Atheism is a faith

[rojse]

The question does not say or imply that it always comes down to God. It's a question in need of an explanation. I asked it because “probability” is the practical measurement of the effect of an unknown cause. Nothing in science has changed that modifies this. Neils Bohr, who is largely responsible for the Copenhagen interpretation, expressed disappointment at its misappropriation by those scientists who represented it as the explanation. There may be explanations other than God or "chance," but I'm not aware of any.

"I don't know" is indeed a truth statement, but it explains nothing. The problem with settling for "I don't know" is that we would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern were it not for the innate ability mind to form a conceptual frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, it will postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought. "I don't know" does not provide a conceptual frame. "God" provides a conceptual frame and "chaos" another. Neither is proved. If one is faith, so is the other.

The question stands: If faith is defined as a belief with “no rationale,” then where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?

I suppose the "other explanations" would depend entirely upon the context, and the area being examined.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you think you perceive "Chaos," it's in your thoughts and words. Same with "Order."

Who would have thought that the physicists and mathematicians could be so wrong ...

 

[Jeremiah]

The question does not say or imply that it always comes down to God. It's a question in need of an explanation. I asked it because “probability” is the practical measurement of the effect of an unknown cause. Nothing in science has changed that modifies this. Neils Bohr, who is largely responsible for the Copenhagen interpretation, expressed disappointment at its misappropriation by those scientists who represented it as the explanation. There may be explanations other than God or "chance," but I'm not aware of any.

"I don't know" is indeed a truth statement, but it explains nothing. The problem with settling for "I don't know" is that we would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern were it not for the innate ability mind to form a conceptual frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, it will postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought. "I don't know" does not provide a conceptual frame. "God" provides a conceptual frame and "chaos" another. Neither is proved. If one is faith, so is the other.

The question stands: If faith is defined as a belief with “no rationale,” then where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?

"There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" instead of making stuff up. Why does it always come down to God? "I don't know" seems like a more likely explanation to an assumed sufficient cause than God does. In fact I believe "I don't know" is a truth statement."
- Me

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"I don't know" is indeed a truth statement, but it explains nothing.

Likewise the proclamation "God did it" which has no claim whatsoever on being "indeed a truth statement".

 

[doppelganger]

Who would have thought that the physicists and mathematicians could be so wrong ...

Who'd have thought there'd be a snide comment from Jay? Oh yeah . . . I did

 

[Jeremiah]

If you think you perceive "Chaos," it's in your thoughts and words. Same with "Order." Order and chaos are assessments that depend on a comparative context in thought. So asking how "order" emerges from "chaos" is rather inane since they both emerge in thought from each other and at the same time. They define each other.

I have always thought of it as order defines chaos. But really what I think people are driving at when the say order is goal-oriented purpose achieved by a series of cause and effect; the divine plan and God. You remove the two and a person see chaos meaning; cause and effect with no ultimate purpose. That with the realization of the own meagerness they begin to lose focus. The person can either do one of three things here have faith or march onward into darkness or kill themselves.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If you think you perceive "Chaos," it's in your thoughts and words. Same with "Order." Order and chaos are assessments that depend on a comparative context in thought. So asking how "order" emerges from "chaos" is rather inane since they both emerge in thought from each other and at the same time. They define each other.

I agree. But in the "real" world we do what's called "science," which is predicated on the assumption that order exists.

"God" (as you're using it immediately above) and "chance" aren't explanations. They are linguistic placeholders for the experience of not knowing. In other words, for those still following along, "God"/"Chance" = "I don't know."

I agree, but it doesn't address the question. In the "real" world they are both statements of faith--which is the whole point.

Likewise the proclamation "God did it" which has no claim whatsoever on being "indeed a truth statement".

I agree. "God" in this context isn't an explanation, but an understanding, just like "chaos." God's existence isn't the question posed by the OP or my question.

The question stands: If faith is defined as a belief with “no rationale,” then where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?

 

[Jeremiah]

I agree. But in the "real" world we do what's called "science," which is predicated on the assumption that order exists.

