Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Nay_Sayer]

We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape;
Qur'an 15:26

No wonder I feel a special bond with playdoh

 

[Navigator]

As he noted, you're employing a different usage of belief than the people that you tend to be arguing with. Your "know" generally equates to "belief" for them, for most purposes. Your "belief" seems to be better equated with "faith" or maybe "blind faith" for them. Given dictionaries, their usage is certainly valid. This is generally causing unnecessary friction over something fairly pointless, though, which is why I let it go in previous discussions with you.

I have acknowledged the interchangeability but prefer to keep knowing and believing separate for obvious reasons.

I believe the earth is spherical because the evidence (including the pictures) overwhelmingly supports the idea that the earth is spherical. Given all this evidence, it would be insane not to believe the earth is spherical.

From the way you seem to be using the word, I think you may be getting belief confused with faith.

belief (plural beliefs)
1. Mental acceptance of a claim as likely true.
2. Faith or trust in the reality of something; often based upon one's own reasoning, trust in a claim, desire of actuality, and/or evidence considered.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/belief​

faith (countable and uncountable, plural faiths)
1. A feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, not contingent upon reason or justification.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith​

If someone says they have faith are they required to provide evidence for their faith?

 

[Aridas]

If someone says they have faith are they required to provide evidence for their faith?

That they believe? No, though if they make claims that also contradict that claim, that's fair game to question. That we should believe what they believe? Generally yes, though the exacts are at the discretion of the audience.

 

[Brian-M]

If someone says they have faith are they required to provide evidence for their faith?

The part of the definition which says "not contingent upon reason or justification" would suggest not.

 

[Pixel42]

Do you have an example of belief which you feel is logical?

I believe I'll have another drink.

 

[John Jones]

I ask you, if you know something to be true, why would you need to believe it?

Why do you need to believe what you actually know? It is illogical.

Sophistry.

You keep using that word logical. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[punshhh]

I believe the earth is spherical because the evidence (including the pictures) overwhelmingly supports the idea that the earth is spherical. Given all this evidence, it would be insane not to believe the earth is spherical.

From the way you seem to be using the word, I think you may be getting belief confused with faith.

belief (plural beliefs)
1. Mental acceptance of a claim as likely true.
2. Faith or trust in the reality of something; often based upon one's own reasoning, trust in a claim, desire of actuality, and/or evidence considered.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/belief​

faith (countable and uncountable, plural faiths)
1. A feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, not contingent upon reason or justification.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith​

I don't recognise your source as representative here. I would go with the Oxford English Dictionary.

Belief
"noun
1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:
his belief in extraterrestrial life
[with clause]:
a belief that climate can be modified beneficially
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion:
we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs
[mass noun]:
contrary to popular belief existing safety regulations were adequate
a religious conviction:
Christian beliefs
[mass noun]:
the medieval system of fervent religious belief
2 (belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something):
a belief in democratic politics"


I agree with Navigator here, although I acknowledge the confusion resulting from the use of the word.

 

[punshhh]

I ask you, if you know something to be true, why would you need to believe it?

Why do you need to believe what you actually know? It is illogical.

Yes it is illogical, but who said humanity was logical.

I agree with your interpretation and was surprised to discover on this forum that there are people going around using the word belief to mean the very act of accepting ones own thoughts, for example "I want another drink", becomes " I believe I want another drink".

The problem is that it is putting a gap between the person and their own thoughts and suggesting that they require a belief in their own thinking to operate in the world.

I see it as a colloquialism.

Although I have noticed that it is sometimes used in a similar way in philosophy. Which seems perfectly valid to me, as the distinction between the person and their own thinking becomes necessary.

 

[punshhh]

Would you contradict me even if I were agreeing with you?

That's a rhetorical question.

I don't deviate from my position.

 

[Pixel42]

I agree with your interpretation and was surprised to discover on this forum that there are people going around using the word belief to mean the very act of accepting ones own thoughts, for example "I want another drink", becomes " I believe I want another drink".

It's the tag of an old joke: everyone needs to believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink.

 

[punshhh]

It's the tag of an old joke: everyone needs to believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink.

