atheism as lack of belief.

[Eudaimonist]

Atheism is not the lack of belief but the belief in anything and everything but God.

I guess that makes theism the belief in anything and everything but not-God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Percivale]

The A in atheist means not. The word means not a theist. This says nothing about whether the person just doesn't buy any of the claims of gods or that a god is impossible. I fall into the latter category. Yes this would give me the burden of proof since I am making the claim that no god exists. I accept that burden. All I need do is present a valid and sound argument to meet that burden. If someone is not convinced or refuses to acknowledge that argument then that is not my problem. I've met my burden of proof.

Most atheists say that they're not sure if there is a god or not but they don't hold a belief. they take a middle of the road approach in my opinion. That's fine, I would never try to tell someone that they must absolutely claim that there is no god in order to call themselves atheist. The fact that they don't believe makes them atheist, not agnostic. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, atheism to belief.

As an Objectivist, I know that there is no reason to take this middle of the road attitude. I know that the concept of gods is a contradiction of every valid principle of a rational metaphysics so I need not speculate that God might be hiding in some corner of the Universe or in another dimension. I know that gods exist in the Human imagination only and not in reality.

As to your last question, I guess it would depend on the definition of "God".

This is a good description of the situation I am addressing. There seems a big difference between an objectivist atheist like True Scotsman, and the 'middle of the road' atheists he describes. I've been pushing for restricting the term atheist to the former category, but as someone pointed out, atheist means simply not theist, so etymology does not support me here. Are there better words to differentiate the two types of atheists? antitheists and nontheists? Intheists would be another option, paralleling the difference in meaning between amoral and immoral.

bhsmte:

Lastly, I never denigrate anyone for having a faith belief or even question their faith, UNLESS:

-they claim to be morally superior because of their faith
-they claim to have objective evidence to prove their faith
-they claim I am being led by evil, I know God exists but reject him or have not tried hard enough to find God
-they misrepresent well evidenced science, or simply deny well evidenced realities about the universe.

If any of the above happens, it is open season on challenging the other person. If the person of faith can stay away from the above, I would never question their faith or tell them they are wrong to believe what they do.

I intend to stay away from doing any of these except the second, and there I don't expect to prove it, only to demonstrate its probability. I respect those who see things differently than I do, but it is in truth's best interest for us to present the evidence for what be believe to be true. I accept that it will be challenged.

Concerning faith, we need to understand the wide variety of meanings the word has. To me, the valid form of faith is this: acting consistently as if something is true that you believe has greater than 50% probability and that has positive value if true. It's mainly a matter of being consistent in your beliefs and lifestyle even when there are non-rational temptations to do otherwise.

To a purely rational being (an android, or what Vulcans try to be), all beliefs would be assessed in terms of probabilities, I believe. That's not common human behaviour, but I think would be helpful in many cases.

Totally blind faith has no appeal to me. The word also sometimes means simply a set of beliefs about the big questions, as in 'those of other faiths.'

 

[quatona]

I take issue with the idea that atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief itself.

So this is just another semantics thread?
Or do you want to tell me what my convictions are?
I lack belief in the existence of deities. What would you like me to call me?

I suggest atheists should be those who put the chance of some god existing at below maybe 25%, theists those who put it above 75%, and reserve the term agnostic for those in between.

I have yet to come across a method to calculate the chance of the existence of deities.
"Agnostic" is a completely different category than theist/atheist.

Just for another concept to play with, how about someone who thinks the greek gods were actual aliens who visited earth. Are they theists?

I´m not sure why you are so concerned with fringe positions. I think for most every purpose here it would be sufficient to understand "atheist" as being a person who doesn´t believe in your god concept.

 

[quatona]

Atheism is not the lack of belief but the belief in anything and everything but God.

Gotta love it when I am told what I believe in. Can´t seem to figure it out myself.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

This is where I believe people misuse the term; "faith".

The contemporary definiendum "faith" has several definientia. One of them is "confidence or trust in a person or thing." - Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com

This is the definiens I am thinking of when I use the term and it was how the New Testament authors used it.

I don't believe one needs to have faith in; science or anything else with a proven track record, which includes objective evidence to support the track record.

