7 ms·

> faith of atheism I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. Perhaps

by Cogito 10y ago

> faith of atheism I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. Perhaps you do. What does not require faith, however, is observation - at least to the limits to which we can test and trust our observations. Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god, it's an observation that we don't experience any supernatural forces interacting with this universe. > naive assumption that we know the limits of knowledge I think very few people claim to know the limits of knowledge, but that is not the same thing as saying we know nothing. Asimov's essay on the Relativity of Wrong [0] is some of the best reasoning along this line of thought. [He] went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." [0] http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

nocman 10y ago
"> faith of atheism I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. ..." "Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god" ^ actually it is: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. I think perhaps part of the problem is that many people think of "faith" as meaning to "believe in something without any evidence of its viability", or to "believe in something despite evidence to the contrary". Both of those are unnecessarily narrow definitions of faith. Faith simply means believing that some thing or some set of things is true. The belief (regardless of what facts are believed) may be based on evidence, or it may not. Insisting that "faith" is always believing facts without evidence, or contrary to evidence, is inaccurate. That would be "blind faith", and not all instances of "faith" are "blind faith". [edit -- missed a comma]
- Cogito 10y ago
  Hopefully it's clear that I know the dictionary meaning of 'atheist'. I'll expand the point I was trying to make slightly and address your use of 'faith'. In a very strict sense of the word, atheism is an assertion that there is no god/supernatural being. It is clear that this assertion is impossible to prove, only possible to prove wrong. For any god you prove does not exist it is trivial to imagine one that does and which can't be disproved in the same way. This means that simply stating there is no god is not very useful or meaningful. Much more meaningful is to state that even if there is a god, they take no part in our world. This is the interventionist god that Nick Cave does not believe in. You are correct in pointing out that the word faith can be used to collect beliefs together and give them a name. That is a reasonable interpretation of the parent's use of the term as well. Too often, however, the phrases "faith of atheism" or "faith in science" are used to draw parallels with other faiths, specifically faiths that require "blind faith" as part of their belief system. Take the whole line in context: > To me such ideas as the naive assumption that we know the limits of knowledge go hand in hand with the faith of atheism. The thrust of this statement, as I read it, is identical to the one Asimov discusses in that essay: "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." That is, it is impossible to know what you don't know and believing you do is foolish. He continues: The implication was that I was very foolish because I knew a great deal. The argument in the parent is that people who believe in atheism are foolish for believing they know the limits of knowledge. My counter argument is that atheists - like most people - don't tend to claim they know the limits of knowledge. Their distinguishing characteristic is that at no point does an explanation come to rest on blind faith. That is why saying "Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god" is a meaningful one. There are probably other words that could be used instead of atheism to label this belief system that arises when you discard blind faith. No one needs a label for their belief that there isn't a teapot circling the sun in the exact same orbit as the earth, but 6 months the other side. Atheism is a useful word precisely because there is a long seated assumption in the consciousness of mankind that there must be a god.
  - openasocket 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure what you're describing is agnosticism, not atheism. It certainly doesn't describe so-called "militant atheism".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
majewsky 10y ago
Or, if you prefer pop-culture references, the same thing was summed up in a joke on The Big Bang Theory. Quoting from memory: "Right and wrong are absolutes! There is no scale between them!" - "Of course there is. Saying that a tomato is a vegetable is less wrong than saying it is a suspension bridge."

by Cogito 10y ago

nocman 10y ago

"> faith of atheism I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. ..." "Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god" ^ actually it is: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. I think perhaps part of the problem is that many people think of "faith" as meaning to "believe in something without any evidence of its viability", or to "believe in something despite evidence to the contrary". Both of those are unnecessarily narrow definitions of faith. Faith simply means believing that some thing or some set of things is true. The belief (regardless of what facts are believed) may be based on evidence, or it may not. Insisting that "faith" is always believing facts without evidence, or contrary to evidence, is inaccurate. That would be "blind faith", and not all instances of "faith" are "blind faith". [edit -- missed a comma]

Cogito 10y ago
Hopefully it's clear that I know the dictionary meaning of 'atheist'. I'll expand the point I was trying to make slightly and address your use of 'faith'. In a very strict sense of the word, atheism is an assertion that there is no god/supernatural being. It is clear that this assertion is impossible to prove, only possible to prove wrong. For any god you prove does not exist it is trivial to imagine one that does and which can't be disproved in the same way. This means that simply stating there is no god is not very useful or meaningful. Much more meaningful is to state that even if there is a god, they take no part in our world. This is the interventionist god that Nick Cave does not believe in. You are correct in pointing out that the word faith can be used to collect beliefs together and give them a name. That is a reasonable interpretation of the parent's use of the term as well. Too often, however, the phrases "faith of atheism" or "faith in science" are used to draw parallels with other faiths, specifically faiths that require "blind faith" as part of their belief system. Take the whole line in context: > To me such ideas as the naive assumption that we know the limits of knowledge go hand in hand with the faith of atheism. The thrust of this statement, as I read it, is identical to the one Asimov discusses in that essay: "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." That is, it is impossible to know what you don't know and believing you do is foolish. He continues: The implication was that I was very foolish because I knew a great deal. The argument in the parent is that people who believe in atheism are foolish for believing they know the limits of knowledge. My counter argument is that atheists - like most people - don't tend to claim they know the limits of knowledge. Their distinguishing characteristic is that at no point does an explanation come to rest on blind faith. That is why saying "Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god" is a meaningful one. There are probably other words that could be used instead of atheism to label this belief system that arises when you discard blind faith. No one needs a label for their belief that there isn't a teapot circling the sun in the exact same orbit as the earth, but 6 months the other side. Atheism is a useful word precisely because there is a long seated assumption in the consciousness of mankind that there must be a god.
- openasocket 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure what you're describing is agnosticism, not atheism. It certainly doesn't describe so-called "militant atheism".

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

majewsky 10y ago

Or, if you prefer pop-culture references, the same thing was summed up in a joke on The Big Bang Theory. Quoting from memory: "Right and wrong are absolutes! There is no scale between them!" - "Of course there is. Saying that a tomato is a vegetable is less wrong than saying it is a suspension bridge."