Yes, I always thought of it as, you were too drunk to decide if you were going to have another drink, so had to resort to belief to settle the matter.

 

[Navigator]

I believe I'll have another drink.

Why believe? Why not "I will have another drink"?

 

[Brian-M]

I don't recognise your source as representative here. I would go with the Oxford English Dictionary.

Belief
"noun
1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:
his belief in extraterrestrial life
[with clause]:
a belief that climate can be modified beneficially
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion:
we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs
[mass noun]:
contrary to popular belief existing safety regulations were adequate
a religious conviction:
Christian beliefs
[mass noun]:
the medieval system of fervent religious belief
2 (belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something):
a belief in democratic politics"


I agree with Navigator here, although I acknowledge the confusion resulting from the use of the word.

Strange, that doesn't quite agree with my copy...

Belief (bǐlī•f). [Early ME. bileafe, repl. OE. g̊elēafa (see Believe). The loss of the final syll. resulted in the unvoicing of the final consonant.] 1. The mental action, condition or habit, of trusting to or confiding in a person or thing; trust, confidence, faith. (Faith, orig. = fidelity, fealty, used in 14th c. to translate L. fides, has ultimately superseded 'belief' in this sense.) b. absol. Trust in God; the virtue of faith (arch.) ME. 2. Mental assent to or acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true, on the ground of authority or evidence; the mental condition involved in this assent 1533. 3. The thing believed; in early use, esp. a religion. Now often = opinion, persuasion. ME. b. Intuition, natural judgement 1838. 4. A creed. The B. : the Apostles' Creed (arch.) ME.​

Looks like the definition you quoted is closest to definition 1 in my copy, although it does say that this usage in this sense has been superseded by the word "faith". The definition I'm using is number two, which has been in use since around 1533.

That took far longer than I expected to type out. I don't think I got the accents quite right either. It would have been a lot easier to copy-paste from a readily accessible online dictionary.

Definition quoted from "The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary; On Historical Principles", third edition, Reset with Revised Etymologies and Addenda 1973, 1974 With Corrections 1975.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Can you quote us a verse of the Quran that unambiguously states that the earth travels around the sun? Looking it up, I can only find a verse that suggests the sun revolves around the earth.

Hell, searching for the verses I stumbled across a video of an expert on the Quran insisting, in complete seriousness, that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, because the Quran says so...

​

An exact quote (of the subtitles translating his speech): "The sun circles the Earth because it is smaller than the Earth, as is evident in Koranic verses. Have you ever seen how the sun moves? I have seen the sun move. The sun makes one move every 24 hours. What I say is based on Koranic science. He bases his arguments on the kind of science that I reject categorically - the modern science that they teach in schools. This science is a heretic innovation that has no confirmation in the Koran. No verse in the Koran indicates that the earth is round or that it rotates. Anything that has no indication in the Koran is false."

And lo, have they not seen, how, with his wisdom to the utmost, the most high fools out of them makes.

(^^^ It really sounds good in Marsian, trust me.)

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Can you quote us a verse of the Quran that unambiguously states that the earth travels around the sun? Looking it up, I can only find a verse that suggests the sun revolves around the earth.

Hell, searching for the verses I stumbled across a video of an expert on the Quran insisting, in complete seriousness, that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, because the Quran says so...

​

An exact quote (of the subtitles translating his speech): "The sun circles the Earth because it is smaller than the Earth, as is evident in Koranic verses. Have you ever seen how the sun moves? I have seen the sun move. The sun makes one move every 24 hours. What I say is based on Koranic science. He bases his arguments on the kind of science that I reject categorically - the modern science that they teach in schools. This science is a heretic innovation that has no confirmation in the Koran. No verse in the Koran indicates that the earth is round or that it rotates. Anything that has no indication in the Koran is false."

And lo, have they not seen, how, with his wisdom to the utmost, the most high fools out of them makes? Will they then not believe?

(^^^ It really sounds good in Marsian, trust me.)

 

[punshhh]

Strange, that doesn't quite agree with my copy...

