Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Willamena]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

The faith referred to that is based in previous experience is outlined in the executive summary of the problem of induction.

Based on previous experience I believe gravity will be here tomorrow as it was yesterday. But if I believe that God will cancel gravity tomorrow because my cult leader says so that belief would be faith. If you can present some actual logical and rational reasons and evidence why you believe something it's not faith. If the reason you believe something is because your cult leader says so, your belief is called faith.

 

[ArtieE]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

The faith referred to that is based in previous experience is outlined in the executive summary of the problem of induction.

Can you elaborate? The word "faith" doesn't appear on the page you linked to.

 

[Willamena]

Can you elaborate? The word "faith" doesn't appear on the page you linked to.

Faith does, though. People who assert that the evidence of the past proves the future display a strong confidence/belief in something that cannot be proved.

 

[`mud]

To me, because I'm kinda backwoods, the expression " now work damn you",
doesn't always work most of the time, nor do bigger hammers.
"Faith" is a "wish" floating in space, looking for a bigger hammer !
I think you said it better before, but I can't seem to find it.
Now.....I have to find a way to lift that bigger hammer !
Wishes and hopes....That's life and it's stuff, now and again, rewards.
I have no idea why I posted this here, following Willa I guess.
~
'mud

 

[ArtieE]

Faith does, though. People who assert that the evidence of the past proves the future display a strong confidence/belief in something that cannot be proved.

I believe we will have gravity tomorrow since I have no logical or rational reason to believe otherwise. Believing we won't have gravity tomorrow is called having faith.

 

[Willamena]

To me, because I'm kinda backwoods, the expression " now work damn you",
doesn't always work most of the time, nor do bigger hammers.
"Faith" is a "wish" floating in space, looking for a bigger hammer !
I think you said it better before, but I can't seem to find it.
Now.....I have to find a way to lift that bigger hammer !
Wishes and hopes....That's life and it's stuff, now and again, rewards.
I have no idea why I posted this here, following Willa I guess.
~
'mud

Faith is an expectation. Wishes are fishes, but the world cannot progress for us without our expectations of it.

Hence, science.

 

[Willamena]

I believe we will have gravity tomorrow since I have no logical or rational reason to believe otherwise. Believing we won't have gravity tomorrow is called having faith.

As I said earlier, healthy skepticism is not to deny a thing but to recognize it.

 

[Ouroboros]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

The faith referred to that is based in previous experience is outlined in the executive summary of the problem of induction.

Induction to one person is generalization fallacy to another.

 

[Willamena]

Induction to one person is generalization fallacy to another.

A hasty generalization is different. A fallacy is a fault in the way of thinking, but induction is a feature.

 

[Ouroboros]

A hasty generalization is different. A fallacy is a fault in the way of thinking, but induction is a feature.

Hasty generalization, that's what I was thinking of.

Actually, hasty generalization is inductive generalization with questionable or incomplete supporting evidence.

 

[Acim]

There is no faith part in believing gravity will exist tomorrow. If for no good reason you believe gravity won't exist tomorrow then that belief is called faith because it goes against all previous experience and knowledge.

Not how faith works. It's not lack of evidence, and you believe. It's you have trust and confidence in thing or person. That's the basics. Beyond that is adding to it or stipulating it (the definition) so it conforms with one's own attitudes on faith, or more like a particular type of faith.

While I'm interested in distinctions between the two, I see faith as being the fundamental one that establishes reason for the other two. Have faith in physical existence, independent of the mind, then you'll learn (via reason) to trust / have confidence in physical processes. Have faith in God, then you'll learn (via Reason) to trust / have confidence in divine order / revelation.

 

[Acim]

I believe we will have gravity tomorrow since I have no logical or rational reason to believe otherwise. Believing we won't have gravity tomorrow is called having faith.

Strongly disagree. It is simply belief. It would have to surpass level of confidence to be faith, and then in intellectual discourse dumbed down to level of confidence to be sensible (as faith).

It's reason that leads to belief that gravity may or may not exist tomorrow.

Never mind the notion that no one has actually experienced 'tomorrow.'

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I was referring to the identity of faith and belief. That's what doesn't change.

That you have a "par" that places belief informed by science above belief informed by superstition suggests that you (as I mentioned earlier) are looking at a larger scope than simply "belief." Belief is belief--else, we could not define it. It is true that beliefs informed by science might carry more weight, or have more value, or be more useful, for instance, along with other things, but those things aren't part of the definition of belief.