You think of "faith" to signify belief in something for which there is no proof or evidence. This is how many in postmodern culture view the term. But is this accurate?

No.

The Greek word "pistis" was translated into Latin by "fides" and later into English by "faith". Pistis never held the connotation of "belief without evidence or belief without warrant or blind belief". A quick look at the lexicons used in the academy bear this out.

Friberg’s Analytical Greek Lexicon has “confidence, faith, trust, reliance on.”

Vine’s lexicon says, “firm persuasion,”

Bullinger’s lexicon says the same thing.

Thayer’s lexicon says, “conviction of the truth of anything.”

So, I have "confidence" and "trust" in science, because of the proven track record and no "faith" is required.

"Pistis" is trust. The two are synonymous.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I take issue with the idea that atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief itself. Look at it this way: say a person holds the belief--'there is a 50% chance that some god exists.' It seems inaccurate to call that person an atheist. Neutral agnostic would be better. Or consider those mentioned in Acts who worshipped at an altar to 'the unknown God.' They didnt worship a particular deity, but were not atheists.

I suggest atheists should be those who put the chance of some god existing at below maybe 25%, theists those who put it above 75%, and reserve the term agnostic for those in between.

Just for another concept to play with, how about someone who thinks the greek gods were actual aliens who visited earth. Are they theists?

Each of us has a worldview, some of which include the divine and some of which do not. However, an atheist has a worldview that tends to look something more like this:

Happy Eatings!!

 

[bhsmte]

The contemporary definiendum "faith" has several definientia. One of them is "confidence or trust in a person or thing." - Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com

This is the definiens I am thinking of when I use the term and it was how the New Testament authors used it.



You think of "faith" to signify belief in something for which there is no proof or evidence. This is how many in postmodern culture view the term. But is this accurate?

No.

The Greek word "pistis" was translated into Latin by "fides" and later into English by "faith". Pistis never held the connotation of "belief without evidence or belief without warrant or blind belief". A quick look at the lexicons used in the academy bear this out.

Friberg’s Analytical Greek Lexicon has “confidence, faith, trust, reliance on.”

Vine’s lexicon says, “firm persuasion,”

Bullinger’s lexicon says the same thing.

Thayer’s lexicon says, “conviction of the truth of anything.”




"Pistis" is trust. The two are synonymous.

Well, you can utilize the definitions you like and I will use mine, ok?

I have confidence and trust in science. I have confidence and trust the sun will come up tomorrow. I have confidence and trust my car will start in the morning, etc. etc.

I have faith my baseball team will win the world series in the next 5 years, even though they haven't won in over 100 years.

To me, faith is something you have with little to no evidence or track record, to support your faith. To me, confidence and trust is something you have, when there is evidence and a track record to support the trust and confidence you place in something.

So, I guess we just look at the terms differently.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So do I. The question of cancer for example. I hope that one day scientists will discover a cure for it.



I think scientists could indeed one day come up with a cure for cancer and I base this on the fact that many diseases we once had no cure for, are treatable as a result of progresses made in certain areas of science.

My appeal to the achievements of science in the past as a basis for my hope for the future assumes some things though, and these assumptions must simply be believed without being proven.

This is all I am arguing.

When I say I have faith in God, I am not saying I have a blind, unreasonable, irrational faith. Nor am I a strict fideist.

When I say I have faith in God, I use the word faith in the sense of trust. God is trustworthy based on the fact that He has never failed me, lied to me, hurt me, lead me astray, etc. etc.

When I say I have faith in science or that a scientist has faith, I use it in the sense of trust. We have good reasons to trust that science can give us knowledge of our world because it has a track record of doing so.

So I am not equivocating here.

I am not obligated to use the word "faith" in the sense of blind, unreasonable, unsubstantiated, irrational belief.

I will not allow someone to misrepresent my position without informing them that it is indeed a misrepresentation. I am sure you feel the same way.

I am not a Christian that will tell you to take my claims on blind faith. I will not tell you to just accept what I say as truth without giving you some reasons and evidence for my claims.

