Atheism is a faith.

[The Atheist]

Okay, I'll take that. I'm not much into philosophical labels anyway, and I don't find it necessary to insist on 100% fidelity.

That apply to your wife as well?

 

[Tricky]

That apply to your wife as well?

Why now that you mention it, yes. If evidence appeared that she was not deserving my fidelity, I would reconsider it. I don't expect such a thing to happen, but I'm not 100% certain.

 

[The Atheist]

Rhetorical. You assert things as if you are correct without any basis or support for the assertion.. It's rather pedestrian.

Well, I guess you would think like that since you clearly don't know what rhetoric is, either!

When you make an incorrect assumption and I correct that assumption, no rhetoric is involved, just facts. You know, most words can be looked up online, nowadays. Maybe you could find a good link and add it to your bookmarks. Here's an American English one for you.

 

[The Atheist]

Why now that you mention it, yes. If evidence appeared that she was not deserving my fidelity, I would reconsider it. I don't expect such a thing to happen, but I'm not 100% certain.

So, you have faith in her fidelity? And she does in yours?

 

[Jimbo07]

I can recall only one thread, Piggy's excellent "Proof of Strong Atheism", that has brought up "Atheism is a faith" from the antagonist's side. Overwhelmingly it is brought up by believers, hope-to-believers and, of course, Philosophers - who have nothing productive to spend their time on, but have an inflated sense of their own intellectual importance.

It matters to me because I sometimes argue against ideas on the grounds that they are faith-based. An argument from faith is no argument at all.

It matters to me because science gets sullied and beaten (in a very real social and pragmatic context), by being co-opted by strong Atheists.

There was a seminar here the other day by a guest physicist, and another student asked in the lounge afterward, "What were all these BS questions about God and stuff? Why didn't they take the opportunity to ask about physics?"

It seems that the faithful are far more conspicuously guilty of this sort of thing, but outside of Tricky's confidence bounds, science cannot be used to prove the non-existence of God! God/No-God is irrelevant to the practice of science, a statement of either position is not knowledge.

My question was not, 'how long is a piece of string?' It was a real-world, pragmatic challenge for those who believe that science supports their position to tell me when it is taught that God does not exist, "because physics says so."

...

Whew.

...

Also, for de facto, or weak atheism, I think even religious folks (except the most deluded) would agree that the path of wisdom is to act as though God was not at your beck and call (i.e. look both ways before crossing the street, regardless).

...

I'm actually kinda confused about all this. Also, I know there are a couple of... hmmm... more senior physicists here than I, whose personal opinions and reflections on professional positions might help me. drkitten, for example, has already brought the rotten apple analogy up. What mistake am I making in thinking that the only conclusion we can honestly take from that is that, "humans are lying scum?"

 

[The Atheist]

It matters to me because science gets sullied and beaten (in a very real social and pragmatic context), by being co-opted by strong Atheists.

Not so sure that's right at all. I'm as strong an atheist as you'll find, yet I don't get bogged down in scientific rationale. From what I see, it's the weaker atheists who are bound up in the sciento/physical aspects of atheism. Still, small samples have wide error margins.

...snip... science cannot be used to prove the non-existence of God! God/No-God is irrelevant to the practice of science, a statement of either position is not knowledge.

Very glad you said that, because that's pretty much the cornerstone of my position that atheism requires faith - science cannot disprove god/s. Science could conceivably be used to prove there is a god, (if he were to walk in one day and asked to be tested for omnipotence.) but it can't disprove it.

What mistake am I making in thinking that the only conclusion we can honestly take from that is that, "humans are lying scum?"

You'd never get me to dissuade you from that thought, I'm a cynic from way back.

 

[hammegk]

Not so sure that's right at all. I'm as strong an atheist as you'll find, yet I don't get bogged down in scientific rationale. From what I see, it's the weaker atheists who are bound up in the sciento/physical aspects of atheism. ...