I agree, but it doesn't address the question. In the "real" world they are both statements of faith--which is the whole point.

I agree. "God" in this context isn't an explanation, but an understanding, just like "chaos." God's existence isn't the question posed by the OP or my question.

The question stands: If faith is defined as a belief with “no rationale,” then where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?

Who ever said life and intelligence was not chaos itself? Unless we know the initial cause (if there even is one) than we can assume nothing without fallacy.

So presumably we have three answers available

This is no ultimate cause

This is an ultimate cause

It remains unknown

So tell me which one is factual?

----

It is not very reasonable to declare that faith knowledge of life and intelligence is needed to have both. I was born with both and I had no knowledge as to evolution, the big bang or God at that time. But strangely enough I possessed both life and intelligence. My mind is not going to float away if I simply do not care where life and intelligence came from. Really life, intelligence and order are not that surprising me. I can understand how they work to a degree that renders the question as their origin extremely irrelevant. My question is “Hey I am here what the heck do I do now?” I just accepted that I existed and I feel no need to provide a complete explanation as to my origin. You are now grasping straws; one has wonder what your motivation is.

And my official conclusion as to the origin of existence which ended my pursuit to understand the origin of existence was “I don’t know” (btw this only took about an hour; I have never really cared where it all came from.)

I than said to myself the question is “What can I know?” You see you’re working backwards. You’re starting at the end which is what most followers of God do and you’re working your way back. The atheist starts at the beginning and works their way forward. If diligent enough; holding no assumptions of the unknown.

I have never understood why people think life is a big mystery.

 

[camanintx]

What you refer to has rules, just like "chaos theory."

The question stands: If faith is defined a belief with "no rationale," then where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?

Doesn't the universe have rules also? If the "rule" of gravity can turn the big bang into the cosmos we see today, why couldn't other rules be responsible for life and intelligence? This seems pretty rational to me. Or is your real point that only God can write the rules?

 

[Pinecone]

Atheism can be a faith if it's dogmatic. Whenever a person closes their mind to what other people have to say, they are exercising faith. I'm guilty of that sometimes, but I try not to be.

If you say "There is no God", that's a statement of faith. If you say "I see no evidence of a God" then it's not.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Doesn't the universe have rules also? If the "rule" of gravity can turn the big bang into the cosmos we see today, why couldn't other rules be responsible for life and intelligence? This seems pretty rational to me. Or is your real point that only God can write the rules?

If it is assumed that the "rules to order" are intrinsic to the nature of reality, everything derived from those rules are also intrinsic--including life, will, intelligence and consciousness. Being intrinsic, there was never a time they did not exist in some form. In other words, to be consistent, some kind of pantheistic or panentheistic God was there all the time in some form. (This is off-topic, but personally I currently like the God of Mahayana Buddhism.)

As for Jeremiah's challenge. The three options are valid, but that's not the question at hand. The mind operates from a conceptual frame, based on assumptions, whether they are recognized or not. "I don't know" is an admission of ignorance as to what that frame is. If, on the other hand, atheists were not holding assumptions, they wouldn't be atheists because science has shows unequivocally that matter, defined as that substance which behave according to the mathematical equations of physics, is open to the influence of something else. Like I said in a previous post:

The problem with settling for "I don't know" is that we would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern were it not for the innate ability mind to form a conceptual frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, it will postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought. "I don't know" does not provide a conceptual frame. "God" provides a conceptual frame and "chaos" another. Neither is proved. If one is faith, so is the other.

The question stands: If faith is defined as a belief with “no rationale,” then where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?

 

[s2a]

RollingStone consistently reiterated:

The question stands: If faith is defined as a belief with “no rationale,” then where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?

OK. I'll go there.

You put:

"If faith is defined as a belief with “no rationale”...

I would question the presented premise.

I would, in fact, posit that "faith" is utterly reliant upon emotional rationales, not reason, in order to supplant its claimed foundations of asserted "truths".
Your crafted "invulnerable" scarecrow stands well enough, since there are no arguable assaults upon it's own inexact and unestablished premise. Deflection remains an inelegant, but popular tactic in avoiding more salient inquiries and reflections.

