28 ms·

Atheists ... imagine they are free of faith. Don't assume. you can't avoid worshipping something Don't assume.

PakG1 16y ago
Anyone who comes to a conclusion about something inevitably in the end has faith. The fact that I sit in a chair right now, I know obviously that the chair can support me. But at the end of the day, I don't know for sure, so that knowledge is also rooted in faith that it will continue to support me and won't spontaneously break. And I've had chairs spontaneously break on me before too, so there's physical evidence in my history that my conclusion isn't a sure thing. The only people who don't have faith are skeptics, and I'm talking about skeptics who are skeptical about everything here. Like they aren't even sure of their own existence. Faith is a logical requirement of any personal conclusion whether you like it or not. http://xkcd.com/242/ http://xkcd.com/242/ Even if you experiment to beyond reasonable doubt, you still risk that you could be wrong. Any true scientist trusts in the scientific method, but the scientific method itself leaves things open to new questions, new evidence, and new experiments. That's what makes the scientific method wonderful. But that's also why any conclusion by the scientific method also in the end has a final requirement of faith for any immediate conclusions.
- sofal 16y ago
  You've moved the goalposts considerably with your definition of faith being merely a reasonable acceptance of a proposition based on evidence. This is far from the prescribed as well as the descriptive definition of faith.
  - lotharbot 16y ago
    Pick your favorite ancient European or Middle Eastern religious or philosophical writing and look at the actual usage of the word "faith" (or the word translated as "faith"). You'll find that its definition is something along the lines of "reasonable acceptance of a proposition based on evidence" with the followup of "acting upon that proposition in the face of emotional uncertainty". Or, more simply, classical faith is the triumph of reason and experience over emotion and fickleness. It's only been about the last 140 years (with the rise of Christian Fundamentalism and the associated mysticism and anti-intellectualism) that "faith" has been used to refer to belief without reason or evidence. The parent poster is moving the goalposts, but he's moving them back toward where they actually belong.
    - sofal 16y ago
      It doesn't matter where you think the goalposts should be. Moving them in order to make a counterpoint is a fallacy.
      - lotharbot 16y ago
        It's not a fallacy to move the goalposts back to where they belong after someone else has misplaced them. It is only a fallacy when the same person places them in one place and then another.
        sofal 16y ago
        Maybe we're not seeing eye to eye on what was being said. erikpukinskis defined faith as "unexamined, culturally imprinted beliefs". Okay, fine. Then he states that atheists imagine they are free of those. crasshopper's comment basically means (correct me if I'm wrong), "don't assume that atheists imagine they are free of unexamined, culturally imprinted beliefs." I agree. At most, atheists claim freedom from a more severe subset of those kinds of beliefs specifically regarding religion. PakG1 then stretches the definition of faith to include even those beliefs which are examined and based on knowledge and past evidence. Let me know where you think the first misplacement was.
        lotharbot 16y ago
        The first misplacement was long before this comment thread. But erik was the first to explicitly state it and use it in an argument (arguing for a position I would not agree with.) That said, PakG1 is not stretching the definition of faith, he's correcting it. It is appropriate to classify erik's position as incorrect and his definition as lacking, but not to classify Pak's correction as a fallacy.
