very popular book "A Manual for Creating Atheists", the author suggested that "faith" entails "pretending to know what you don't know" because it is belief without justification. He spent a good deal of time criticizing fideist epistemology. You can find similar critiques in other popular New Atheist books.

if the theist wishes to impose his beliefs which are based on faith alone then the atheist is going to push back. Atheists in general do not care what others believe until they try to impose their beliefs on others, then they ask for justification.

Why is it wrong to impose unjustified beliefs on others? Perhaps the presup has faith that imposing beliefs on others is okay. You just said it is okay to believe on faith. So, their (i.e., atheist's) objection would be self-defeating.

 

[Magical Wand]

So reason is just the application of your mind using things like logic, evidence to come up with conclusions. We don't have "faith in reason", reason is just one facet of our faculties that we as humans utilize along with everything else to justify a course of action, or a conclusion. In other words, reason can be wrong and it can be right and the only way to know if you have "reasoned" something properly is by the application of the objective facts and evidence, or applying logic. It's weird that you would say "faith in reason", when reason isn't an absolute, it's just a process of thought that utilizes things independent of it. Now if you wanted to say we have faith in logic, or evidence..that would make more sense, although it would still be false.

So, as I defined in my note, reason is the process that uses logic -- viz., deductive, inductive and abductive rules -- to adjudicate truth from falsify. The presup is asking why do you trust your reasoning faculties are reliable? If you present an argument (which would be deductive, inductive or abductive), wouldn't you be using your reasoning faculties to prove your reasoning faculties are reliable?

 

[Justanatheist]

Then you have to expand your circle of friends. For example, in the very popular book "A Manual for Creating Atheists", the author suggested that "faith" entails "pretending to know what you don't know" because it is belief without justification. He spent a good deal of time criticizing fideist epistemology. You can find similar critiques in other popular New Atheist books.

Sorry where does the atheist claim you cannot believe just by faith? You are confusing critiquing faith with telling someone they cannot believe by faith.

Take my rugby analogy, many people think I am crazy to believe Wales can win the world cup, that's fine, I cannot justify my belief so I accept they are probably right. No one can tell me what to believe I have faith.

Why is it wrong to impose unjustified beliefs on others? Perhaps the presup has faith that imposing beliefs on others is okay. You just said it is okay to believe on faith. So, their objection would be self-defeating.

Hang about when have I or you mentioned right or wrong, we are into a whole different subject now. I do not think it is wrong for churches to insist you do not sit in the congregation shouting "There is no god" all the way through a service. Appears quite fair to me that churches can impose their beliefs justified or not on people who attend voluntarily. Right or wrong is situational.

 

[Magical Wand]

Sorry where does the atheist claim you cannot believe just by faith? You are confusing critiquing faith with telling someone they cannot believe by faith.

The answer is obvious. The whole goal of criticizing faith is to convince people that they shouldn't use it.

Hang about when have I or you mentioned right or wrong, we are into a whole different subject now. I do not think it is wrong for churches to insist you do not sit in the congregation shouting "There is no god" all the way through a service. Appears quite fair to me that churches can impose their beliefs justified or not on people who attend voluntarily. Right or wrong is situational.

Why can't it extend to morality as well? You said it is okay to believe in God based on faith and you said you believe "Wales will win the world cup" based on faith. Why is it that the theist can't believe it is okay to force their beliefs on atheists based on faith? What is the relevant difference between these things?

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

So, as I defined in my note, reason is the process that uses logic -- viz., deductive, inductive and abductive rules -- to adjudicate truth from falsify. The presup is asking why do you trust your reasoning faculties are reliable? If you present an argument (which would be deductive, inductive or abductive), wouldn't you be using your reasoning faculties to prove your reasoning faculties are reliable?

I trust my ability to reason based upon their continued reliability in producing effective results. But I don't just have to trust myself based upon my own experience, we can have an objective basis through others. It's like saying "I'm going to drop this ball 100 times" it drops 100 times, but you say "Well it could stop mid air this time, how do you know for sure it will drop again?" Well...I supposed if we throw all logic out the window, sure it's possible, but given the continued reliable results, there's no reason not to trust the results until demonstrated otherwise. We aren't using "reason to prove reason", we are using logic, evidence, tests results, objective verification...to reason. So again, you have it rather backwards.

 

[Justanatheist]

The answer is obvious. The whole goal of criticizing faith is to convince people that they shouldn't use it.

Believing by faith has its place. I do not think it is a good idea to base your worldview on faith but I am not going to say you cannot do so.

Why can't it extend to morality as well? You said it is okay to believe in God based on faith and you said you believe "Wales will win the world cup" based on faith. Why is it that the theist can't believe it is okay to force their beliefs on atheists based on faith? What is the relevant difference between these things?

I just gave you an example of when I think it is ok for theists to impose their views on atheists so why are you saying that I am suggesting it is not ok, it depends on the situation.

 

[Magical Wand]

I do not think it is a good idea to base your worldview on faith

Why not? Your whole worldview is based on faith as well. After all, any justification for reason will be circular, and epistemic circularity is fallacious. Therefore, your only options are to reject reason or accept it on faith.

I just gave you an example of when I think it is ok for theists to impose their views on atheists so why are you saying that I am suggesting it is not ok, it depends on the situation.

Sure. Why is it okay for "churches to insist you do not sit in the congregation shouting 'There is no god'" and it is not okay for whatever else that you do not consider to be okay? What is the relevant difference? For whatever answer you give, I can simply ask why theists can't hold the opposite proposition on faith.

 

[Magical Wand]

I trust my ability to reason based upon their continued reliability in producing effective results.

So, you're applying inductive reasoning (based on the past). How do you know inductive reasoning is reliable?

But I don't just have to trust myself based upon my own experience, we can have an objective basis through others.

