4 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. ..."

by 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".
  - Cogito 10y ago
    This is a good point, so I looked into what other people have said about the two of them. The thing I think which most succinctly summarises my current understanding would be these arguments from [0]: An atheist disbelieves assertions of the existence of a deity or deities and believes the burden of proof is on those who say there is a god. An agnostic disbelieves assertions that the existence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated, but also disbelieves assertions that the nonexistence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated. Specifically, an atheist is not saying that there is no god, just that we don't have proof for any god. A 'Strong Atheist' may go on to affirm that there are no gods at all, but that is not required for atheism. Based on this, I think I was talking about atheism in the most part, but with a bit of agnosticism thrown in. [0] http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist
dkbrk 10y ago
Linking to a dictionary definition has little relevance to such a discussion. The meaning of words depends on their context. "faith" has specific connotations when used in the context of religion, and the phrase "faith of atheism" attempts to apply these same connotations to atheism, implicitly placing it in the same category as religions and neatly sidestepping the question of whether such a categorization is appropriate. Whether atheism should be categorized along with religions is a question which should be addressed on its own merits by looking at the characteristics of atheism and religions themselves, rather than looking up a dictionary definition and seeing if the words match. In that context, I think it is quite appropriate to claim: > 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. Regardless of whether or not that is what is written down in the dictionary. For further reference, see 'Arguing "By Definition" (LessWrong)': http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/
- majewsky 10y ago
  Arguing "by definition" has value to it when it helps advance a conversation by uncovering the subtle ways in which the different definitions of each party diverge from each other. It's only unproductive if one party doesn't realize that all definitions are man-made, and stubbornly insists that the other party's definition is wrong. Insofar, I think that introducing the definition has brought a net positive value to this discussion here.

by nocman 10y ago

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".
- Cogito 10y ago
  This is a good point, so I looked into what other people have said about the two of them. The thing I think which most succinctly summarises my current understanding would be these arguments from [0]: An atheist disbelieves assertions of the existence of a deity or deities and believes the burden of proof is on those who say there is a god. An agnostic disbelieves assertions that the existence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated, but also disbelieves assertions that the nonexistence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated. Specifically, an atheist is not saying that there is no god, just that we don't have proof for any god. A 'Strong Atheist' may go on to affirm that there are no gods at all, but that is not required for atheism. Based on this, I think I was talking about atheism in the most part, but with a bit of agnosticism thrown in. [0] http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist

dkbrk 10y ago

Linking to a dictionary definition has little relevance to such a discussion. The meaning of words depends on their context. "faith" has specific connotations when used in the context of religion, and the phrase "faith of atheism" attempts to apply these same connotations to atheism, implicitly placing it in the same category as religions and neatly sidestepping the question of whether such a categorization is appropriate. Whether atheism should be categorized along with religions is a question which should be addressed on its own merits by looking at the characteristics of atheism and religions themselves, rather than looking up a dictionary definition and seeing if the words match. In that context, I think it is quite appropriate to claim: > 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. Regardless of whether or not that is what is written down in the dictionary. For further reference, see 'Arguing "By Definition" (LessWrong)': http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/

majewsky 10y ago
Arguing "by definition" has value to it when it helps advance a conversation by uncovering the subtle ways in which the different definitions of each party diverge from each other. It's only unproductive if one party doesn't realize that all definitions are man-made, and stubbornly insists that the other party's definition is wrong. Insofar, I think that introducing the definition has brought a net positive value to this discussion here.