That's a succinct review of what a few of us have been saying here for several years.

PS. You'll love batting Tricky around like a cat-toy ... He -- and most here -- won't even notice it.

 

[The Atheist]

That's a succinct review of what a few of us have been saying here for several years.

Yeah, I find it highly amusing! Of course, only a curmudgeonly old bugger or an arrogant Catholic like Huntster's going to have any faith in that opinion, however!

Never mind, I thrive on being in the minority view. Sometimes I take the low ground just for the sheer hell of it. (You may have noticed that.)

 

[Ginarley]

It matters to me because science gets sullied and beaten (in a very real social and pragmatic context), by being co-opted by strong Atheists.

There was a seminar here the other day by a guest physicist, and another student asked in the lounge afterward, "What were all these BS questions about God and stuff? Why didn't they take the opportunity to ask about physics?"

It seems that the faithful are far more conspicuously guilty of this sort of thing, but outside of Tricky's confidence bounds, science cannot be used to prove the non-existence of God! God/No-God is irrelevant to the practice of science, a statement of either position is not knowledge.

My question was not, 'how long is a piece of string?' It was a real-world, pragmatic challenge for those who believe that science supports their position to tell me when it is taught that God does not exist, "because physics says so."

...snip...

I kind of disagree with this. Firstly strong atheists do not co-opt science for their own purposes, they merely point out that it agrees with their position (and is usually the reason why they hold the position in the first place).

Secondly IMO the existence of a designer/interactive type god is a distinct scientific explanation of the observable world, and one the vast majority of science very clearly disagrees with due to a lack of supporting evidence. I agree entirely that you cannot conclusively prove something does not exist, but science has not found sufficient evidence to suppose it does exist. From that perspective surely science itself is currently atheistic? Trying to claim the question of the existence/non-existence of a god is a non-scientific question comes across as an attempt to dodge this reality.

 

[CapelDodger]

It seems that the faithful are far more conspicuously guilty of this sort of thing, but outside of Tricky's confidence bounds, science cannot be used to prove the non-existence of God! God/No-God is irrelevant to the practice of science, a statement of either position is not knowledge.

(I've put this first to make my response more coherent)

Science does not claim to address such matters. I don't use science to make my argument, except insofar as science doesn't unmake it - and scientific knowledge has come a long way in my time. My confidence in atheism remains unshaken.

It matters to me because science gets sullied and beaten (in a very real social and pragmatic context), by being co-opted by strong Atheists.

Science is under assault. Should scientists and supporters of science not counter-attack? Secular society is under assault. Should secularists not counter-attack? It's a media construct that this is a Science v Religion conflict. We're not co-opting science to demonstrate the inanity of religious belief, we don't need such a sophisticated weapon to do that.

There was a seminar here the other day by a guest physicist, and another student asked in the lounge afterward, "What were all these BS questions about God and stuff? Why didn't they take the opportunity to ask about physics?"

Who were the "they" that passed up the opportunity? And who the guest? I was lucky at school, we had an enthusiastic Physics teacher with some contacts and a lot of front, we got to meet real scientists (I like to think they enjoyed it just as much). We had a guy from NASA once, he was brilliant ... I digress. Nobody ever asked about how a god fitted into the scheme of things. Militant atheism isn't the reason people do these days. Militant atheism is a response, not a forcing.

What mistake am I making in thinking that the only conclusion we can honestly take from that is that, "humans are lying scum?"

Quite possibly the worst mistake. Humans are social animals, a type of monkey (some say tail-less, but if you've ever slipped on ice and landed on your coccyx you know better. Damn but that stings. Nature's way of reminding you you're a monkey, I guess). We represent a fuzzy spectrum. Most people are decent but nobody's a saint. Some are definitely sinners, and some are sociopaths.

 

[The Atheist]

Science does not claim to address such matters. I don't use science to make my argument, except insofar as science doesn't unmake it - and scientific knowledge has come a long way in my time. My confidence in atheism remains unshaken.


