tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749730248446670689.post2160850298719636472..comments2024-01-31T19:34:07.460+08:00Comments on The Cabbages of Doom: Atheism: not faith, not religionRichard Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749730248446670689.post-24066645044435623412011-10-08T16:31:22.827+08:002011-10-08T16:31:22.827+08:00(I'm also a little alarmed if you really belie...(I'm also a little alarmed if you really believe that reason distorts evidence to fit unquestioned assumptions. If the evidence NEEDS to be distorted, the assumptions should be (and are) questioned. To me, that's the essence of the difference between faith and reason! If you don't question those assumptions, it's not reason. If you do, it's not faith.)Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749730248446670689.post-49094234358325770752011-10-08T16:22:05.229+08:002011-10-08T16:22:05.229+08:00How do you define faith, then? If EVERYTHING requi...How do you define faith, then? If EVERYTHING requires faith, then I would argue that this definition is not useful. In the same vein, we <i>know</i> NOTHING but it is not useful to use this definition in working life. <br /><br />I am explicitly talking about the kind of faith that underlies most religious belief - the kind of thing that (I think) <i>most</i> people would consider faith. (Do you really need faith that you won't wake up in the body of a tortoise, or that the road won't turn into marshmallow when you're driving?)<br /><br />Googling "faith definition" produces (top):<br /><i>1. <b>Complete</b> trust or confidence in something or someone.</i><br /><i>2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrine of a religion, <b>based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof</b>.</i><br /><br />These seem like reasonable definitions of faith to me. I neither have complete confidence nor base my beliefs on spiritual apprehension (nor "wisdom" nor "sacred texts") but rather proof. (In the "beyond reasonable doubt" sense - strictly speakng, you cannot prove anything but, again, this strict usage is not very helpful.) Therefore, I do not consider that I have faith.<br /><br />If you really want to stick to the hardline definitions then surely you have to agree that it is not <i>the same kind of faith</i> as religion? Furthermore, what word <i>would</i> you use for committed belief in myths and legends that have no discernible evidence? (Or even evidence that they are wrong?)Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749730248446670689.post-37066430482726366052011-10-08T15:00:20.256+08:002011-10-08T15:00:20.256+08:00You are almost there. What you are missing is that...You are almost there. What you are missing is that reason also "distorts the evidence to fit" the unquestioned assumptions of the reasoner. Your statement that EVERYTHING needs faith is exactly right.jparcoeurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880353646115669170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749730248446670689.post-58663241105697540922011-09-26T14:57:54.519+08:002011-09-26T14:57:54.519+08:00Assumptions, yes. Faith? No. I am willing to chang...Assumptions, yes. Faith? No. I am willing to change my beliefs (and have done). I don't really care if god made the universe if that god has no relevance now. I don't think a god did but this is not a position of faith to be defended, just a natural conclusion based on my (yes) assumptions and observation. Religious faith generally starts from the explicit assumption that a specific god exists and then distorts the evidence to fit. This is "faith" to me - committed belief in the face of a lack of evidence or, even, contrary evidence. I do not have this kind of faith as an atheist. They are not the same.<br /><br />I also believe that a god could show itself and/or perform miracles that could not be denied. It doesn't. Therefore, either no god exists, or we have a god who plays games and hides in the shadows, making the world appear as if it doesn't exist. I'm not interested in the latter even if they exist - what's the point? - and the two explanations for observation are certainly not equally satisfactory or likely. Only the latter needs faith. The former simply needs a refusal to accept things without evidence. Under what definition does that constitute faith? (And is it a useful definition? I suspect then EVERYTHING needs faith, making the word itself useless.)Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749730248446670689.post-88680677902410492212011-09-26T14:00:07.238+08:002011-09-26T14:00:07.238+08:00The trouble with the above is that it is not dispr...The trouble with the above is that it is not disprovable with in it's own belief system. There is no possible evidence or observation that can disprove athiesm from athiestic point of view. Any miracle will either be ignored, rationalized or left to be explained later. The reason is that it is just as much an assumption that God does not exist as it is that God exists. Assumptions (and faith) are not options, they are also either or propositions that are necessary foundations for any rational thought.jparcoeurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880353646115669170noreply@blogger.com