TomCat26, a "all or nothing" logic would be completely unfeasible. The logical negation of it would require theists to believe in EVERYTHING to which there is no evidence, if it were to be logically consistent. That would be equally silly.
It sounds like what you're saying is at the very heart, belief in oneself, self confidence, trust in other people, goodwill; it sounds like you claim there is in fact and must be evidence for every one of these things. It sounds like what you're saying is that the evidence may not be blatant, or obvious, but they are behind the scenes--implicit---but they are there and in fact required.
You seem to be confused as to what "evidence" is. Tiax already answered this question in what I think was a pretty good and succinct answer:
One small example I was thinking of was:
Taking someone at their word when they say "I care about you" rather than demanding proof.
Hmm...It kinda seems like there's usually a lot of evidence in those situations. For one, most people would be honest about that. Further, you've probably got a lot of previous interaction with the person that would make it clear. Of course, most people care about each other to some extent, so there's that as well. Taking them at their word doesn't seem to require much faith. But suppose you're in a situation where you have no evidence - such a stranger, or someone who hasn't acted in a way that would indicate they care. Would you simply trust them when they say that? That seems like potentially damaging behavior.
You never responded to him.
TomCat26, you keep stating the same things, but saying them in a different way as if it will suddenly "click" with us if you phrase it right. It seems to me that you're trying so hard to make us understand what you're saying, that you're not listening to what we are saying. We DO understand what you're saying; I know I get it most of the time. However, you need to understand what we're saying if you want to know why it's not "clicking." There is a reason we aren't just agreeing with you, and rephrasing your assertions will not help.
Why don't you address this post of Tiax's from page one and then we can move on again.
You have to pardon me on this. There are simply too many points and subpoints from too many posters to respond to everything. I cannot respond to everyone of these. But if you bold out particular points you would like to emphasize like you just did, then I will respond.
To answer Tiax. No, I wouldnt believe that stranger. But it's not merely because there is a lack of evidence on his part.
it's lack of evidence + something else.
The something else can be:
1) cost-benefit analysis. It very dangerous to simply trust someone.
2) Prior bad experiences.
3) Do i "feel" true genuineness of conviction in his statement?
With cost-benefit analysis, I would ignore the guy. I don't know if he is telling the truth or telling a lie. I have no evidence either way, but the evidence simply doesn't matter. I can conclude whatever 'gain' I might get isn't worth the potential 'loss'.
Prior bad experiences shows our personal bias. Personal bias isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's how most of us live. It is however logically fallacious to impute it on this newcomer without sufficient basis. Nevertheless, prior bad experiences might be another reason why I ignore him.
Does the guy in general give me a bad feeling? Sometimes something about a fellow might seem just off. Other times, I might even feel a person is worth trusting, even if objective evidence is to the contrary.
The point is however, its not mere lack of evidentiary basis going into the decision-making. And I suspect that its not mere lack of evidentiary basis that is going into the decision-making for atheists either.
It's lack of evidence for God + Negative Perception(Religious people are judgmental. Religious people are dumb. Religious people act like Pat Robertson. They act like the Catholic church)
well you see something that I don't see. You say that these positive attitudes, believing in yourself, are all predicated on implicit evidence.
But what I am asking is whether or not these require evidence.
I concede that evidence can certainly help to buttress them. A wife might feel more secure that you love her if you presented little acts of kindness throughout the day.
But do these 'beliefs' require your implicit evidence?
You've misunderstood entirely. The necessary evidence I'm talking about is for existence claims. You can't have a positive attitude towards something you don't even know exists. If a woman has no evidence that there exists a man to whom she is married, a fortiori she cannot "believe in her husband" in the sense that she thinks the man loves her, because to the best of her knowledge there is no such man on whom this belief can be predicated. It would be just plain crazy of her to say, "I have no evidence that there exists a man to whom I am married, but I have faith that there is."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
1) cost-benefit analysis. It very dangerous to simply trust someone.
2) Prior bad experiences.
3) Do i "feel" true genuineness of conviction in his statement?
And, why do you not think of any of this as "evidence?"
I read statistic evidence, intuition, but mostly Personal experience.
well you see something that I don't see. You say that these positive attitudes, believing in yourself, are all predicated on implicit evidence.
But what I am asking is whether or not these require evidence.
I concede that evidence can certainly help to buttress them. A wife might feel more secure that you love her if you presented little acts of kindness throughout the day.
But do these 'beliefs' require your implicit evidence?
You've misunderstood entirely. The necessary evidence I'm talking about is for existence claims. You can't have a positive attitude towards something you don't even know exists. If a woman has no evidence that there exists a man to whom she is married, a fortiori she cannot "believe in her husband" in the sense that she thinks the man loves her, because to the best of her knowledge there is no such man on whom this belief can be predicated. It would be just plain crazy of her to say, "I have no evidence that there exists a man to whom I am married, but I have faith that there is."