Science is under assault. Should scientists and supporters of science not counter-attack? Secular society is under assault. Should secularists not counter-attack? It's a media construct that this is a Science v Religion conflict. We're not co-opting science to demonstrate the inanity of religious belief, we don't need such a sophisticated weapon to do that.

Yeah, I think both you and Ginarley have the right idea here. Fundamental christians in particular seem to want to tie science to atheism, while the truth is, it's like trying to tie petroleum to art galleries - people drive to art galleries using petrol and therefore the art gallery is somewhat reliant on people having access to petrol, but the two don't co-exist.

 

[CapelDodger]

Secondly IMO the existence of a designer/interactive type god is a distinct scientific explanation of the observable world, and one the vast majority of science very clearly disagrees with due to a lack of supporting evidence.

Quite right, but I come at it from another direction : science observes nothing that even suggests the need for a supernatural hypothesis. I'm in my fifties so have witnessed - from an interested lay perspective - a humungous expansion in science's observational capablilites, let alone the firmly-founded theoretical basis for interpreting them. Weighing extra-solar planets using Doppler shift ... I'm living in science-fiction-land.

I agree entirely that you cannot conclusively prove something does not exist, but science has not found sufficient evidence to suppose it does exist.

Or even suggest it might.

If religion didn't already exist there'd be no call for its invention.

 

[hammegk]

... Fundamental christians in particular seem to want to tie science to atheism ...

Er, I disagree. I'd say the link is (materialism <> science) > atheism.

Xians, fundy or otherwise, are irrelevant.

My confidence in atheism remains unshaken.

What could possibly shake it? A good scientist/materialist/atheist would rather consider himself insane than accept even a Road_To_Damascus event as 'real'.

 

[Huntster]

I'm probably the one guy that got you to apply critical thinking to your beliefs.

Not really. You're the guy who got me so dizzy from the merry-go-ride that I threw up.

You didn't know that the god of the old testamant was a petulant tyrant who delighted in death and mysogeny.

And I still don't.

Also, you're the guy who refused to recognize and admit that the Old Testament was written by a whole bunch of religious Hebrews, who beseeched God before battle, and praised Him after victories (just like all other religious societies). Nope. You put it all on God Himself.

That God, what a card.

Yeah, and very easy to understand, when compared to you.

 

[Ginarley]

Yeah, I think both you and Ginarley have the right idea here. Fundamental christians in particular seem to want to tie science to atheism, while the truth is, it's like trying to tie petroleum to art galleries - people drive to art galleries using petrol and therefore the art gallery is somewhat reliant on people having access to petrol, but the two don't co-exist.

I was? lol

I think atheism and science are inextricably linked. So is religion and science. Trying to disconnect either is the problem, not trying to connect them. Science is the way we interpret and understand the world while both atheism and theism are interpretations/understandings. One is based on our observations and one is purely speculative with no supporting evidence - it really is that simple.

Quite right, but I come at it from another direction : science observes nothing that even suggests the need for a supernatural hypothesis. I'm in my fifties so have witnessed - from an interested lay perspective - a humungous expansion in science's observational capablilites, let alone the firmly-founded theoretical basis for interpreting them. Weighing extra-solar planets using Doppler shift ... I'm living in science-fiction-land.

Or even suggest it might.

If religion didn't already exist there'd be no call for its invention.

Well said - the fact both points of view get to the same conclusion is reassuring

 

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, I think both you and Ginarley have the right idea here.

Watch your step, if we don't take care we could become a faction.

Fundamental christians in particular seem to want to tie science to atheism, while the truth is, it's like trying to tie petroleum to art galleries - people drive to art galleries using petrol and therefore the art gallery is somewhat reliant on people having access to petrol, but the two don't co-exist.