I forget what we were arguing about.

I never stated "above" or "below".

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Strongly disagree. It is simply belief

You "strongly disagree" because you refuse to acknowledge that the religious variety of faith is far different than simply having "strong confidence" in a given thing, such as your car starting; or having "trust" in someone, such as your spouse, or "maintaining a belief" such as I will fall if I step off a cliff, . I suspect that by doing so, you feel you have somehow "legitimized" one's position of belief in supernatural. "Faith", as in what I mean when I say "I have no faith" has been clearly defined in this discussion; and more than once. The problem is, it continues to be "redefined" throughout the discussion. We have gone from "strong confidence" to "strong belief in god based on spiritual apprehension rather than evidence" to "an attitude of hope in life" and now down to "mere belief". It is goalpost shifting at its finest, leading to an unsolvable discussion.

It is easy to have a "mere belief" in something when one has "good reason" to believe that given thing to be true. I'm not stating "a reason to believe" -- I said good reason (the emphasis on "good" in "good reason", an adjective I feel Willemma has missed in her responses to my posts).

I have "good reason" to believe that stepping off a building will cause me to fall. I have "good reason" to believe that my car will start. I have "good reason" to believe that I must have water to live. Each of these statements are empirically and objectively verifiable. No "faith' (of the religious variety) required. In fact, holding these things to be true with good reason pretty much nullifies the notion that "faith" of the religious variety is, in any way, involved.

I have no "good reason" to believe that someone was raised from the dead. I have no "good reason" to believe that tarot cards predict my future. I have no "good reason" to believe in the existence of Bigfoot, Nessie or Ancient Aliens. I have no "good reason" to hold belief in a personal God. I have no "good reason" to believe that there are other planes of existence for my immortal soul to spend eternity. For that matter, I have no "good reason" to believe in either "soul" or "eternity". That is not to say that one may not have "reason" to hold these statements to be true; but a "reason" is not the same as a "good reason".

You may have "reason" to believe that someone rose from the dead ... based on tradition, peer pressure, emotion, or even simple choice. But that "reason" does not equate to "good reason". You may have "reason" to believe that there are other planes of existence for your immortal soul to spend eternity. That reason may "revelation' though lucid dreams, thousands of years of tradition, or just because your spiritual leader told you so. But subjective experiences and traditions and unqualified opinions do not constitute "good reason".

The religious variety of faith is holding a given thing to be true without "good reason". Thus, I have no "faith".

Now, if you change this definition of "faith", such as perverting it to mean "a mere belief" or watering it down to mean an "outlook on life", then you can shoehorn your own interpretation to the word "faith" into my statement "I have no faith" and "prove me wrong". But you have ultimately failed to prove me "wrong" because you have changed the definition of "faith" to mean what you want it to mean to achieve your desired result.

I consider this "cheating".

 

[Sapiens]

...

The evidence of which you speak is also held by faith. It's actually held up on the fundamental/blind faith, but once that is accepted as 'way things are' or 'reality' then like all things faith/trust oriented, the rest appears to fall into place. Until it doesn't.

If you believe the physical world to be reality, or even existing, then I would say it is virtually identical in the type of faith. Me, I do believe it exists and understand it to be based on faith. There is no objective evidence that I've ever seen anyone present for its existence. I'm still going to maintain faith regardless of the lack of evidence. Though, I would stipulate that the strength of my confidence varies on this. Intellectually, I find it almost easy to dismiss as actually existing.

Doesn't it concern you that you make no better case for your "faith" than one might effectively make for Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

As a (gnostic) Christian, I don't care much for holding a belief in physical resurrection of Jesus. Enlightenment occurs via Reason and unblocking certain obstacles from awareness. While that my appear like rituals, by that sort of understanding, there is nothing that anyone does that couldn't appear like a ritual. All of science would be ritualistic by this type of understanding. Of course the method (or any methods) are clearly ritualistic, but I'm saying critical analysis, when observed from outside-in, if observed as repeatable pattern and then justified as necessary toward a process would clearly be ritualistic.

But the definition of "ritual" includes, "a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions ..." Science does not fit this at all, you are inventing support for a false equivalency,

I see and understand humans as Gods. I have faith in this, and it is at times mere belief. I also will lay claim to it being knowledge as in, at certain times, I have zero doubt that this is 100% accurate. So, when someone comes along and suggest there is no evidence for spiritual beliefs, I consider them under informed, likely conveying old school, blind faith type information regarding existence of God. Not that human as Gods is new age, but well, ya know, not widely accepted understanding for past 2000 (or so) years.