I apologize then but can you clarify the significant between the distinctions you're trying to make.
I misunderstood you the first time and I'm probably in danger of misunderstanding your point a second time. Why does existence factor into this?
I'm talking about faith with regards to evidence, leading one to believe in things that cannot be seen. Whether the belief is believing in someone or even believing in existential entities--I see no distinction because the issue in my head is evidence.
It looks like you're trying to say that evidentiary basis for believing in the existence of something vs evidentiary basis for trusting in someone are two different things entirely.
Is that your point?
You're equivocating. The phrases "belief in God" and "belief in oneself" have very different meanings, in spite of their similar forms. To "believe in God" is to hold it as a fact that God exists. To "believe in oneself" is not to hold it as a fact that oneself exists, but rather to have a positive attitude towards oneself.
I don't see the difference, so I ask in good faith that you explain. Because to me, whether you hold something as fact, or your hold yourself as worthy candidate of your own confidence, both cannot merely be had, but require some rationale to get there.
My second, more general response to your logic is that it assumes human beings consistently apply the same standards to everything. And you ought to know that this is not the case. Even if you find an atheist who believes in the existence of something despite the lack of evidence (which shouldn't actually be difficult; I'm sure there is no shortage of atheist ufologists), it does not follow that he must be rejecting God for some reason other than the lack of evidence. Most likely he is simply espousing a double standard. And probably something is predisposing him towards UFOs, not against God. This is regrettable for him, but it's certainly not unusual, and it's a death blow to your whole line of thought.
If Atheists hold to a double standard as a natural aspect of the human condition, then Im satisfied with that. Because now the discussion can goto why a double standard with respect to God and something else.
If inconsistent standards are applied to a person's set of beliefs, then to me the interesting question becomes what is the source of that bias?
If indeed a person applies different standards, then to me there is a reason WHY they apply different standards---for example just plain not liking religious people.
Using your example of the Atheist UFOlogist.
The Alien UFOlogist says I don't believe in God because the evidence just isn't there. In other words, under his rationale, it would be improper to believe in God because there isn't enough evidence.
Now when it comes to UFOs, the Alien UFOlogist applies a different standard. He is as you say, predisposed to UFOs and applies a more relaxed standard. But if he in fact applied the same standard for rejecting God towards UFOs, he would more rationally conclude that there is an insufficient basis to believe in UFOs.
He does not because he is biased towards UFOs.
As you say, that is regrettable but as you also concede: it's certainly not unusual. I concur.
But if the above situation occurs and is common among human reasoning, then to me it stands to reason that when an Atheist says I don't believe in God because of the lack of evidence---that alone does not tell the entire story.
Instead it is lack of evidence + bias.
Your situation is the flip side of the coin of how I worded my point--that evidence alone in making a person's beliefs, including atheists, does alone carry the day. Instead that person, atheist included, will likely have their own biases which influence their subjective evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence before accepting that belief.
Because the statement "I believe in God" is a factual claim. God either exists or he doesn't, as a matter of objective fact. This is the domain of empirical, evidence-based reasoning - of science.
But on the other hand, the statement "I believe in myself" is not a factual claim. It's not something that is true or false. You're not saying anything concrete about your existence or your properties or anything else of yours. Rather, you're expressing a positive attitude: "Thumbs up for me!" This is not something on which evidence can speak. It's subjective, not a matter of fact.
So it is illicit to compare the two statements and conclude that because evidence doesn't speak for one, it must not speak for the other. It's like comparing a Tesla to a Ford and wondering where you put the gas.
But if the above situation occurs and is common among human reasoning, then to me it stands to reason that when an Atheist says I don't believe in God because of the lack of evidence---that alone does not tell the entire story.
Instead it is lack of evidence + bias.
Your situation is the flip side of the coin of how I worded my point--that evidence alone in making a person's beliefs, including atheists, does alone carry the day. Instead that person, atheist included, will likely have their own biases which influence their subjective evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence before accepting that belief.
Yes, it is the flip side, but it's a flip side you hadn't considered. You have consistently been assuming that something must be biasing the atheist against belief in God, speculating that it's because of annoyance at fundamentalists or whatever. What I'm trying to tell you is that this need not be the case. In the absence of evidence, skepticism is the rational and unbiased position to take; the atheist is doing it right. If he doesn't apply this standard to all his beliefs, it is in those beliefs that the bias lies. The ufologist believes in UFOs because of "lack of evidence + bias" there. But he disbelieves in God simply because of "lack of evidence", or perhaps I might write it as "lack of evidence + lack of bias".