Belief (bǐlī•f). [Early ME. bileafe, repl. OE. g̊elēafa (see Believe). The loss of the final syll. resulted in the unvoicing of the final consonant.] 1. The mental action, condition or habit, of trusting to or confiding in a person or thing; trust, confidence, faith. (Faith, orig. = fidelity, fealty, used in 14th c. to translate L. fides, has ultimately superseded 'belief' in this sense.) b. absol. Trust in God; the virtue of faith (arch.) ME. 2. Mental assent to or acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true, on the ground of authority or evidence; the mental condition involved in this assent 1533. 3. The thing believed; in early use, esp. a religion. Now often = opinion, persuasion. ME. b. Intuition, natural judgement 1838. 4. A creed. The B. : the Apostles' Creed (arch.) ME.​

Looks like the definition you quoted is closest to definition 1 in my copy, although it does say that this usage in this sense has been superseded by the word "faith". The definition I'm using is number two, which has been in use since around 1533.

Interesting, I'm using another Oxford dictionary and they've swapped 1 and 2 around, I thought they might all be correlated.

I think the issue here is around the use of the word belief in reference to what happens in the minds of atheists and what they think theists are doing when they believe in a deity. Your number 1, definition is probably more appropriate as we are questioning beliefs in things which can't be observed or verified.

 

[Tassman]

Why is it my job to define what god is?




Well one of those ideas regarding god is that it had something to do with creating the physical universe. Some claim that their idea of god is one of a more observatory nature than direct interaction apart from within the framework of subjectivity - god is personal or interacts on a personal level.
Other ideas are that god does interact directly with the physical universe as consciousness on all levels of awareness, and that we are that god, or more to the point, the consciousness we are is part of the totality of the whole of consciousness.

These are just a few ideas of 'what is god' according to individuals who have them.

I am not one who is in a position to being able to refute their ideas as wrong. As can be seen, such ideas defy any ability of scientific investigation to positively debunk.

A scientific claim must be open to possible falsification. Debunking fanciful claims about “what is god” not the role of science, it’s up to you to falsify the current scientific position that there is no god. You can do his by providing substantiated evidence of god existing, mere ideas of “what god is” is not sufficient.

No. I claim that I do allow god to be an idea, because that is in fact what god is at the basic level of understanding 'what is god.' It would not matter if I did not allow that idea - the idea will still exist.

The world is awash with “ideas” – in literature and art etc. But to credit them them as being true at any level other than allegory or metaphor one needs evidence. Nice ideas, on their own don’t count for much; nor can they exist independently of a material brain - something, BTW, that God doesn't possess.

You are speaking of 'we' as in humanity yes? I have no idea as to whether ideas we have and will continue to have will still exist. That is not something science can answer positively.

We simply don;t know the future to such a degree where such claims can be made as expressions of truth.

Yes we know. Without people the repository of such “ideas” ceases to exist. If you are postulating that these “ideas” exist independently of a material brain then you must provide evidence that they can. There is none I know of.

I am not positing anything in particular about what god is. I am simply saying that the ideas are not altogether unreasonable and that science as a tool for discovery etc isn't able to measure such ideas.
You want to argue that it can and does - at least this appears to be what your argument is. But really you are arguing for your beliefs about such things and saying that science is the very thing which allows for you to have those beliefs.

Science can be proved wrong about these “ideas” of yours by the mere presentation of verified evidence. If you cannot provide this then you have no case.

That is not true. How can you say that? I said I don;t know either way. You infer that by this I am discounting your argument because all evidence supports that consciousness does not survive the death of the brain, but I have acknowledged that science is only able to measure physical things and the appearance is that the brain dies and so too does the consciousness. I have also said that while it appears to be the case, in relation to consciousness we cannot really tell what actually happens to it.

So I acknowledge that it is possibly that consciousness continues on but it is totally non provable, thus I must logically remain undecided. I must logically say that I do not know for sure, but it appears to be the case. I must logically decide that I cannot know for sure what the case is and thus need not believe it does or does not.

I have stated this often enough that you should by now know that this is what I am saying.

Correct, re the bolded. And until you provide evidence to the contrary we DO “know either way”, namely: here is NO credible evidence for the existence of a non-material mind.