Zero doubt and 100% accuracy are claims that should never be made in proximity to the word science. Rather a Bayesian approach of adjusting your credence in something that might approach as a limit zero at one end and 100% at the other end would be more defendable.

Which provides example of how faith and reason work together. Though surely you can conceive of reasons why it might not work, and thus could believe otherwise. Which in turn would lead to degree of doubt mixed with degree of faith. But faith, once accepted can be easily taken for granted, leading to basis of (continual) trust.

That's just word salad without clear defintion ... faith is often that way, reason rarely.

A lot of faith statements conveyed here. Such as 'proper' diagnosing. And 'clearly identifying.' Along with 'effective repairs.' All of those instances of faith aren't necessarily based on evidence, nor is it appropriate to associate that with fact. That a car won't start or will start is a matter of faith. That it does start repeatedly, builds confidence in the next time you go to start it. But if going strictly with reason (and forgetting trust/confidence/faith), there is cause to believe it won't start. And cause to believe it might.

Those three terms have nothing to do with faith, rather they are simply modifiers that exclude incorrect conclusions being reached on the basis of incompetence.

IMO, the appearance of prayers not answered is based on lack of reason. I would contend the prayer was always answered, but the answer might not be what was expected/anticipated. You could play similar scenario (or game) with anyone you make requests of. Expect a certain outcome, be what you feel is clear with the request, and then when that doesn't occur, believe that the trust has been broken, that the other party let you down and that is the only proper way to understand the situation.

Well ... there's a tautology if ever I saw one. Really now ... prayers are always answered but that can't be seen because the actual result of the prayer is logically unconnected to the result. It's like the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over each time expecting a different result.

Faith that it can be discerned, and faith that it can be (properly) repaired.

That's not faith, that's probability based on experience (Baysein credence).

 

[Acim]

You "strongly disagree" because you refuse to acknowledge that the religious variety of faith is far different than simply having "strong confidence" in a given thing, such as your car starting; or having "trust" in someone, such as your spouse, or "maintaining a belief" such as I will fall if I step off a cliff, .

Not accurate. That's how you are positioning my view so that you can then be seen as easily defeating what you think my position is.

If we stipulate that such an animal as religious faith exists and distinguish that from empiricism, then I am likely right there with you for at least some of the points.

But your point is denying the intrinsic faith that comes with empiricism. It's not a religious faith, but is a faith for sure. A metaphysical one of sorts.

I suspect that by doing so, you feel you have somehow "legitimized" one's position of belief in supernatural.

You suspect incorrectly. It is mostly philosophical for me. It is not allowing vast assumptions to be taken for granted because some people are too lazy to apply reasoning to them.

"Faith", as in what I mean when I say "I have no faith" has been clearly defined in this discussion; and more than once. The problem is, it continues to be "redefined" throughout the discussion. We have gone from "strong confidence" to "strong belief in god based on spiritual apprehension rather than evidence" to "an attitude of hope in life" and now down to "mere belief". It is goalpost shifting at its finest, leading to an unsolvable discussion.

I am using primary dictionary definition. Perhaps there exists a dictionary or two that doesn't have faith with primary definition of: complete trust of confidence in something or someone. If you are suggesting we ignore all those dictionaries that do have it as primary definition, and only stick to the definitions that stipulate it as pertaining to religion, then perhaps you could win, though I would call it a stipulated victory, needing a rather significant asterisk by it.

It is easy to have a "mere belief" in something when one has "good reason" to believe that given thing to be true. I'm not stating "a reason to believe" -- I said good reason (the emphasis on "good" in "good reason", an adjective I feel Willemma has missed in her responses to my posts).

I have "good reason" to believe that stepping off a building will cause me to fall. I have "good reason" to believe that my car will start. I have "good reason" to believe that I must have water to live. Each of these statements are empirically and objectively verifiable. No "faith' (of the religious variety) required. In fact, holding these things to be true with good reason pretty much nullifies the notion that "faith" of the religious variety is, in any way, involved.

Why the need to add 'good' to the assertions? That makes it vague as to what is it based on (besides simply reason)? Yes, no faith of the religious variety, but faith nonetheless. A stronger confidence than 'mere trust.' Or stronger trust than 'mere confidence.'

