Do Atheists Have Faith?

[firedragon]

I mean this question is basically all of epistemology, or at least a good chunk of it.

I used to have a list of justifiers I could recall: memory, introspection, reason, observation… I don’t recall the full list anymore. But each bullet point would be an entire category of conversation unto itself.

I was trying to ascertain this gentleman's epistemology. Thats the reason I asked the question.

Sometimes MM some things are not really an epistemic issue, its an issue of imposition. Thats the reason one has to understand someone else's epistemology prior to making a commitment or a proposition.

For example, lets say there is a manager who has a lot of faith in his team. If you ask him "is your faith a belief without sound justification" he might say "nope. I interviewed every single person and I have faith they are fully capable of carrying out their duties". But the questioners source of knowledge for his understanding of the word "faith" is not in correspondence to the person being questioned.

Leaving all that aside, I am intrigued to ask you about this list of justifiers you spoke of. I won't ask you a single question afterwards, please explain that to me. I promise I will only send you a lot of good faith and polka dots like the polka dot man.

 

[Meow Mix]

I was trying to ascertain this gentleman's epistemology. Thats the reason I asked the question.

Sometimes MM some things are not really an epistemic issue, its an issue of imposition. Thats the reason one has to understand someone else's epistemology prior to making a commitment or a proposition.

For example, lets say there is a manager who has a lot of faith in his team. If you ask him "is your faith a belief without sound justification" he might say "nope. I interviewed every single person and I have faith they are fully capable of carrying out their duties". But the questioners source of knowledge for his understanding of the word "faith" is not in correspondence to the person being questioned.

Leaving all that aside, I am intrigued to ask you about this list of justifiers you spoke of. I won't ask you a single question afterwards, please explain that to me. I promise I will only send you a lot of good faith and polka dots like the polka dot man.

I see, it makes sense to make sure everyone is on board with the same context of terms used.

In any case I think the only thing missing from the list that I didn't already mention was testimony. Pretty sure there were five main categories: memory, introspection, reason, observation, and testimony. Every justifier falls under one of these, but as I said, each category is huge and its own conversation in itself. That's all I was saying about it: that asking what justifies is a tall order in some senses.

 

[firedragon]

I see, it makes sense to make sure everyone is on board with the same context of terms used.

In any case I think the only thing missing from the list that I didn't already mention was testimony. Pretty sure there were five main categories: memory, introspection, reason, observation, and testimony. Every justifier falls under one of these, but as I said, each category is huge and its own conversation in itself. That's all I was saying about it: that asking what justifies is a tall order in some senses.

Thank you so much. I shall surely ponder upon it. Cheers and have a super day.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thank you so much. I shall surely ponder upon it. Cheers and have a super day.

That is entirely too friendly. How am I supposed to entertain myself at 4:40 AM without someone to fight?

 

[Martin]

Atheists have faith in Saint Dawkins.

 

[firedragon]

That is entirely too friendly. How am I supposed to entertain myself at 4:40 AM without someone to fight?

4:40 AM?? You need a pint or 10, not a fight. Haha. I live too far away, otherwise I would have delivered some.

 

[syo]

So, how would you reply to this challenge? Do you agree with Doug that you also have faith in something?

I don't have faith.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

I always found this sort of strategy by believers to be hilarious. They attempt to bring atheists down...by saying "Hey...you have faith too!" As if it's an insult. Their most cherished idea...faith...is used as a way to say, "hey, you also aren't completely logical or reasonable like me!" It's so hilariously ironic since they are just inadvertently insulting themselves. That being said, I'm sure some atheists do have faith in something...but it doesn't help to generalize and say "You must all have faith in something" because that can't be true. It assumes you know the mind of all atheists and what we believe. When they say "you have faith in science", it isn't at all accurate because science doesn't require belief, it requires evidence, which is the exact opposite of faith. Faith is just believing in something without requiring evidence, or in some cases, in spite of the evidence. You really shouldn't generalize atheists anyways, because we are all different. You literally can't tell anything about atheist by that label alone, except that they don't believe in gods. I've met conservative atheists, moderate, libertarian, flat earth atheists (I know right?!), 9/11 conspiracy theorists, climate deniers, anti-abortion atheists....they come in all shapes and sizes. Either way, if you accuse an atheist of "having faith", at least have an example ready of something they believe in on faith, or you'll just look desperate.