Would you care to fashion (at least) an accessible Strawman that defines "faith" in no uncertain, and (theoretically) unassailable terms?

Perhaps a "rationale" supporting [a] "belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos" could be provided to your satisfaction, if and/or when you care to provide the unequivocal definition of "faith".

Instead of premising/presenting an argument against some spurious or flawed allegation/assumption/perception of what "faith" is NOT (or may inaccurately presumed to be/represent)...you are invited instead to support/defend a claim/definition derived of/from your own "belief"...that you feel is sound and assertive enough to suit your own sensibilities as validated and logical argument.

Let's try to establish what faith IS--at least as presented from your own understanding and provisionally defensible definition--before more pointless whacks are targeted upon a scarecrow that isn't really there.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

RollingStone consistently reiterated:


OK. I'll go there.

You put:


I would question the presented premise.

I would, in fact, posit that "faith" is utterly reliant upon emotional rationales, not reason, in order to supplant its claimed foundations of asserted "truths".
Your crafted "invulnerable" scarecrow stands well enough, since there are no arguable assaults upon it's own inexact and unestablished premise. Deflection remains an inelegant, but popular tactic in avoiding more salient inquiries and reflections.

Would you care to fashion (at least) an accessible Strawman that defines "faith" in no uncertain, and (theoretically) unassailable terms?

Perhaps a "rationale" supporting [a] "belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos" could be provided to your satisfaction, if and/or when you care to provide the unequivocal definition of "faith".

Instead of premising/presenting an argument against some spurious or flawed allegation/assumption/perception of what "faith" is NOT (or may inaccurately presumed to be/represent)...you are invited instead to support/defend a claim/definition derived of/from your own "belief"...that you feel is sound and assertive enough to suit your own sensibilities as validated and logical argument.

Let's try to establish what faith IS--at least as presented from your own understanding and provisionally defensible definition--before more pointless whacks are targeted upon a scarecrow that isn't really there.

Faith defined as a belief with "no rationale" was borrowed from someone who wanted to use it to argue that atheism is not a faith. But even using your definition--"faith" is utterly reliant upon emotional rationales, not reason, in order to supplant its claimed foundations of asserted "truths--the question still stands: where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos? Go for it. Just remember what the question is.

 

[Ozzie]

No, I don't think atheism counts as a faith. While I feel certain that there is no god, I admit to the theoretical possibility that there may be a god, just as it's theoretically possible that there are fairies in my garden, trolls under every bridge, and goblins in the cellar. I can't prove that I'm not the only being who really exists, and merely imagining the rest of you. I can't prove that Buttons hasn't created the universe and all of us, and given us the illusion that we're all older than we really are. I can't prove that Alyssa isn't God Incarnate and the Redeemer of the World.

However, while I can't disprove any of those things, the likelihood that they're true seems so remote (or, alternately, so irrelevant) that I feel justified in behaving as if they were certainly untrue.

All that is necessary for anything to be counted as a faith is admission to the theoretical possibility of the nonexistance or existance of God. Atheism as an admission of possibility cannot dress itself up as scientific. Any notion of proof tied up with atheism allows either negation or confirmation. I don't think atheism is equivalent to the null hypothesis of science.

 

[doppelganger]

I agree. But in the "real" world we do what's called "science," which is predicated on the assumption that order exists.

No. It's only predicated upon that idea for those who don't understand what scientific knowledge actually represents.

I agree, but it doesn't address the question. In the "real" world they are both statements of faith--which is the whole point.

What are both statements of faith?

I agree. "God" in this context isn't an explanation, but an understanding, just like "chaos." God's existence isn't the question posed by the OP or my question.

"God" isn't an understanding either. It's a placeholder for lack of knowledge or lack of understanding.

The question stands: If faith is defined as a belief with “no rationale,” then where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?

It's a stupid question, dude.