And of course we can go one step further. Why does the theist believe in God? It's for the same reason the ufologist believes in UFOs: "lack of evidence + bias". After all, if the theist held consistently to the standard that she should believe a proposition even when there is no evidence, she would have to believe in everything. As she stands, believing in God but disbelieving UFOs, leprechauns, unicorns, and all that other stuff, she is in exactly the same inconsistent position that the atheist ufologist is in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because the statement "I believe in God" is a factual claim. God either exists or he doesn't, as a matter of objective fact. This is the domain of empirical, evidence-based reasoning - of science.
But on the other hand, the statement "I believe in myself" is not a factual claim. It's not something that is true or false. You're not saying anything concrete about your existence or your properties or anything else of yours. Rather, you're expressing a positive attitude: "Thumbs up for me!" This is not something on which evidence can speak. It's subjective, not a matter of fact.
So it is illicit to compare the two statements and conclude that because evidence doesn't speak for one, it must not speak for the other. It's like comparing a Tesla to a Ford and wondering where you put the gas.
But if the above situation occurs and is common among human reasoning, then to me it stands to reason that when an Atheist says I don't believe in God because of the lack of evidence---that alone does not tell the entire story.
Instead it is lack of evidence + bias.
Your situation is the flip side of the coin of how I worded my point--that evidence alone in making a person's beliefs, including atheists, does alone carry the day. Instead that person, atheist included, will likely have their own biases which influence their subjective evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence before accepting that belief.
Yes, it is the flip side, but it's a flip side you hadn't considered. You have consistently been assuming that something must be biasing the atheist against belief in God, speculating that it's because of annoyance at fundamentalists or whatever. What I'm trying to tell you is that this need not be the case. In the absence of evidence, skepticism is the rational and unbiased position to take; the atheist is doing it right. If he doesn't apply this standard to all his beliefs, it is in those beliefs that the bias lies. The ufologist believes in UFOs because of "lack of evidence + bias" there. But he disbelieves in God simply because of "lack of evidence", or perhaps I might write it as "lack of evidence + lack of bias".
And of course we can go one step further. Why does the theist believe in God? It's for the same reason the ufologist believes in UFOs: "lack of evidence + bias". After all, if the theist held consistently to the standard that she should believe a proposition even when there is no evidence, she would have to believe in everything. As she stands, believing in God but disbelieving UFOs, leprechauns, unicorns, and all that other stuff, she is in exactly the same inconsistent position that the atheist ufologist is in.
I had this long post written before the form refreshed and I lost the entire post.
But suffice it to say, I'm content with leaving the points rest here. You're right, I hadn't considered your particular point. That lack of evidence for God may rest sufficiently in one area, but affirmative bias may lay in another area.
But that is a distinction that I don't view as particularly contrary to my main point. That's like me saying person A is stupid, and you saying "it's not that person A is stupid, it's that he's lazy"
At any rate, we are both in agreement that absolute consistency of evidentiary standards is not something that people tend to have--religious or atheist. Bias exists one way or another.
I'm content to let the point rest there.
As to your other point about those who are pro-religion. Why do the theists believe in God? That to me is a very different question.
Some believe simply because they want to believe. Others believe based on emotion. Still others believe based on difficult experiences in their lives. I have no doubt that bias may be quite exceptional. But I don't know if that can even cut against many of the religious. Many of them are quite content with that.
You can make the claim that the religious are biased. But they never claimed to be unbiased. Most claim to simply believe based on faith.
In fact, as a Christian myself if anyone came up to me as said, i have full evidence to prove a case for God, I wouldn't believe them. I tend to view with very low regard books/arguments that make this claim.
As for your other argument, why then do theists not believe in everything?
Once again, that is slightly beyond the scope of the thread's OP question. It's a whole new can of worms, but I'll leave it at two cursory answers:
1) Many of the religious are very biased in favor of God often due to personal experience. (ex God helped them at a critical point in their lives)
2) Some really DO believe in everything.
I mean, depending on a person's faith, they might believe in 1) witches (king saul) 2) spirits (spirit of elijah) 3) angels 4) demons 5) the nephilum 6) ghostly and demonic posession (jesus & legion) 7) giants and really any other myriad of fantasy like creatures which appear in revelation. (head of a man, lion, eagle, etc.)
I would not at all be surprised to see religious people also believing in UFOs.
But to summarize, the theist issue is a different question than the one I posed and one I'm not inclined to argue. For it was never a contention of mine at any point in the debate that theists are unbiased.
As an atheist I can give short answer of "No". Faith implies belief in something without sufficient evidence and to me its the embodiment of foolishness. I'm anti-theist almost specifically on the grounds that faith is not only foolish but corrosive to our societies and dangerous to the individual. Is it always these things? No. But the fact that it can sometimes be these things (and often does in the grand scheme of things) makes it not only unappealing but down right distasteful.
Everyone -- every single person that ever lived or ever will live -- believes in things without evidence that would be considered sufficiently rigorous to scentists. You believe your girlfriend loves you. You believe that your behavior consists of a more-or-less adequate response to your surroundings. You believe that "Faith implies belief in something without sufficient evidence" despite the OP's given definitions of faith.