 

[F1fan]

Atheists have faith in Saint Dawkins.

He was sainted? Those damn Catholics are getting way too liberal.

 

[F1fan]

I always found this sort of strategy by believers to be hilarious. They attempt to bring atheists down...by saying "Hey...you have faith too!" As if it's an insult.

I've used the analogy of faith being a sinking ship as theists rely on faith as their basis for belief, and is exposed as being unreliable. Theists then impose faith onto atheists, albeit in some more practical application, as if they are dragging them aboard so all go down with the ship. No survivors.

 

[Magic Man]

In a debate with the New Atheist Christopher Hitchens, presuppositionalist Doug Wilson argued that we all have faith in something (many spiritualists have faith in their deities -- or spiritual entities -- while atheists and agnostics have faith in reason). Consequently, it is meaningless to claim (many) spiritualists are irrational for believing in something based on faith instead of reason, since atheists also have faith in something (according to Doug, at least).

Quote: "Someone who bases everything on reason has faith in the reasoning process. What's wrong with saying that? Why can't you say 'I have faith in reason'?"

Now, some of you may want to justify the reliability of your reasoning process (in other words, to prove you're not insane). For example, you may wish to provide an argument based on past experience. But notice this very argument will rely on reason in order to work. Therefore, your argument will be based on circular reasoning (begging the question), and this is fallacious. That is, to the question "How do you know reason is reliable?" you may answer "Because reason tells me so." This is clearly circular.

So, how would you reply to this challenge? Do you agree with Doug that you also have faith in something?

(Note: it is important to define the meaning of 'faith' here. In this context faith is being defined as belief without sound justifications. And 'reason' is defined as a cognitive process that works in accordance with deductive, inductive and abductive rules).

Faith is a problematic word. At its core, it means trust, but trusting someone or something you know well based on actual experience is very different from trusting someone or something like God, which is an imaginary thing you have no direct experience with.

When I say I have faith in my wife, or I have faith that my process is going to work, it's based on real-world data from direct experience. When someone says they have faith in God, it's based on something that was drilled into them, not from real-world data from direct experience. Essentially it's two almost completely different things.

 

[Magical Wand]

everybody believes in something without evidence. ... However, I would not call it faith.

Well, but that's what it is. In philosophy, knowledge is standardly defined as Justified True Belief. If you have an unjustified belief, that's faith since you have no reason to conclude your belief has any connection to truth.

In any case, you said everybody believes in something without evidence. Does that mean it is okay (that is, rational) for Christians to believe in God without justification/evidence?

 

[Magical Wand]

Faith that hoped for but not seen.

As an atheist I have faith that Wales will win the next rugby world cup.

However I recognise that this is irrational and there is little if any evidence to back it up indeed there is huge evidence to the contrary. I recognise that I just really really want it to be true, but I would not bet my last tenner on it.

For me the issue is whether you recognise what you believe on faith and how you act on it.

There is a difference between "hope" and "faith" as I defined here, as philosopher Peter Boghossian pointed out in one of his books:

“Faith and hope are not synonyms. Sentences with these words also do not share the same linguistic structure and are semantically different—for example, one can say, “I hope it’s so,” and not, “I faith it’s so.” The term “faith,” as the faithful use it in religious contexts, needs to be disambiguated from words such as… “hope.” … “hope” [is] not [a] knowledge claim. One can hope for anything... This is not the same as claiming to know something. To hope for something admits there’s a possibility that what you want may not be realized. For example, if you hope your stock will rise tomorrow, you are not claiming to know your stock will rise; you want your stock to rise, but you recognize there’s a possibility it may not. Desire is not certainty but the wish for an outcome. Hope is not the same as faith. Hoping is not the same as knowing. If you hope something happened, you’re not claiming it did happen. When the faithful say, “Jesus walked on water,” they are not saying they hope Jesus walked on water, but rather are claiming Jesus actually did walk on water.“

 

[Justanatheist]

There is a difference between "hope" and "faith" as I defined here, as philosopher Peter Boghossian pointed out in one of his books:

