Faith is independent of evidence. If the evidence changes, faith remains in tact (not necessarily the faithful… but ‘faith’ as a definition). Christians treat faith as a virtue… this is why natural disasters are often said by Christians to be tests of faith.
To say ‘faith’ is ALL belief is an idiotic, anti-linguistic mistake that completely dilutes all meaning out of what ‘faith’ means.
Do scientists have faith in the Big Bang Theory? No. They believe the evidence FOR the Big Bang Theory is greater than the evidence AGAINST the Big Bang Theory. This is the key component of non-faith-belief; evidence matters. Evidence against a proposition DOES NOT “test” the belief in the proposition if the belief is without faith.
This describes most atheists. We don’t have faith that there is no god… we simply believe that the evidence for the existence of a god is lesser than that of the evidence against the existence of a god. This is NOT characteristic of faith so STOP trying to say atheism is a leap of faith. It’s no different than a scientist believing in the Big Bang due to a tip in evidence for it rather than against it. Theists may similarly believe that the evidence for the existence of God is greater than the evidence against it, but their belief in god, if by faith, would stand regardless. This makes their’s faith and our’s simple belief.
I’ve for a long time disagreed with this common interpretation of ‘faith’. The word faith to me indicates trust, and so faith in God presumably means trust that God will not desert you and that everything will be OK. But, in order to have trust in something, I must first believe in it. I cannot have faith that I’ll win the lottery if I don’t already play it. And I cannot have faith in the tooth fairy if I do not believe in it.
Hence, belief comes before faith. Blind belief is not true faith.
You say:
If the evidence changes, faith remains in tact (not necessarily the faithful… but ‘faith’ as a definition).
Not in my opinion. This would indicate that faith is not based on reason. It should be. I have faith because I have been convinced that there is a God. If tomorrow I was convinced that there was no God, I could no longer have faith. I cannot have faith in something that I do not believe in.
Faith can ALSO mean trust in God, sure. But don’t think that means that’s the single definition… nor is it the sense I’m speaking of.
If you’re convinced that there is no God simply means you lost faith and succumbed to evidence.
You’re completely forgetting what I’ve already said. “Theists may similarly believe that the evidence for the existence of God is greater than the evidence against it, but their belief in god, if by faith, would stand regardless.” This applies to you, but if you had FAITH, in the sense I’m obviously speaking of, in God, then you wouldn’t be discouraged by contrary EVIDENCE. Note: EVIDENCE. Not: “If tomorrow I was convinced that there was no God, I could no longer have faith.” Of course you wouldn’t have faith! 'Cause you lost it! Notice where I said "If the evidence changes, faith remains in tact (not necessarily the faithful… but ‘faith’ as a definition). "
So a theist that belives that there is more evidence for the existnace of God than not is not taking a leap of faith either. Fine by me its all just words, it changes nothing
Oh my GAWD… I thought I elaborated enough. Please READ.
“Theists may similarly believe that the evidence for the existence of God is greater than the evidence against it, but their belief in god, if by faith, would stand regardless.”
Atheism is a leap of faith when it’s made in spite of solid, authoritative reasoning surrounding the doubter to the contrary. You can’t separate what is and is not good reasoning based on the nature of the position itself, the situations of the person coming to that position is at least as, if not more important.
Yes, that’s true, but for what motive might someone take a leap of faith away from a belief which if true would benefit him?
It’s easy to see the reason that someone would choose to believe that a god exists if the evidence indicates god doesn’t exist, but it makes little sense that someone would choose to believe that a god doesn’t exist if the evidence indicates that one does.
Yes, I noticed, and it seems like a cop-out. You can say anything you like about ‘most’ people. Look at it this way. Your thread title is:
“Noun is not a Verb”
so obviously more needs to be said. Atheism most certainly is a leap of faith for many of the people who embrace it -I’m not going to get into the question of ‘most’ with you, because it’s sociology, and I don’t think you can prove anything.
The other thing, too, is that as far as I can tell in your thread, you’ve defined ‘faith’ as ‘foolishness’ and ‘evidence’ as ‘every good reason a person could have to believe something’. After setting up that obviously weighted definition, you’ve gone on to associate your understanding of faith with religious people for no reason I can see other than it’s a word people are used to hearing in connection with religious belief, and so you’re expecting it to go unchallenged. On the other hand, you immediately compare atheists to scientists, a cultural ideal example of ‘people who believe things for good reasons’, even though atheism and science have nothing to do with each other. I could do the same thing by comparing theologians to engineers, and atheists to perpetually negative movie critics. But it wouldn’t really be an argument for something, you see?
So yeah, (a)theism is a leap of faith, when it’s done badly, and that happens plenty often in either case.
Reality Check
Well, traditionally, belief in God obligates one to a strict moral code that a person doesn’t get to choose for themselves, it can restrict cherished behaviors, make demands of how one spends one’s weekends, and of course there’s cultural issues and peer pressure- it’s simply much easier to get along in certain communities as a (a)theist. So yeah, there’s plenty of non-rational reasons for a person to deny the existence of God, even if they have no solid, rational reason to do so.
I defined it as it is. The fact that you interpret that speaks numbers.
Then you’ve failed to understand the OP.