Let us not forget that literally anything, from oxygen to love, is toxic under certain conditions and in certain amounts. Choosing "faith" to pick out from the list of "everything in the universe" as being something worth despising as "corrosive" and "dangerous" says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about faith.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
Everyone -- every single person that ever lived or ever will live -- believes in things without evidence that would be considered sufficiently rigorous to scentists. You believe your girlfriend loves you. You believe that your behavior consists of a more-or-less adequate response to your surroundings. You believe that "Faith implies belief in something without sufficient evidence" despite the OP's given definitions of faith.
Let us not forget that literally anything, from oxygen to love, is toxic under certain conditions and in certain amounts. Choosing "faith" to pick out from the list of "everything in the universe" as being something worth despising as "corrosive" and "dangerous" says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about faith.
I've read part of this thread. I've read at least a dozen other threads with the exact same topic or a topic extremely similar. I have come to the same conclusion each time. What you are talking about in terms of "believing" my girlfriend loves me or whatever such nonsensical comparison is not "faith" but "trust" which is a separate construct. We have evidence, reason and logic that we can use to determine if such a thing exists. We can give it our best guess. God and religion however does not pass any of these. Its not "trust" its "faith".
And yes it does say a hell of a lot about myself. And I take pride in what it says about me. It says a hell of a lot about people when they assert that they believe in god. I believe that mass delusions that are held as "truth" is dangerous. Even if in many cases they are benign it still leaves the potential for abuse.
The problem that I often see in threads about faith is the way that the word 'faith' is used.
The argument often goes like this: do you trust that your loved ones love you back? Yes? - then you have faith.
And since you have faith, you may as well accept that [insert their unsubstantiated religious claims here] are true as well.
If you think those two concepts are the same...they aren't.
Additionally, I have no qualms against people who take positions of faith in things where there is no evidence to determine the truth one way or the other. But when you take a position of faith when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not faith...that's just being dishonest with yourself.
I think faith or belief can be extremely useful. IMO humans are generally discomforted by uncertainty, so someone who can readily fill unknowns with a belief in something might have the ability to move on and focus on something more immediately important. Of course those assumptions can also lead them in the wrong direction and hurt them, so it isn't like the belief comes without potential consequences.
In the original post, the OP asks if faith in any form is of value. OP then goes on to make an example of faith by using the word "trust". By definition, wouldn't trust be the opposite of faith? Lets say I have a wife who I trust. This trust is not random or unjust. She has earned this trust by never having betrayed me. One day she cheats on me. Now she has betrayed my trust (and perhaps lost it). Maybe I would have faith she wont cheat again, but that is not trust. Faith comes in when I have no reason to believe she wont betray me again.
I see nowhere in my life, do I use faith. I trust doctors to know what they are talking about. This trust stems from them having spent their whole lives studying and working hard. Sure, unless I see their degree how do I know they are not just faking it? Thats where I trust the hospital. Its the hospitals job to hire proper doctors. This trust stems from knowing the hospital doesn't want to be held responsible for a fraud.
I suppose, one could say that I have faith in politicians. Based on past and present events, there is no real reason to trust any of them. The entire profession is built on misinformation and propaganda. Both sides. Slightly fudging the truth to stay ahead. But I don't have faith in them nor do I trust them. Thats why I am not very politically active. I don't see the democracy in being forced to vote in one evil over another.
Its like deciding on weather you want Hitler Saddam as your collage roommate. I rather pick a new school.
Faith tends to mean absolute confidence/trust in something or someone.
"Without any proof" becomes significant in defining faith because of the "absolute". You can't have absolute trust in anything, because there are no absolute support for anything.
But you can have faith in something, because you're willing to accept that without the absolute support that is necessary to elevate it from trust.
Is there value in trust? Yes.
Is there value in faith? Sometimes.
Is there value in superstition? No.
We're fortunate enough to live in an age where vast arrays of information on science and history are freely available. It's become pretty obvious that religion is closer to superstition than faith.
To the Atheists/agnostics out there, I wanted to ask: Is there value in faith?
By this question, I'm not talking about a religion, like a 'religious faith', or a 'person of the faith'.
I'm talking about:
-believing in things you cannot prove
-believing in spite of a lack of evidence
-believing in thing that you simply because you want to believe(ex. trust)
Do you see value in taking things by faith? Or is this entire paradigm of thought just stupid, childish, nonsensical, and logically erroneous?
I never disbelieve or believe in anything 100% until I've replicated and verified an experiment myself. If a claim made by a study can be replicated or verified, then I can say that it's likely for said claim to be true. If the claim doesn't make sense to me initially, then it would lay closer to the "disbelief" side of the spectrum without me fully disbelieving in it. In this sense you can call me an agnostic atheist, or someone who doesn't know that god exists, but doesn't believe in god (don't confuse this with believing that there is no god)
I do see value in taking things by faith because we simply don't have the time and resources to intellectualize and replicate every single thing we make conjectures upon. There are times when taking things by faith can be dangerous and there are also times when faith can be beneficial (any non-replicated/verified experiment that has enough evidence to suggest truth).