I don't want to get into particulars, it's horses for courses. Islamism kicks out against materialism. You won't get that from Fundies, who regard wealth and goods as a measure of their god's favour. The common thread is "The Modern World", which is not to their liking. Fundies have the Enlightenment to blame, Islamists don't. The Islamist world got science and consumerism at about the same time, the Fundie world got them in succession. Both choose to ignore that science underpins materialism. Islamists crave nuclear weapons, Fundies itch to use the ones they've got, but both would like to extinguish the science behind them. Waddya gonna do with such people?

 

[The Atheist]

Watch your step, if we don't take care we could become a faction.

Jeeeesus, Welsh and Kiwis uniting? Not bloody likely - look what happened to Graham Henry. King of Wales one week, rotten leek the next.

I don't want to get into particulars, it's horses for courses. Islamism kicks out against materialism. You won't get that from Fundies, who regard wealth and goods as a measure of their god's favour. The common thread is "The Modern World", which is not to their liking. Fundies have the Enlightenment to blame, Islamists don't. The Islamist world got science and consumerism at about the same time, the Fundie world got them in succession. Both choose to ignore that science underpins materialism. Islamists crave nuclear weapons, Fundies itch to use the ones they've got, but both would like to extinguish the science behind them.

Thanks, that's put so much better than I put it. Mine was last-second add-on, yours and Ginarley's make sense.

Waddya gonna do with such people?

Put them in a large arena with sufficient spears and let them go for it.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I can fix all this with one quick link.

Are you saying that dictionary offers only one definition for each word? How strange.

 

[Jimbo07]

I have failed.

I'm seeing bits of my own arguments (sentences that I could see myself writing), being used as arguments against me.

This shows clearly that I have either not made myself understood, or that I am having trouble understanding what is being pointed out... or some combination thereof.

This is something I would have said:

Science does not claim to address such matters. I don't use science to make my argument, except insofar as science doesn't unmake it

This is something I might say:

Science is the way we interpret and understand the world while both atheism and theism are interpretations/understandings.

The Atheist says

it's like trying to tie petroleum to art galleries

now, I disagree with Ginarley:

From that perspective surely science itself is currently atheistic? Trying to claim the question of the existence/non-existence of a god is a non-scientific question comes across as an attempt to dodge this reality.

I think talking about whether god exists (or not) is the dodge. The God question is outside of, irrelevant to and not useful to the pursuit of science. Science is only atheist if you believe this complete lack of utility is akin to atheism.

We don't know the nature of material reality. We don't. We don't know if we're brains in a vat, or belong to some God-verse. Science is helping us understand the rules of the universe only as we know it. It may break through some day with some Earth-verse shattering discovery that beyond M-theory is some X-theory or God-theory! At that stage, M-theory (or some stand in) may even have been tested!

Science does not act according to one supernatural theory. That we came from the Great Green Arkleseizure is irrelevant. It acts according to the rules that we can discern. It places constraints on God's (FSM's) activities in this universe. It can render specific claims as being so highly unlikely as to have no practical application.

This is why I've claimed that atheism is faith-like. Heck, I haven't even said that it's a bad position to hold! I feel (meaning that this isn't knowledge), I feel that lacking anything else to go on, and not being allowed to carry on with your day without telling someone what you are, atheism is a darned sight better than some of the choices. I'd also assert that, frankly, some of the 'supposedly' faithful have acted at times as if they were atheists(in fact, wasn't it Dennett who asserted that humans act practically?).

My point is that atheism is faith-like. It is more faith-like than it is knowledge-like. Trying to break from the fear that some faithful have that science=atheism is relatively straightforward in saying that science has nothing to say about the existence of God, only about some of God's actions. You'll see the word God bandied about rather cavalierly in the communications of 20th C. physicists, perhaps only as turns of phrase, but in no way having the final word on this issue.

 

[The Atheist]

Are you saying that dictionary offers only one definition for each word? How strange.

No, that's NOT what I said. You asked for definition of "know", so I gave you one link, which no doubt will offer several definitions, hopefully including the biblical "know".