    - mikeklaas 16y ago
      Not much longer than 140 years ago, /nice/ had pretty much the opposite meaning it does now. You can't just pick a word's meaning from hundreds of years ago (worse, a foreign-languag equivalent) and drop it into modern conversation without stating that that's what you're doing.
  - PakG1 16y ago
    I doubt it? Take the following statement, "I have faith in your ability to get the job done." Do not such statements arise from reasonable acceptance of a proposition based on evidence?
    - sofal 16y ago
      You're playing a semantic game with the word faith here that makes it indistinguishable from the word "believe" in every single one of its definitions. A typical next step from there is to equate an atheist's acceptance of a scientifically supported theory to a religious person's belief in a supernatural claim. Thus all belief is faith and all faith is belief and everyone is equally justified in it.
      - PakG1 16y ago
        I think you're worried about me lumping blind faith and assured faith together as one thing. I don't think that's what I'm trying to do here. Also, I think it's erroneous to dismiss all religious faith as blind faith, and that most people haven't thought through the logic of that. But that's a lengthy debate that shouldn't be done here. This comment alone would probably be enough to get me downvoted plenty. :)
      - kirse 16y ago
        Nobody is playing semantic games here, nor have the goalposts moved, because faith is the application and confidence in a given belief. From a Christian perspective, the Bible defines "faith" as confidence in that which we hope for and that which is unseen. (Hebrews 11:1) That's pretty simple, and secondly, that pretty much lines up with every "dictionary" definition of faith -- i.e. a confidence (or an assured belief) in that which cannot be presently assured. Everything in this world has differing degrees to which we must use faith. When I drive my car, I don't need much reassurance of faith (i.e. confidence in a belief) that when I turn the wheel left, the car is going to make the turn. (My belief being in the car's ability to make the turn). However, if you were rationally honest, you would agree that just because the car turned left 1000 times prior, that does not truly give you a reason to be 100% rationally confident that it will continue to do so. Why? Because the environment and every single factor has changed. The road is different, the car is older, the wheel bearings may be a little less greased, the tires have worn, the gravel lays differently, the weather is different, thousands of tiny different universal factors have changed, which really forms an entirely unique model for the 1001st left turn you are about to make. Not to mention, you aren't God, so you have no possible way of knowing all those factors. The perfect mathematical model exists for determining whether that car will make the turn, but you will never know it, so you can only generalize based on prior experience. So you go on, ignoring that tiny little chance (using faith -- a confidence in a given outcome) that the car will not perform as expected. Faith is the confidence in an expected (hoped for) outcome, don't make it out to be more than it is. Some things in this world require larger doses of faith, like whether or not God exists. Empiricism helps to make faith easier.
- crasshopper 16y ago
  Ever hear of the philosopher Charles Pearse? Or the school of American Pragmatism? You're touching on some of what he was into. "Links in the chain of credibility". I like that XKCD gets cited in rhetoric here. =)