Some may. I do not because we are encouraged by the apostles to be ready to give an answer. I seek to order my life according to God's standard and God is the One who first said: "Come let us reason together....". Look at Paul's life. Look at Peter's life. Paul demonstrated to people that Jesus was the Messiah. He didn't expect for people to just take his word for it, trust me. You have to remember who his audience was! I believe God made our minds to be used to glorify Him. He gave us the ability to reason, to think, to rationalize and to do all sorts of cool things.[/FONT][/I]

I think you are still equivocating terms. Faith, in the religious sense, is not just trust. Faith is being committed to an idea regardless of whatever reason brings to bear; that is, regardless of the evidence or there lack of. Your favourite apologist, William Lane Craig, provides an excellent example. Although he argues that there are good reasons to be a Christian, he maintains that even if reason turned against the doctrines he has committed himself to, he would still remain committed to them. For Craig, the reasons he gives for belief have so little epistemic weight that, no matter how good or bad those reasons are, they are ultimately inessential and superfluous to his theological commitments. That is faith. Does it strike you as reasonable? Can you reason with someone who thinks that reason is only meant to serve as a tool for rationalising doctrines ad hoc?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The contemporary definiendum "faith" has several definientia. One of them is "confidence or trust in a person or thing." - Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com

This is the definiens I am thinking of when I use the term and it was how the New Testament authors used it.



You think of "faith" to signify belief in something for which there is no proof or evidence. This is how many in postmodern culture view the term. But is this accurate?

No.

The Greek word "pistis" was translated into Latin by "fides" and later into English by "faith". Pistis never held the connotation of "belief without evidence or belief without warrant or blind belief". A quick look at the lexicons used in the academy bear this out.

Friberg’s Analytical Greek Lexicon has “confidence, faith, trust, reliance on.”

Vine’s lexicon says, “firm persuasion,”

Bullinger’s lexicon says the same thing.

Thayer’s lexicon says, “conviction of the truth of anything.”




"Pistis" is trust. The two are synonymous.

Etymology does not dictate use. In any case, I note that the only definition you exclude is the most relevant one for our purposes - the definition of religious faith. This is often done so as that the apologist can say "See! Everyone has faith." If all you mean by 'faith' is 'confidence', then that is more-or-less trivially true. But that's not all that there is to faith, particularly when we are talking about religious faith.

 

[Percivale]

Try this: not collecting stamps is a belief. People that do not collect stamps can have a wide variety of philosophies of life, as well as liking any religion's activities or being anti-religion.

No, it does not look like your statement works.

The problem with this analogy is that whether God exists, unlike whether you collect stamps, has a big effect on how you answer the big questions, like why am I here, where did I come from, how should I live, where are we going ultimately. One's philosophy or worldview, if complete, has to include the question of God's existence in order to answer these questions.

 

[Percivale]

quatona, yes it's a semantics thread. We need those, as we seem to have different definitions for a number of words.
Faith is another example of that. I do not value what you guys are calling 'religious faith.' Sufficiently strong evidence would change my beliefs. Since I hope the same is true of you, I present what seems like good evidence to me. I've got more I'll bring up later.

 

[quatona]

quatona, yes it's a semantics thread. We need those, as we seem to have different definitions for a number of words.

Yes. You need, however, keep in mind that semantics don´t change facts.
E.g. when the vast majority of self-professing atheists tell you that they call themselves atheists for the reason they lack belief in Gods, you can introduce a different meaning of "atheist", but that won´t change anything about these people´s actual convictions (or lack thereof).
In the worst case, you´d pick a definition that would exclude everyone here from being an atheist per your definition.
You wouldn´t talk to your target audience anymore, you´d talk about an non-existent or insignificant fringe group.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The problem with this analogy is that whether God exists, unlike whether you collect stamps, has a big effect on how you answer the big questions, like why am I here, where did I come from, how should I live, where are we going ultimately. One's philosophy or worldview, if complete, has to include the question of God's existence in order to answer these questions.

Not necessarily. You are assuming a particular kind of God; namely, one who has an intrinsic interest in human affairs. If God exists, but his role is limited solely to that of a disinterested creator, then his existence ultimately has little to no bearing on how we answer most of those big questions.