Examples
Dangerous Faith: Not seeking medical attention regardless of severe signs and symptoms on the faith that "god will save you"
Beneficial Faith: Seeking medical attention in the event of an emergency because you have faith that the emergency medical technicians/paramedics/doctors have the proper tools to effectively diagnose and treat your physiological predicament. This implies your faith in the concept of homeostasis and that there are internal/external functional components that need to be fixed regardless of whether or not you can conceive of how they work.
This is also the beauty of scientific research, if I truly wanted to find out which claims are true or false myself, then I would be able to replicate them
I can't answer these question because I think I have a totally different view on what "faith" and "believe" means.
I just have to ask:
If you can't answer, why did you answer?
Especially since the thread is already on page 8 and the different definitions of those terms has been exhaustively hatched out at this point. It seems... odd.
We have faith too... for example i have faith that if a carefully controlled experiment is run under the same conditions, it will yeild the same results.
That's a pretty loaded question- that's probably why the conversation dragged on so long, since the second response pretty much summed it up. I'll pull it up for reference.
Theres value in faith when that faith doesnt offend anyone else. Theres value in my sister having faith to become a doctor, maybe she never does, but who knows. I dont value at all you having faith in an extraterrestrial being who dies then resurrects then his people tell ME what to do with my morals.
You having faith in the Christian god doesn't extrapolate into all forms of faith. You can't say, "Aha! You're an atheist and you have faith! Therefore, you contradict yourself!" Your faith is totally different from other forms of faith.
Also, as retrigger has said, there's value and beauty in some kinds of faith. One of my friends also has faith that she'll become a doctor someday and she works hard for it.
Your faith brings nothing but pain, despair, brainwashing, and preaching. You can say that Christianity has created so many charitable organizations and such, but nothing it creates cannot be obtained from another source, except for the bad.
Good doesn't spring from god.
P.S. To all the atheists out there- don't bring science into these sort of discussions. It's what theists are looking to hear. Saying stuff like "I believe in the scientific method, not faith" simply lets them pigeonhole atheists further. Atheists come in all shapes and sizes. There is no banner of "science" that unites them.
Your faith brings nothing but pain, despair, brainwashing, and preaching. You can say that Christianity has created so many charitable organizations and such, but nothing it creates cannot be obtained from another source, except for the bad.
Except for the bad? Care to explain?
Because I think I can find corruption/people not following rules/people doing horrible things in the name of something in a lot of things as well.
Everyone believes in things they themselves cannot prove. You have to, and anyone claiming otherwise is either lying or confused.
or simply unfamiliar with greek philosophy.
I'm kind of curious as to where this is going. Could you elaborate?
I don't know about the Greek Philosophy point, but believing in things you cannot prove doesn't mean you don't have a logical reason to believe it. I cannot prove that I would drown if I stayed under water for 3 hours, but I have a logical reason to believe I would....
However, with faith, those with blind faith have no logical reason to have it (usually logical destroys their faith), that's why it is blind faith. Is it bad? Yes.
What if children were convinced that God wanted them to kill each other, and they only had blind faith to go on? Should they do it? Why/why not?
I don't know about the Greek Philosophy point, but believing in things you cannot prove doesn't mean you don't have a logical reason to believe it. I cannot prove that I would drown if I stayed under water for 3 hours, but I have a logical reason to believe I would....
However, with faith, those with blind faith have no logical reason to have it (usually logical destroys their faith), that's why it is blind faith. Is it bad? Yes.
What if children were convinced that God wanted them to kill each other, and they only had blind faith to go on? Should they do it? Why/why not?
I'm really just curious about the Greek philosophy point.
The question of faith came up in a history course the other day when our professor lectured us on sources. He started by asking the class, "Who here believes Abraham Lincoln was a real person?" At some point, it boils down to us having faith in historians, their reports, and occasionally, if possible, testing their reports.
I don't think this is the kind of faith in question though. My anecdote is pretty much the faith that has been mentioned X amount of times in this thread already and been beaten into the dirt. I believe it is the vein Taylor was trying to illustrate, so I'm curious as to what Oddly Specific means by mentioning Greek philosophy.
EDIT: I have my assumptions, but I'd rather have him clarify his words.
Everyone believes in things they themselves cannot prove. You have to, and anyone claiming otherwise is either lying or confused.
or simply unfamiliar with greek philosophy.
I'm kind of curious as to where this is going. Could you elaborate?