This kind of statement is why I say that positive claims that god/afterlife etc do not exist are not statements based on science but on atheism and in particular from the kind of atheist who is consciously and actively anti theist and uses science in a way which suggests that science is actually supporting the same things that they believe, and is against the same things they are.

They are “statements” based on the lack of substantiated evidence, nothing more than that.

Of course you can say that and of course metaphysics don't come into SCIENCE. That is why the ideas cannot be fully tested to verify they are all false or true or some are and some are not.

You have not recognized that I am not supporting one against the other. I am neutral - I have no side to take issue with or against.

How could you be neutral when ALL the evidence supports one side and not the other? That’s not neutrality, that’s bias.

The statement is in relation to various ideas. their is no requirement on my part to support such with any evidence, even if that was possible, which as far as I am aware, it is not.

I get the impression that you want to argue beliefs and am annoyed because I wont.

You entire posts are testament of your “beliefs” couched in terms of attempted even-handedness. This is as nonsensical as Creationists demanding that ‘Evolution’ vis-à-vis ‘Creationism’ be given equal time in schools. Again, this is bias.

It depends upon what is being speculated and why it is being speculated. In relation to the possibility of afterlife, since I see it as so, it bears a closer look and that is not so easy to do but there is a considerable amount of data around which is worth noting. If I knew that my body wasn't going to eventually die, I would have no requirement to examine data regarding the subject, but since my body is going to die, and since I don't know for sure what is going to happen in relation to that process, whether the 'me' or consciousness might survive I find it logically necessary to gather as much data on the subject in order to see if I might find any patterns in that data and that in itself is ongoing as more data is uncovered.
This process does not in any way get in the way of living life, and nor does it encourage any belief systems to develop in my understanding. It is simply a case of:

1: I don't know.
2: I know that my body will die.
3: The possibility exists that there might be more to my life experience after my body dies.
4: Since this is so, I would rather not assume either way. If nothing happens (I cease to exist) then it won't matter, and if I don't cease to exist, I am at least prepared for that possibility in as much as one could be without having formed any particular belief systems either way.

It is no biggy, and I am slightly bemused that you feel one has to take issue with the subject and decide to take sides in a role which supports one or the other.

Re no. 3: There is no credible evidence that your “consciousness” will survive the disintegration of your material body. There are not two sides to the argument– just one. To entertain the notion of everlasting life is escapist fantasy and divorced from reality.

I have not ignored any such thing. I have simply said that we do not know even the nature of consciousness. I already said that it is possible that even naturally consciousness might not die and that there is no known way in which to measure does not make it that consciousness therefore cannot exist outside of the experience of being human, or biological.

There are many things visible and not so visible in this universe and I couldn't even positively state that consciousness in no way can exist in the experience of a planet, or in a cosmic dust could or simply just be in a float free attitude.

I do not have the need to make statements which align my support with any particular ideas which are outside the capacity of science to investigate conclusively nor do I have the need to align with those who make statements that conclude such things do not exist.

All the available evidence indicates that ‘consciousness’ is a by-product of the material brain and that it perishes when the body perishes. OR our consciousness is modified by brain trauma (e.g. car crash, brain tumor etc) in ways which are increasingly being understood by neurologists

And I am not making statements which say 'god does exist'.

Science makes the statement that “god does not exist”. This is falsifiable by providing verified evidence that he does. Unless you can do this then a belief in God is mere wish fulfillment.

I couldn't even say that. I do not know that say, the god of the bible/quran does not exist, or that it (he) even exists as portrayed. I think it most likely that this god is more the invention of human imagination and understanding following on from the idea of 'god' but I only have to cursory examine the data now known re the physical universe to understand that if their is a creator or creators involved in the reason it exists, that god or gods are unlikely to be easily comprehended by human thought and understanding processes
Given that, I do not see any logic in trying to understand 'what god is' beyond the idea that (as an idea) it may have something to do with the existence of the physical universe.

Well, until we have evidence that a) god exists AND b) that he “may have had something to do with the existence of the physical universe” it’s hardly worth giving consideration to it is it? Except perhaps as escapist entertainment of the Matrix sort! Personally, I’ve always had a soft-spot for the Nordic gods. Wagner wrote some great opera’s about them.