Sure, but isn't it true that you will ultimately judge on the basis of your subjective experience that what others say is accurate and correct? Consequently, aren't you ultimately judging on the basis of your own reasoning faculties? Also, you're assuming your senses are accurately informing you about the external world. What is the non-circular justification for believing sense-perception is reliable? You may appeal to memory of past-experiences, but how do you know your memory is reliable? Present a justification for your memory that doesn't rely on your memory.

but given the continued reliable results, there's no reason not to trust the results until demonstrated otherwise.

Have you used your reasoning faculties to reach this conclusion?

 

[Kooky]

I don't base anything on reason. In fact, there is no basis to anything at all. Our reasoning is built on infinite regressions, unspoken assumptions, empty terminology, unspoken, unexamined premises, and emotional states - none of these being particularly stable ground to build upon, and prone to collapse at any point.

It's turtles all the way down, except there are no turtles, there is no "down" or "up", and there was never a way to begin with. We are thrown into a universe made of chaos and nonsense, and what we so haughtily call "reason", "logic", and "knowledge" are our panicked flailing for stability and control - and of course, the same can be said about faith.

We assume our universe is ordered and sensible - that there is a god in the machine, so to speak - except the universe is not a machine, or an organism, or the result of a benevolent creator, or a kindred spirit, or any of the metaphors we created to help.

 

[Justanatheist]

And 'reason' is defined as a cognitive process that works in accordance with deductive, inductive and abductive rules

Why not? Your whole worldview is based on faith as well. After all, any justification for reason will be circular, and epistemic circularity is fallacious. Therefore, your only option is to reject reason or accept it on faith.

No, you clearly defined reason for the purpose of this thread, now where in your definition does it say reasoning is based on faith?

Sure. Why is it okay for "churches to insist you do not sit in the congregation shouting 'There is no god'" and it is not okay for whatever else that you do not consider to be okay? What is the relevant difference? For whatever answer you give, I can simply ask why theists can't hold the opposite proposition on faith.

I clearly explained it is situational, I clearly explained I will ask you to justify it if I consider it unreasonable, and you clearly defined what is reason. You can hold whatever opinion on faith but I am going to push back at you if you cannot provide a reasonable answer.

It appears to me you want to give the same value to decisions made on faith and decisions made on reason. But we both know that in the real world that is not the case and you will give precedent in your daily life to decisions made on reason. If I tell you that you must bet everything you own on who will win the World Cup New Zealand or Wales and you have to chose between form and my faith, you will chose New Zealand every time and you know it, so would I. That is because in real life we value reason over faith for nearly every important decision we make.

 

[Magical Wand]

where in your definition does it say reasoning is based on faith?

Why does it have to be in the definition? Read again my first comment: "Now, some of you may want to justify the reliability of your reasoning process (in other words, to prove you're not insane). For example, you may wish to provide an argument based on past experience. But notice this very argument will rely on reason in order to work. Therefore, your argument will be based on circular reasoning (begging the question), and this is fallacious. That is, to the question "How do you know reason is reliable?" you may answer "Because reason tells me so." This is clearly circular."

Consequently, given that you can't justify the reliability of reason, you have to believe it without evidence/justification.

I will ask you to justify it if I consider it unreasonable

Why? You believe your reasoning faculties are reliable on the basis of faith, and yet you expect others to justify their faith-based beliefs?

That is because in real life we value reason over faith for nearly every important decision we make.

Really? So that's your justification for believing in the reliability of reason? Because we value reason over faith? That is no justification at all. The fact that we use it (and value it) doesn't mean we're justified in using it.

 

[F1fan]

No, that's not an assumption; it is an argument. The justification for the claim that atheists must have faith in reason is that if one tries to prove reason is reliable, one will have to use reason. That's circular.

You've made this comment a few times now. Is it reliable since you are using reason to form the sentences?

The sentences suggests you can't justify using reason.

But that's OK, because logic and reasoning has standards, and all we have to do is see if the reasoning meets certain standards. there is no actual need to prove anything, we know due to the rules of logic that it works.

 

[F1fan]

That doesn't answer the question. You're simply repeating what you wrote before. My question is why do you trust the subconscious processes are reliable? What is the faculty that you use to determine these processes are reliable?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The subconscious is not a conscious process that the conscious mind controls directly or can adjust in the moment. It pretty much does its own thing. If our subconscious attitudes and impulses are self-destructive, or antisocial, like racist attitudes, there are things a person can do to adjust our subconscious processes over time. it tales awareness of how our attitudes project onto our behavior and acts.

But to your point, a racist may believe his racism IS a good and "reliable" way of thinking, and that is largely irrational prejudices set in the subconscious and conscious mind. A person has to recognize their attitudes and beliefs are bad in the first place. Bad people don't.

Did you use reason to reach that conclusion?

No, mostly wit and sarcasm.


"No, reason has an excellent set of rules. If we have well defined elements to the issues being considered we can acknowledge reasoning being effective as a method of resolving true versus false meanings. It's like the scientific method aims to control variables and eliminate assumptions. If a person is successful at these things then the experiment is by definition accurate."

How do you know that?

Reading and comprehending what is written because I have acquired language ability through schooling.

Have you used your reasoning faculties?

Yes, quite often. And I have learned what makes good reasoning versus flawed thinking (which isn't reasoning). Reasoning is skilled thinking. Anyone with language ability can think in abstract thoughts, and may confuse their ability to think as being reasoning when it isn't. As I have noted reasoning is skilled thinking, and has to follow a set of rules.

Have you used your reasoning faculties to reach the conclusion that your reasoning faculties work like a hammer works?

Do you think it ironic that you're questioning the reliability of reasoning while you yourself are using reason to question reasoning? If you have doubts about the reliability of reasoning why are you using it?