 

[Davian]

The problem with this analogy is that whether God exists, unlike whether you collect stamps, has a big effect on how you answer the big questions, like why am I here, where did I come from, how should I live, where are we going ultimately. One's philosophy or worldview, if complete, has to include the question of God's existence in order to answer these questions.

I do not see why is has to. When I am not engaged on this site, "God" is no more of a consideration in my worldview that Captain Ahab in Moby Dick.

No problem.

Try imagining that other people do not think like you.

 

[Davian]

quatona, yes it's a semantics thread. We need those, as we seem to have different definitions for a number of words.
Faith is another example of that. I do not value what you guys are calling 'religious faith.' Sufficiently strong evidence would change my beliefs. Since I hope the same is true of you, I present what seems like good evidence to me. I've got more I'll bring up later.

Present the evidence that convinced you, not the stuff you use to rationalize your beliefs.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I think you are still equivocating terms.

I used the term univocally in my response. In both instances, I used the term to refer to "trust" in something or someone.

Thus your charge of equivocating is groundless.

Faith, in the religious sense, is not just trust. Faith is being committed to an idea regardless of whatever reason brings to bear; that is, regardless of the evidence or there lack of.

In some religious circles and to some religious people, this is exactly what faith is.

I am not one such person who views it that way so the arguments you are presenting which depend upon this view of "faith" do not apply to me. I use the term in the sense that it is used in the New Testament.

Your favourite apologist, William Lane Craig, provides an excellent example. Although he argues that there are good reasons to be a Christian, he maintains that even if reason turned against the doctrines he has committed himself to, he would still remain committed to them. For Craig, the reasons he gives for belief have so little epistemic weight that, no matter how good or bad those reasons are, they are ultimately inessential and superfluous to his theological commitments. That is faith. Does it strike you as reasonable? Can you reason with someone who thinks that reason is only meant to serve as a tool for rationalising doctrines ad hoc?

Craig defends the ministerial use of reason like I do. Calvin and Luther also shared this view.

It, quite simply, is the view that reason serves the gospel and not vice versa.

The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the Gospel message. And what Luther maintained is that only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. In light of the Holy Spirit’s witness, it is only the ministerial use of reason which is valid. Another way of putting it is that philosophy is the handmaid of theology. God has given us reason as a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith. Ours is a faith that seeks understanding, as St. Anselm put it. A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit can also have a sound apologetic which gives him evidence and arguments for the truth of Christianity.

But while that backs up the witness of the Holy Spirit and confirms it, it doesn’t supplant it or serve as a basis of his belief. If the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences are good, then that person has kind of a second source of warrant for his Christian beliefs. He has first and foremost the witness of the Holy Spirit, but then he also has the warrant that accrues from the arguments and evidence for Christianity. So this person has, in a sense, a double warrant for his belief in the truth of the Gospel.


The self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit is the judge of what is true and what is false. Anything that contradicts the Holy Spirit's witness is to be regarded as false or not true.

Now that you have been shown what his view actually is, please explain how it follows that he or I am unreasonable in holding the beliefs we do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I used the term univocally in my response. In both instances, I used the term to refer to "trust" in something or someone.

Thus your charge of equivocating is groundless.[/FONT][/SIZE]

In order to trust in a deity isn't it necessary to first believe that it exists?

In some religious circles and to some religious people, this is exactly what faith is.

I am not one such person who views it that way so the arguments you are presenting which depend upon this view of "faith" do not apply to me. I use the term in the sense that it is used in the New Testament.

Craig defends the ministerial use of reason like I do. Calvin and Luther also shared this view.

It, quite simply, is the view that reason serves the gospel and not vice versa.

The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the Gospel message. And what Luther maintained is that only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. In light of the Holy Spirit’s witness, it is only the ministerial use of reason which is valid. Another way of putting it is that philosophy is the handmaid of theology. God has given us reason as a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith. Ours is a faith that seeks understanding, as St. Anselm put it.

The ministerial use of reason is another example of religious faith. If your only purpose in reasoning is to defend a position that you will not reconsider if the reasons turn against it, then you are engaging in sophistry, not philosophy.