PakG1 16y ago

Anyone who comes to a conclusion about something inevitably in the end has faith. The fact that I sit in a chair right now, I know obviously that the chair can support me. But at the end of the day, I don't know for sure, so that knowledge is also rooted in faith that it will continue to support me and won't spontaneously break. And I've had chairs spontaneously break on me before too, so there's physical evidence in my history that my conclusion isn't a sure thing. The only people who don't have faith are skeptics, and I'm talking about skeptics who are skeptical about everything here. Like they aren't even sure of their own existence. Faith is a logical requirement of any personal conclusion whether you like it or not. http://xkcd.com/242/ http://xkcd.com/242/ Even if you experiment to beyond reasonable doubt, you still risk that you could be wrong. Any true scientist trusts in the scientific method, but the scientific method itself leaves things open to new questions, new evidence, and new experiments. That's what makes the scientific method wonderful. But that's also why any conclusion by the scientific method also in the end has a final requirement of faith for any immediate conclusions.

sofal 16y ago
You've moved the goalposts considerably with your definition of faith being merely a reasonable acceptance of a proposition based on evidence. This is far from the prescribed as well as the descriptive definition of faith.
- lotharbot 16y ago
  Pick your favorite ancient European or Middle Eastern religious or philosophical writing and look at the actual usage of the word "faith" (or the word translated as "faith"). You'll find that its definition is something along the lines of "reasonable acceptance of a proposition based on evidence" with the followup of "acting upon that proposition in the face of emotional uncertainty". Or, more simply, classical faith is the triumph of reason and experience over emotion and fickleness. It's only been about the last 140 years (with the rise of Christian Fundamentalism and the associated mysticism and anti-intellectualism) that "faith" has been used to refer to belief without reason or evidence. The parent poster is moving the goalposts, but he's moving them back toward where they actually belong.
  - sofal 16y ago
    It doesn't matter where you think the goalposts should be. Moving them in order to make a counterpoint is a fallacy.
    - lotharbot 16y ago
      It's not a fallacy to move the goalposts back to where they belong after someone else has misplaced them. It is only a fallacy when the same person places them in one place and then another.
      - sofal 16y ago
        Maybe we're not seeing eye to eye on what was being said. erikpukinskis defined faith as "unexamined, culturally imprinted beliefs". Okay, fine. Then he states that atheists imagine they are free of those. crasshopper's comment basically means (correct me if I'm wrong), "don't assume that atheists imagine they are free of unexamined, culturally imprinted beliefs." I agree. At most, atheists claim freedom from a more severe subset of those kinds of beliefs specifically regarding religion. PakG1 then stretches the definition of faith to include even those beliefs which are examined and based on knowledge and past evidence. Let me know where you think the first misplacement was.
        lotharbot 16y ago
        The first misplacement was long before this comment thread. But erik was the first to explicitly state it and use it in an argument (arguing for a position I would not agree with.) That said, PakG1 is not stretching the definition of faith, he's correcting it. It is appropriate to classify erik's position as incorrect and his definition as lacking, but not to classify Pak's correction as a fallacy.
  - mikeklaas 16y ago
    Not much longer than 140 years ago, /nice/ had pretty much the opposite meaning it does now. You can't just pick a word's meaning from hundreds of years ago (worse, a foreign-languag equivalent) and drop it into modern conversation without stating that that's what you're doing.
- PakG1 16y ago
  I doubt it? Take the following statement, "I have faith in your ability to get the job done." Do not such statements arise from reasonable acceptance of a proposition based on evidence?
  - sofal 16y ago
    You're playing a semantic game with the word faith here that makes it indistinguishable from the word "believe" in every single one of its definitions. A typical next step from there is to equate an atheist's acceptance of a scientifically supported theory to a religious person's belief in a supernatural claim. Thus all belief is faith and all faith is belief and everyone is equally justified in it.
    - PakG1 16y ago
      I think you're worried about me lumping blind faith and assured faith together as one thing. I don't think that's what I'm trying to do here. Also, I think it's erroneous to dismiss all religious faith as blind faith, and that most people haven't thought through the logic of that. But that's a lengthy debate that shouldn't be done here. This comment alone would probably be enough to get me downvoted plenty. :)
    - kirse 16y ago
      Nobody is playing semantic games here, nor have the goalposts moved, because faith is the application and confidence in a given belief. From a Christian perspective, the Bible defines "faith" as confidence in that which we hope for and that which is unseen. (Hebrews 11:1) That's pretty simple, and secondly, that pretty much lines up with every "dictionary" definition of faith -- i.e. a confidence (or an assured belief) in that which cannot be presently assured. Everything in this world has differing degrees to which we must use faith. When I drive my car, I don't need much reassurance of faith (i.e. confidence in a belief) that when I turn the wheel left, the car is going to make the turn. (My belief being in the car's ability to make the turn). However, if you were rationally honest, you would agree that just because the car turned left 1000 times prior, that does not truly give you a reason to be 100% rationally confident that it will continue to do so. Why? Because the environment and every single factor has changed. The road is different, the car is older, the wheel bearings may be a little less greased, the tires have worn, the gravel lays differently, the weather is different, thousands of tiny different universal factors have changed, which really forms an entirely unique model for the 1001st left turn you are about to make. Not to mention, you aren't God, so you have no possible way of knowing all those factors. The perfect mathematical model exists for determining whether that car will make the turn, but you will never know it, so you can only generalize based on prior experience. So you go on, ignoring that tiny little chance (using faith -- a confidence in a given outcome) that the car will not perform as expected. Faith is the confidence in an expected (hoped for) outcome, don't make it out to be more than it is. Some things in this world require larger doses of faith, like whether or not God exists. Empiricism helps to make faith easier.
crasshopper 16y ago
Ever hear of the philosopher Charles Pearse? Or the school of American Pragmatism? You're touching on some of what he was into. "Links in the chain of credibility". I like that XKCD gets cited in rhetoric here. =)