I don't know about the Greek Philosophy point, but believing in things you cannot prove doesn't mean you don't have a logical reason to believe it. I cannot prove that I would drown if I stayed under water for 3 hours, but I have a logical reason to believe I would....
And you're confused as to what "prove" means in this context.
You can scientifically "prove" you would drown without having to actually drown.
No, I'm talking about mundane actions you take every day, or hope and dreams you might have. It's simply impractical to go around proving everything to yourself; somethings have to be take on "faith" or (the more common--less loaded--term) "trust." Society can't exist without SOME trust.
You have to pardon me on this. There are simply too many points and subpoints from too many posters to respond to everything. I cannot respond to everyone of these. But if you bold out particular points you would like to emphasize like you just did, then I will respond.
To answer Tiax. No, I wouldnt believe that stranger. But it's not merely because there is a lack of evidence on his part.
it's lack of evidence + something else.
The something else can be:
1) cost-benefit analysis. It very dangerous to simply trust someone.
2) Prior bad experiences.
3) Do i "feel" true genuineness of conviction in his statement?
With cost-benefit analysis, I would ignore the guy. I don't know if he is telling the truth or telling a lie. I have no evidence either way, but the evidence simply doesn't matter. I can conclude whatever 'gain' I might get isn't worth the potential 'loss'.
Prior bad experiences shows our personal bias. Personal bias isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's how most of us live. It is however logically fallacious to impute it on this newcomer without sufficient basis. Nevertheless, prior bad experiences might be another reason why I ignore him.
Does the guy in general give me a bad feeling? Sometimes something about a fellow might seem just off. Other times, I might even feel a person is worth trusting, even if objective evidence is to the contrary.
The point is however, its not mere lack of evidentiary basis going into the decision-making. And I suspect that its not mere lack of evidentiary basis that is going into the decision-making for atheists either.
It's lack of evidence for God + Negative Perception(Religious people are judgmental. Religious people are dumb. Religious people act like Pat Robertson. They act like the Catholic church)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And, why do you not think of any of this as "evidence?"
I read statistic evidence, intuition, but mostly Personal experience.
All of which is also known simply as "evidence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#Types_of_evidence
I apologize then but can you clarify the significant between the distinctions you're trying to make.
I misunderstood you the first time and I'm probably in danger of misunderstanding your point a second time. Why does existence factor into this?
I'm talking about faith with regards to evidence, leading one to believe in things that cannot be seen. Whether the belief is believing in someone or even believing in existential entities--I see no distinction because the issue in my head is evidence.
It looks like you're trying to say that evidentiary basis for believing in the existence of something vs evidentiary basis for trusting in someone are two different things entirely.
Is that your point?
I don't see the difference, so I ask in good faith that you explain. Because to me, whether you hold something as fact, or your hold yourself as worthy candidate of your own confidence, both cannot merely be had, but require some rationale to get there.
If Atheists hold to a double standard as a natural aspect of the human condition, then Im satisfied with that. Because now the discussion can goto why a double standard with respect to God and something else.
If inconsistent standards are applied to a person's set of beliefs, then to me the interesting question becomes what is the source of that bias?
If indeed a person applies different standards, then to me there is a reason WHY they apply different standards---for example just plain not liking religious people.
Using your example of the Atheist UFOlogist.
The Alien UFOlogist says I don't believe in God because the evidence just isn't there. In other words, under his rationale, it would be improper to believe in God because there isn't enough evidence.
Now when it comes to UFOs, the Alien UFOlogist applies a different standard. He is as you say, predisposed to UFOs and applies a more relaxed standard. But if he in fact applied the same standard for rejecting God towards UFOs, he would more rationally conclude that there is an insufficient basis to believe in UFOs.
He does not because he is biased towards UFOs.
As you say, that is regrettable but as you also concede: it's certainly not unusual. I concur.
But if the above situation occurs and is common among human reasoning, then to me it stands to reason that when an Atheist says I don't believe in God because of the lack of evidence---that alone does not tell the entire story.
Instead it is lack of evidence + bias.
Your situation is the flip side of the coin of how I worded my point--that evidence alone in making a person's beliefs, including atheists, does alone carry the day. Instead that person, atheist included, will likely have their own biases which influence their subjective evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence before accepting that belief.
But on the other hand, the statement "I believe in myself" is not a factual claim. It's not something that is true or false. You're not saying anything concrete about your existence or your properties or anything else of yours. Rather, you're expressing a positive attitude: "Thumbs up for me!" This is not something on which evidence can speak. It's subjective, not a matter of fact.
So it is illicit to compare the two statements and conclude that because evidence doesn't speak for one, it must not speak for the other. It's like comparing a Tesla to a Ford and wondering where you put the gas.