A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit can also have a sound apologetic which gives him evidence and arguments for the truth of Christianity.

But ultimately the arguments and evidence are inessential to that person. He would believe even if there were no evidence and even if the evidence unequivocally turned against his favoured doctrines. That is faith as I have described it.

But while that backs up the witness of the Holy Spirit and confirms it, it doesn’t supplant it or serve as a basis of his belief.

Exactly.

If the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences are good, then that person has kind of a second source of warrant for his Christian beliefs. He has first and foremost the witness of the Holy Spirit, but then he also has the warrant that accrues from the arguments and evidence for Christianity. So this person has, in a sense, a double warrant for his belief in the truth of the Gospel.

Not so, because the apologist places so little epistemic weight on the arguments he uses that they are basically rendered superfluous.

The self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit is the judge of what is true and what is false. Anything that contradicts the Holy Spirit's witness is to be regarded as false or not true.

That is faith as I have described. You have provided an instructive example.

Here is another example, from Answers in Genesis:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Now that you have been shown what his view actually is, please explain how it follows that he or I am unreasonable in holding the beliefs we do.

You are being unreasonable because there is no reason that would ever force you to reconsider your beliefs; in other words, you cannot be wrong, no matter what. You have plainly stated that, if anything contradicted that inner sensation you call the "self-authenicating witness," you would regard it as false. This raises serious questions about whether you accept basic fallibilism for your beliefs, which in turn raises questions about intellectual honesty. If you can't be wrong, even if it were definitively shown to you that you probably are wrong, then how is one to reason with you?

 

[Percivale]

regarding the witness of the Spirit, whether that is unreasonable religious faith depends on what they mean by it. For instance, if you went to Walmart and saw an elephant walking around in the aisles, I presume no amount of statistics saying large animals have never been seen in a Walmart would convince you that the elephant wasn't there. If the witness of the Spirit was an encounter with God in one which saw and touched him and it was clear it could not be a hallucination or fraud, then no amount of rational argument would be enough, perhaps, to overcome that direct experience. I have not had such an experience, and it seems if other Christians had one that vivid they would say so more definitively, so I'm skeptical of Craig and and Jeremy's approach. There is a hypothetical case where it would be reasonable, and I'm not prepared to deny that anyone has had such an experience, nor to affirm that they have.

 

[Percivale]

Present the evidence that convinced you, not the stuff you use to rationalize your beliefs.

In saying this, you're doing the same thing atheists often complain of when religious people do; you're assuming my motives for what I believe. you don't have a valid reason for thinking the cosmological argument is not convincing to me. You're also oversimplifying; humans always have multiple reasons for even their simplest choices, something like the existence of God will have dozens of influences regarding one's belief, each of which would be worthy of a thread in itself. I'd break mine into four main categories:
1. Origins; of the universe, life, the human psyche...
2. Miracles; personal witnessing of prophecy and healings, Jesus' resurrection, Biblical prophecy, other reports of miracles, near death experiences.
3. Values and pragmatics; believing in God enriches my life, etc.
4. Worldview; theism works best for me in fitting together all the facts into a harmonious whole--it has better explanatory power than other theories.

There is not room on this thread to debate all of these, but I'll make other threads when i get around to it.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

In saying this, you're doing the same thing atheists often complain of when religious people do; you're assuming my motives for what I believe. you don't have a valid reason for thinking the cosmological argument is not convincing to me. You're also oversimplifying; humans always have multiple reasons for even their simplest choices, something like the existence of God will have dozens of influences regarding one's belief, each of which would be worthy of a thread in itself. I'd break mine into four main categories:
1. Origins; of the universe, life, the human psyche...
2. Miracles; personal witnessing of prophecy and healings, Jesus' resurrection, Biblical prophecy, other reports of miracles, near death experiences.
3. Values and pragmatics; believing in God enriches my life, etc.
4. Worldview; theism works best for me in fitting together all the facts into a harmonious whole--it has better explanatory power than other theories.

There is not room on this thread to debate all of these, but I'll make other threads when i get around to it.

Well spoken!