I have no "good reason" to believe that someone was raised from the dead. I have no "good reason" to believe that tarot cards predict my future. I have no "good reason" to believe in the existence of Bigfoot, Nessie or Ancient Aliens. I have no "good reason" to hold belief in a personal God. I have no "good reason" to believe that there are other planes of existence for my immortal soul to spend eternity. For that matter, I have no "good reason" to believe in either "soul" or "eternity". That is not to say that one may not have "reason" to hold these statements to be true; but a "reason" is not the same as a "good reason".

All this is more a matter of personal preference. Good reason, in way you are conveying it, strikes me as faith.

I have good reason to believe the physical world exists. When honestly exploring that reasoning, it comes down to confidence that my perceptions exist, and thus far I do not see it as possible to separate that from mind. Thus, in reality, it is a matter of faith.

You may have "reason" to believe that someone rose from the dead ... based on tradition, peer pressure, emotion, or even simple choice. But that "reason" does not equate to "good reason". You may have "reason" to believe that there are other planes of existence for your immortal soul to spend eternity. That reason may "revelation' though lucid dreams, thousands of years of tradition, or just because your spiritual leader told you so. But subjective experiences and traditions and unqualified opinions do not constitute "good reason".

The last assertion is debatable. But seeing that 'good reason' isn't really all that spelled out and is thus far a subjective assertion into the debate, I'll let you play with that to establish it further, in your own subjective way.

The religious variety of faith is holding a given thing to be true without "good reason". Thus, I have no "faith".

Subjective assertion.

Now, if you change this definition of "faith", such as perverting it to mean "a mere belief" or watering it down to mean an "outlook on life", then you can shoehorn your own interpretation to the word "faith" into my statement "I have no faith" and "prove me wrong". But you have ultimately failed to prove me "wrong" because you have changed the definition of "faith" to mean what you want it to mean to achieve your desired result.

I consider this "cheating".

I understood faith before I entered this thread's discussion to be the primary definition found in the dictionary and one I've discussed in a philosophical way around 5000 times in my life. Make that 5001.

 

[Acim]

Doesn't it concern you that you make no better case for your "faith" than one might effectively make for Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

Doesn't it concern you that you ask leading questions that don't warrant a reasonable response?

But the definition of "ritual" includes, "a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions ..." Science does not fit this at all, you are inventing support for a false equivalency,

Solemn equals - formal and dignified. So science is not engaged in a series of actions that are formal or dignified? Okay, sure.

Zero doubt and 100% accuracy are claims that should never be made in proximity to the word science.

According to who?

That's just word salad without clear defintion ... faith is often that way, reason rarely.

The clear definition was clearly provided earlier. Please keep up.

Those three terms have nothing to do with faith, rather they are simply modifiers that exclude incorrect conclusions being reached on the basis of incompetence.

Be glad to test these things based on your bravado and thinking you understand that which you are demonstratively showing ignorance on.

 

[Sapiens]

Doesn't it concern you that you ask leading questions that don't warrant a reasonable response?

If you had a reasonable response you'd make it. Your lack of one speaks volumes.

Solemn equals - formal and dignified. So science is not engaged in a series of actions that are formal or dignified? Okay, sure.

I've been doing field science for all of my adult life, my actions were never formal and rarely dignified.

According to who?

Everyone scientists on earth.

The clear definition was clearly provided earlier. Please keep up.

I guess I missed it in amongst the olives, chick peas and cukes.

Be glad to test these things based on your bravado and thinking you understand that which you are demonstratively showing ignorance on.

[/quote]Them what can ... do.

Them what can't ... ad hominem instead.

 

[Sapiens]

Sorry for your lack of comprehensive skills. I will try to speak as if you are 10 years old, as that may be the only way you can keep up.

"Comprehensive," as you use the word is an adjective means "general, overall, full, broad or complete," perhaps you meant to refer to my ," reading comprehension?" That 's an entirely different matter.

So your scientific practice is informal and undignified. Got it.

Field work is usually both. If you were a scientist, you'd understand that.

Good luck supporting that assertion.

My guess is that you're not much up on the theory of science and that you're not overly familiar with Karl Popper's work.

Here's Satoshi Kanazawa writing in Psychology Today:

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that every thing in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my *** tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

 

[Willamena]

I never stated "above" or "below".

Of course not.