Yes, it is the flip side, but it's a flip side you hadn't considered. You have consistently been assuming that something must be biasing the atheist against belief in God, speculating that it's because of annoyance at fundamentalists or whatever. What I'm trying to tell you is that this need not be the case. In the absence of evidence, skepticism is the rational and unbiased position to take; the atheist is doing it right. If he doesn't apply this standard to all his beliefs, it is in those beliefs that the bias lies. The ufologist believes in UFOs because of "lack of evidence + bias" there. But he disbelieves in God simply because of "lack of evidence", or perhaps I might write it as "lack of evidence + lack of bias".
And of course we can go one step further. Why does the theist believe in God? It's for the same reason the ufologist believes in UFOs: "lack of evidence + bias". After all, if the theist held consistently to the standard that she should believe a proposition even when there is no evidence, she would have to believe in everything. As she stands, believing in God but disbelieving UFOs, leprechauns, unicorns, and all that other stuff, she is in exactly the same inconsistent position that the atheist ufologist is in.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I had this long post written before the form refreshed and I lost the entire post.
But suffice it to say, I'm content with leaving the points rest here. You're right, I hadn't considered your particular point. That lack of evidence for God may rest sufficiently in one area, but affirmative bias may lay in another area.
But that is a distinction that I don't view as particularly contrary to my main point. That's like me saying person A is stupid, and you saying "it's not that person A is stupid, it's that he's lazy"
At any rate, we are both in agreement that absolute consistency of evidentiary standards is not something that people tend to have--religious or atheist. Bias exists one way or another.
I'm content to let the point rest there.
As to your other point about those who are pro-religion. Why do the theists believe in God? That to me is a very different question.
Some believe simply because they want to believe. Others believe based on emotion. Still others believe based on difficult experiences in their lives. I have no doubt that bias may be quite exceptional. But I don't know if that can even cut against many of the religious. Many of them are quite content with that.
You can make the claim that the religious are biased. But they never claimed to be unbiased. Most claim to simply believe based on faith.
In fact, as a Christian myself if anyone came up to me as said, i have full evidence to prove a case for God, I wouldn't believe them. I tend to view with very low regard books/arguments that make this claim.
As for your other argument, why then do theists not believe in everything?
Once again, that is slightly beyond the scope of the thread's OP question. It's a whole new can of worms, but I'll leave it at two cursory answers:
1) Many of the religious are very biased in favor of God often due to personal experience. (ex God helped them at a critical point in their lives)
2) Some really DO believe in everything.
I mean, depending on a person's faith, they might believe in 1) witches (king saul) 2) spirits (spirit of elijah) 3) angels 4) demons 5) the nephilum 6) ghostly and demonic posession (jesus & legion) 7) giants and really any other myriad of fantasy like creatures which appear in revelation. (head of a man, lion, eagle, etc.)
I would not at all be surprised to see religious people also believing in UFOs.
But to summarize, the theist issue is a different question than the one I posed and one I'm not inclined to argue. For it was never a contention of mine at any point in the debate that theists are unbiased.
Everyone -- every single person that ever lived or ever will live -- believes in things without evidence that would be considered sufficiently rigorous to scentists. You believe your girlfriend loves you. You believe that your behavior consists of a more-or-less adequate response to your surroundings. You believe that "Faith implies belief in something without sufficient evidence" despite the OP's given definitions of faith.
Let us not forget that literally anything, from oxygen to love, is toxic under certain conditions and in certain amounts. Choosing "faith" to pick out from the list of "everything in the universe" as being something worth despising as "corrosive" and "dangerous" says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about faith.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
I've read part of this thread. I've read at least a dozen other threads with the exact same topic or a topic extremely similar. I have come to the same conclusion each time. What you are talking about in terms of "believing" my girlfriend loves me or whatever such nonsensical comparison is not "faith" but "trust" which is a separate construct. We have evidence, reason and logic that we can use to determine if such a thing exists. We can give it our best guess. God and religion however does not pass any of these. Its not "trust" its "faith".
And yes it does say a hell of a lot about myself. And I take pride in what it says about me. It says a hell of a lot about people when they assert that they believe in god. I believe that mass delusions that are held as "truth" is dangerous. Even if in many cases they are benign it still leaves the potential for abuse.
The argument often goes like this: do you trust that your loved ones love you back? Yes? - then you have faith.
And since you have faith, you may as well accept that [insert their unsubstantiated religious claims here] are true as well.
If you think those two concepts are the same...they aren't.
Additionally, I have no qualms against people who take positions of faith in things where there is no evidence to determine the truth one way or the other. But when you take a position of faith when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not faith...that's just being dishonest with yourself.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
I see nowhere in my life, do I use faith. I trust doctors to know what they are talking about. This trust stems from them having spent their whole lives studying and working hard. Sure, unless I see their degree how do I know they are not just faking it? Thats where I trust the hospital. Its the hospitals job to hire proper doctors. This trust stems from knowing the hospital doesn't want to be held responsible for a fraud.