 

[doppelganger]

The person can either do one of three things here have faith or march onward into darkness or kill themselves.

Or there's a fourth option - don't worry about needing a definitive meaning and give up fretting over the question and become comfortable with just being.

Bask in the mystery rather than defile it with false pretense and arrogant belief.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

No. It's only predicated upon that idea for those who don't understand what scientific knowledge actually represents.

Apparently, you mean scientists, philosophers, and people who live in the "real" world.

What are both statements of faith?

No explanation necessary.

"God" isn't an understanding either. It's a placeholder for lack of knowledge or lack of understanding.

I already agreed to that.

It's a stupid question, dude.

Maybe, but without it being answered leaves but one conclusion: atheism is a faith.

Or there's a fourth option - don't worry about needing a definitive meaning and give up fretting over the question and become comfortable with just being.

I agree. But at the same time, we live in the "real" world.

Bask in the mystery rather than defile it with false pretense and arrogant belief.

I agree--but the assumption there is a mystery is faith glossing over a conceptual frame in such a way that viewed from a particular angle all you get is light reflected back; from another you have a conceptual frame. On occasion we have to deal with the "real" world of conceptual frames, else you wouldn't be able to play with words and the concepts they represent.

The question stands: If faith is defined as a belief with “no rationale,” then where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos? Without an answer, the conclusion is that atheism is a faith.

 

[roli]

faith-belief that is NOT based on PROOF.
many religious people claim that the phrase "there is a god." is fact while many Atheists claim that the phrase "there is NO god" is fact. The truth is however that neither phrase is fact or even fact based but they are both FAITH based. While there is no evidence to back up the claim that there is a God there is also no evidence to back up the claim that there is NO God. Your thoughts? Keep in mind I am not simply refering to the abrahamic god in this argument but however anyone would define God/ Goddess/ supreme being or force, whatever you call it/them and however you may define it/them.

(if there is already a thread on this let me know and provide a link and I'll simply join in the discussion in that thread. Otherwise have at it.)

Atheisim is nothing more then agnosticism at best.
And that is how I believe atheism can only be associated with faith

Atheism states, "there is no god" ,that is not faith, but an inaccurate and invalid statement ,only left to be nothing more then a logical assumption with limited facts.
That statement is an absolute statement ,which in itself is misleading and false, unless that one has absolute knowledge of all things.
The best an atheist can say is,with my limited knowledge regarding the proof of the existence of God , I don;t really know ,therefore making him agnostic if anything.
Now that takes faith !!!!
Agnosticism which states ,there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a god,takes faith,so in that I agree.

I can't get behind the motive behind why atheists strongly promtoe their postion, but in talking with and listening to some atheists positions ,they often seem more aggressive and emphatically determined to state their point and hold their position from intellect more than from a heart of faith.
Many times you can sense that they speak more from a position of being aggrivated, infuriated and enraged.


For a christian to say there is a God, can and often is, an absurdity to those who don't believe nor have had a persoanl encounter with the judeo christian God ,because it is by faith through a personal revelation only through the power of the Holy Spirit that a christian is affirmed by their faith.


Faith takes the initial step to come to God, persoanl revelation seals the deal ,sort of speak.

Although both atheist and agnostics rely in the realm of reason and logic and facts to disprove God exists ,faith , while used many times to defend and support their position, typically is never the initial step they use to begin their practice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't get behind the motive behind why atheists strongly promtoe their postion, but in talking with and listening to some atheists positions ,they often seem more aggressive and emphatically determined to state their point and hold their position from intellect more than from a heart of faith.

There are many, many atheists who are passive and don't expound their views on atheism to you. You probably meet many of these people on a daily basis, but I have a feeling that you assume that they're Christian (or at least theist) because they don't say anything to make you think otherwise.

 

[Jeremiah]

Or there's a fourth option - don't worry about needing a definitive meaning and give up fretting over the question and become comfortable with just being.

Bask in the mystery rather than defile it with false pretense and arrogant belief.

"march onward" - "become comfortable"

"darkness" - "bask"

Same thing just different emotes.