“Faith and hope are not synonyms. Sentences with these words also do not share the same linguistic structure and are semantically different—for example, one can say, “I hope it’s so,” and not, “I faith it’s so.” The term “faith,” as the faithful use it in religious contexts, needs to be disambiguated from words such as… “hope.” … “hope” [is] not [a] knowledge claim. One can hope for anything... This is not the same as claiming to know something. To hope for something admits there’s a possibility that what you want may not be realized. For example, if you hope your stock will rise tomorrow, you are not claiming to know your stock will rise; you want your stock to rise, but you recognize there’s a possibility it may not. Desire is not certainty but the wish for an outcome. Hope is not the same as faith. Hoping is not the same as knowing. If you hope something happened, you’re not claiming it did happen. When the faithful say, “Jesus walked on water,” they are not saying they hope Jesus walked on water, but rather are claiming Jesus actually did walk on water.“

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Has Peter read the bible?

 

[Magical Wand]

Faith is a problematic word. At its core, it means trust, but trusting someone or something you know well based on actual experience is very different from trusting someone or something like God, which is an imaginary thing you have no direct experience with.

When I say I have faith in my wife, or I have faith that my process is going to work, it's based on real-world data from direct experience. When someone says they have faith in God, it's based on something that was drilled into them, not from real-world data from direct experience. Essentially it's two almost completely different things.

Yeah, but we're talking about reason here, and not ordinary stuff. While you can justify your trust in your wife, you can't do it in the case of reason, for in order to justify anything you have to use reason itself. So, to the question "Why do you trust reason?", you may reply, "Because reason worked in the past, that is, it is 'well based on actual experience'." See the problem? You're using reason to justify the belief that reason worked in the past. That's circular.

 

[Magical Wand]

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Has Peter read the bible?

Of course he did. In fact, he quoted this very passage two pages before the explanation I quoted. In other words, he first presented the passage and then gave reasons to think that's not what many present believers mean when they talk about faith.

 

[Justanatheist]

Of course he did. In fact, he quoted this very passage two pages before the explanation I quoted. In other words, he first presented the passage and then gave reasons to think that's not what many present believers mean when they talk about faith.

Ok I am happy that the bible is wrong, now using your definition how does that alter my faith that Wales will win the next rugby world cup and that is not rational?

 

[Magical Wand]

Ok I am happy that the bible is wrong, now using your definition how does that alter my faith that Wales will win the next rugby world cup and that is not rational?

That doesn't imply the Bible is wrong. It simply implies their definition is different (regardless of the motivations, e.g., a different interpretation of this passage or simply ignorance that it exists).

Anyway, you are still not using the definition I gave here. You admitted you just hope ("I just really really want it to be true"), and faith is being defined here as belief without justification (not desire or hope).

 

[Justanatheist]

That doesn't imply the Bible is wrong. It simply implies their definition is different (regardless of the motivations, e.g., a different interpretation of this passage or simply ignorance that it exists).

Anyway, you are still not using the definition I gave here. You admitted you just hope ("I just really really want it to be true"), and faith is being defined here as belief without justification (not desire or hope).

That is correct I have no justification for believing it is true that Wales will win the world cup, but I do believe, because I am not being rational.

 

[Magical Wand]

I'm sure some atheists do have faith in something...but it doesn't help to generalize and say "You must all have faith in something" because that can't be true. It assumes you know the mind of all atheists and what we believe.

No, that's not an assumption; it is an argument. The justification for the claim that atheists must have faith in reason is that if one tries to prove reason is reliable, one will have to use reason. That's circular.

When they say "you have faith in science", it isn't at all accurate because science doesn't require belief, it requires evidence, which is the exact opposite of faith.

Science provides non-basic empirical knowledge. Knowledge is defined by philosophers as Justified True Belief. Therefore, scientists believe in their empirical results. In order to know something, you have to first believe it.

Faith is just believing in something without requiring evidence

Sure. That's how I defined it in my note.

You really shouldn't generalize atheists anyways, because we are all different.

You're not different in the sense that you all (at least the sane ones) use reason to adjudicate truth from falsity. Therefore, the argument applies to all of you.