I suppose, one could say that I have faith in politicians. Based on past and present events, there is no real reason to trust any of them. The entire profession is built on misinformation and propaganda. Both sides. Slightly fudging the truth to stay ahead. But I don't have faith in them nor do I trust them. Thats why I am not very politically active. I don't see the democracy in being forced to vote in one evil over another.
Its like deciding on weather you want Hitler Saddam as your collage roommate. I rather pick a new school.
Faith tends to mean absolute confidence/trust in something or someone.
"Without any proof" becomes significant in defining faith because of the "absolute". You can't have absolute trust in anything, because there are no absolute support for anything.
But you can have faith in something, because you're willing to accept that without the absolute support that is necessary to elevate it from trust.
Is there value in faith? Sometimes.
Is there value in superstition? No.
We're fortunate enough to live in an age where vast arrays of information on science and history are freely available. It's become pretty obvious that religion is closer to superstition than faith.
I never disbelieve or believe in anything 100% until I've replicated and verified an experiment myself. If a claim made by a study can be replicated or verified, then I can say that it's likely for said claim to be true. If the claim doesn't make sense to me initially, then it would lay closer to the "disbelief" side of the spectrum without me fully disbelieving in it. In this sense you can call me an agnostic atheist, or someone who doesn't know that god exists, but doesn't believe in god (don't confuse this with believing that there is no god)
I do see value in taking things by faith because we simply don't have the time and resources to intellectualize and replicate every single thing we make conjectures upon. There are times when taking things by faith can be dangerous and there are also times when faith can be beneficial (any non-replicated/verified experiment that has enough evidence to suggest truth).
Examples
Dangerous Faith: Not seeking medical attention regardless of severe signs and symptoms on the faith that "god will save you"
Beneficial Faith: Seeking medical attention in the event of an emergency because you have faith that the emergency medical technicians/paramedics/doctors have the proper tools to effectively diagnose and treat your physiological predicament. This implies your faith in the concept of homeostasis and that there are internal/external functional components that need to be fixed regardless of whether or not you can conceive of how they work.
This is also the beauty of scientific research, if I truly wanted to find out which claims are true or false myself, then I would be able to replicate them
I just have to ask:
If you can't answer, why did you answer?
Especially since the thread is already on page 8 and the different definitions of those terms has been exhaustively hatched out at this point. It seems... odd.
Grammar is the difference between knowing your ****, and knowing you're ****.
You having faith in the Christian god doesn't extrapolate into all forms of faith. You can't say, "Aha! You're an atheist and you have faith! Therefore, you contradict yourself!" Your faith is totally different from other forms of faith.
Also, as retrigger has said, there's value and beauty in some kinds of faith. One of my friends also has faith that she'll become a doctor someday and she works hard for it.
Your faith brings nothing but pain, despair, brainwashing, and preaching. You can say that Christianity has created so many charitable organizations and such, but nothing it creates cannot be obtained from another source, except for the bad.
Good doesn't spring from god.
P.S. To all the atheists out there- don't bring science into these sort of discussions. It's what theists are looking to hear. Saying stuff like "I believe in the scientific method, not faith" simply lets them pigeonhole atheists further. Atheists come in all shapes and sizes. There is no banner of "science" that unites them.
Except for the bad? Care to explain?
Because I think I can find corruption/people not following rules/people doing horrible things in the name of something in a lot of things as well.
or simply unfamiliar with greek philosophy.
I'm kind of curious as to where this is going. Could you elaborate?
I don't know about the Greek Philosophy point, but believing in things you cannot prove doesn't mean you don't have a logical reason to believe it. I cannot prove that I would drown if I stayed under water for 3 hours, but I have a logical reason to believe I would....
However, with faith, those with blind faith have no logical reason to have it (usually logical destroys their faith), that's why it is blind faith. Is it bad? Yes.
What if children were convinced that God wanted them to kill each other, and they only had blind faith to go on? Should they do it? Why/why not?
Believe the hype!
I'm really just curious about the Greek philosophy point.
The question of faith came up in a history course the other day when our professor lectured us on sources. He started by asking the class, "Who here believes Abraham Lincoln was a real person?" At some point, it boils down to us having faith in historians, their reports, and occasionally, if possible, testing their reports.
I don't think this is the kind of faith in question though. My anecdote is pretty much the faith that has been mentioned X amount of times in this thread already and been beaten into the dirt. I believe it is the vein Taylor was trying to illustrate, so I'm curious as to what Oddly Specific means by mentioning Greek philosophy.
EDIT: I have my assumptions, but I'd rather have him clarify his words.
And you're confused as to what "prove" means in this context.
You can scientifically "prove" you would drown without having to actually drown.
No, I'm talking about mundane actions you take every day, or hope and dreams you might have. It's simply impractical to go around proving everything to yourself; somethings have to be take on "faith" or (the more common--less loaded--term) "trust." Society can't exist without SOME trust.