No, Uccisore, I compared a scientist’s BELIEF in the Big Bang Theory to an atheists disbelief in God. Both, as far as I can tell, are reached, if not by faith, then in the same manner. Your bizarre nit-picking on trivial straw man arguments is annoying.
It wasn’t an argument, dear, it was an explanation. I was explaining how most atheists believe there are no gods. Stop with these straw men, please.
You’re saying that you think there is more evidence against the existence of God than for it. That’s your criterion. So, if 49% of the evidence is against God, and 51% is for God, you will remain an atheist?
So, you’re walking along in the mountains, and you are looking for evidence of an impending avalanche. You reckon that there is only a 49% chance of an avalanche on a slope you are about to traverse. Full speed ahead, right?
You’re a doctor - there is a 75% chance that a patient has disease A, which is untreatable, and only a 25% chance that it’s disease B, which is treatable. You do nothing, correct? After all, it’s probably A.
You’re lost in the woods. It’s about zero degrees F. You’re in shorts and a T-shirt. You figure you have very little chance for you to survive - so you give up. Correct?
I just find it remarkable that you would risk eternal damnation over a few percentage points.
If it was 51% against God and 49% for, I’d also be agnostic.
Right now, the evidence against God, for me, is greater than that. If it were less noticable in difference, I’d be agnostic. If it were greatly FOR God, I’d be a theist.
Pascal’s Wager is useless on many levels. First, I can’t simply choose to believe in something. There’s no way in Hell I’d be able to believe in God anytime soon short of submitting myself to a brainwashing theist course… whatever that may be. Secondly, life isn’t a board game. I’m not influenced by the threat of something I don’t believe exists just as I’m sure when I tell you you’re endanger of Brownie Hell if you don’t worship brownies… you’re not the least bit worried that even though the punishment is infinite.
I don’t see the advantage of denying the existence of god rather than of admitting that a god probably exists if the evidence suggests that a god exists simply for the sake of living a lifestyle that one chooses. What would the advantage be?
Either way one would believe that the omniscient god would know that one wasn’t living the “godly” lifestyle.
Say the evidence shows that a god probably exists and that the god wishes us to live a certain lifestyle. Further, say that I do not want to live that lifestyle but that I want to live some other lifestyle.
What possible advantage might it be to me to say publicly “God doesn’t exist” when privately I believe that the evidence shows that he does? I would still have to believe that the omniscient god KNEW that I wasn’t living the prescribed lifestyle.
Er, well, Reality Check, I’m not going to tell you that atheists who do that are rational, which is what it sounds like you’re trying to get me to do. Nevertheless, there are plenty who set off down that road because of the moral obligations they believe come with theism. If you want to split hairs and talk about them denying what they still think there is more evidence for, then those non-evidential reasons may lead them to only read certain books, only listen to certain speakers, and only fairly consider certain arguments, until the evidence that they’ve allowed themselves to be exposed to leads them to a belief that God does not, in fact, exist.
But yeah, if you’re asking me to make it make sense until it seems like a good idea that atheists do that sort of thing, I can’t and I won’t, because it IS foolishness.
Lullaby Chainer
And that's precisely the part that's a non philosophical fantasy. The nature of atheism doesn't make the above true. The nature of religion doesn't make the opposite true for religious people. What you're doing is imagining (that is, using your imagination) to conjure up what you'd like most atheists to be like, and what you'd like most religious people to be like, and acting like it's a conclusion instead of a concoction.
NO, 'an atheists belief' that God doesn't exist is not comparable to a scientist's belief in The Big Bang Theory, except insofar as both scientists and atheists believe those characteristic things for completely different reasons depending on who they are, and the personal story that led them to become scientists or atheists.
Now, if speculative sociology is what you intended to do- that is, your point was to hazard a guess about what atheists and religious people would end up being like if surveys were done, then just throw the guess out there- "I speculate atheists are more critical thinkers than religious people". That's fine. But all the stuff about the nature of 'faith' and 'evidence' makes it sound like you're presenting an argument for something, and you aren't.
The point that you’re missing here, ucci, is that IF, despite evidence that shows god exists, one who is aware of that evidence STILL believes that god doesn’t exist, one then is much, much more than merely foolish. One instead is hopelessly insane.
One is merely foolish if, say, one continues to smoke cigarettes even though one is aware that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the consequences will be a diminished but FINITE life and a prolonged but eventually FINAL death filled with much suffering.
But one is hopelessly insane if one continues to disbelieve in god’s existence if one is aware that the preponderance of the evidence suggests an ETERNALLY diminished life filled with NEVERENDING suffering is the consequence.
An atheist can believe that theists are merely foolish for holding the belief about the existence of god that they hold but a theist cannot believe the same thing about atheists. Theists who believe that god’s existence is a matter of evidence and not simply a matter of faith, if they consider the matter seriously, have to believe that atheists and disbelieving agnostics, such as the atheists and agnostics on this board, are totally insane.
Nevertheless, there are plenty who set off down that road because of the moral obligations they believe come with theism. If you want to split hairs and talk about them denying what they still think there is more evidence for, then those non-evidential reasons may lead them to only read certain books, only listen to certain speakers, and only fairly consider certain arguments, until the evidence that they’ve allowed themselves to be exposed to leads them to a belief that God does not, in fact, exist.