You are focusing upon science as if somehow I have attacked its integrity or some such thing. I have not. You have no need to defend science. Behind what you are saying, you are defending your particular type of atheism by assuming that is what science too is doing. It is not.

NOT believing in unevidenced entities or concepts doesn't need defending. OTOH: Giving credence to the possibility of concepts existing when they are not supported by credible evidence DOES need defending, because it is an irrational position.

You are attempting to put me in a position where you are clearly trying to get me to defend myself. I have no need to do so. I don;t 'want' things to be any particular way (that is illogical mostly) and prefer to allow things to unfold as they will, although I still have some say in how that will be in relation to my subjective reality and how I might affect any outcomes within that reality. I have insignificantly small power in this regard.
I have not 'presented a picture' I have acknowledged certain possibilities and from those possibilities I have refrained from making statements of belief, which I find simple enough to do.
I don't 'want you' (I don;t know who you mean by 'us) to think in any particular way. I leave such choices to the individual how they want to think.

If you keep positing unsupported concepts such as ‘consciousness existing independently of the material brain' then you need to “defend’ the notion if you want to be taken seriously.

Show me where I have claimed this to be the case. I have only stated that it might be possible. I certainly haven't made any claims that it CAN.

Credible evidence please? In what way “might” it be possible?

Indeed, I even said that god might be consciousness and that it is interacting with the physical universe in relation to everything that is conscious.

Why would you assume a God exists in the first place – let alone interact with the physical universe? How could a non-material entity interact with a material entity or universe? What is the point of contact or nexus?

In metaphor, an example is: Someone creates a virtual reality and then puts their self into that virtual reality for the experience.

But anyway, my position is logical and helpful for that. Your lengthy post dealt more with what you think I am than what I am actually saying, and what I am saying isn't really that hard to understand.

Your position does no more than hypothetically elevate “possibilities” into probable actualities without any supporting evidence .

 

[punshhh]

The alternative that you are looking for is that something just exists. Unbound by any temporal successions as in first-there-was-nothing-but-then or before-that-there-was.

If this is a problem to you, it ain't to me.

Its not a problem to me, I already knew it. Whatever exists, just exists, and whatever mechanisms enable this to happen are not really our concern, we just find ourselves here and might as well just get on with it.

I can't see where logic comes in here though, its a no go area as far as that's concerned. All logic can do is to be a useful tool in working out how to get on with it.

This being the case any notion that there isn't a "metaphysical" reality behind this reality, or of what does or does not exist beyond what has been detected is laughable.

Nothing any atheist, or anyone else for that matter, cares to say about it, actually addresses it, we just don't have a clue.

 

[tsig]

Its not a problem to me, I already knew it. Whatever exists, just exists, and whatever mechanisms enable this to happen are not really our concern, we just find ourselves here and might as well just get on with it.

I can't see where logic comes in here though, its a no go area as far as that's concerned. All logic can do is to be a useful tool in working out how to get on with it.

This being the case any notion that there isn't a "metaphysical" reality behind this reality, or of what does or does not exist beyond what has been detected is laughable.

Nothing any atheist, or anyone else for that matter, cares to say about it, actually addresses it, we just don't have a clue.

If it's not detectable how do you know there is a reality behind reality?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Its not a problem to me, I already knew it. Whatever exists, just exists, and whatever mechanisms enable this to happen are not really our concern, we just find ourselves here and might as well just get on with it.

mm-hmm

But I don't think you'll find any mechanism.

I can't see where logic comes in here though, its a no go area as far as that's concerned. All logic can do is to be a useful tool in working out how to get on with it.

You could easily treat it as an axiom.

This being the case any notion that there isn't a "metaphysical" reality behind this reality, or of what does or does not exist beyond what has been detected is laughable.

Nothing any atheist, or anyone else for that matter, cares to say about it, actually addresses it, we just don't have a clue.

And it is really not our task to address this. Theists have taken this responsibily upon themselves, but are doing jack to attend this their duty.