Is There More to Atheism than Lack of Belief?

[Ken-1122]

I have something to throw into the mix here, that reverts back to the OP and the thread title. I don't think there can be any debate the the english word "atheist" merely refers to a lack of belief in God or gods. Where the confusion comes in is that it is by necessity a part of an individual's world view.

The problem is when theists try to claim that Atheism is a world view even though atheists constantly tell them it is not. That would be like me an avid chess player claiming that because you don't play chess, that is a world view.

If people were more clear about addressing that when it is their true concern it would help. (Flushing out unstated objections isn't just for salesmen, I guess?)

I see Atheists constantly telling theists that atheism is not a world view, but some people just don't listen!

Either way, atheists have as much faith as anybody else. The difference is the object of their faith.

It appears you are among those who don't listen as well! Atheists are constantly telling theists faith isn't required to be an atheist; yet they (like yourself) refuse to listen. However, if you believe atheism does require faith, please list an example where faith is required to lack belief in God.


Ken

 

[Received]

Well, I just said that I don´t think one way or the other. I think "it will work or it won´t". I am aware that I take chances and risks, but then again usually I have a planB.
But to answer your question hypothetically: Yes, if I thought that my car will work, or if I thought that my car won´t work there might be minor differences to my behaviour, as opposed to as it is.

That difference in behavior is, IMO, the stuff of faith.

 

[quatona]

That difference in behavior is, IMO, the stuff of faith.

So, if I understand you correctly, as soon as I behave (no matter what way) I am displaying "faith".
Congratulations - again you managed to redefine a word that typically is used to make a strong distinction into uselessness (in that it doesn´t even leave anything that it could possibly distinguish from).
I´m not really seeing what the benefits of this strategy are, though.

 

[Received]

If I had to choose, quatona would definitely be the Grumpy of Christian Forums.

 

[Received]

So, if I understand you correctly, as soon as I behave (no matter what way) I am displaying "faith".
Congratulations - again you managed to redefine a word that typically is used to make a strong distinction into uselessness (in that it doesn´t even leave anything that it could possibly distinguish from).
I´m not really seeing what the benefits of this strategy are, though.

If we're talking about faith as trust or confidence (rather than the much more cognitive "believing stuff without evidence"), this trust or confidence is broken down to inclinations of the will. You can't have faith without your will being proportionately in line with the thing or person you have faith in. If I say I have faith in your ability to do math but come the calculus exam I cheat off of someone else, then I don't have faith in you. It's the instances of will relating to the thing in which you have faith that determine the quality of the faith in question.

 

[variant]

The short answer to the op is "sometimes", as some atheists positively deny the possibility of God's existence or they themselves take the wording to mean more than just a lack of belief.

Words are defined by the users of words so some of the negative connotations that our Christian friends put on the term might be appropriate as well from their perspective.

 

[bhsmte]

Faith (if we're talking biblically) is best defined as a type of trust; belief despite lack of evidence sounds very post-Enlightenment.

And yeah, you do need faith (trust) that your car will work. What distinguishes this faith from religious faith is that the former has some degree of inductive cogency behind it; but just because you car has started up a hundred times doesn't mean the hundred and first will be a win as well. So even though, in a sense, it takes a lot less faith to believe that your car will start (given induction), it's still faith.

Faith is everywhere. It's all a question of breadth and depth of faith, not whether we do or don't have faith in just about everything. You can accuse religious folks of having too much faith (too little induction, deduction, or empirical support), but you can't distinguish their faith from some sort of secular nonexistent faith.

You can call it faith whether your car starts in the morning, but I would call it trust, based on a track record of provable outcomes. Sure, it might not start in the morning, just as the sun might not come up in the morning either, just because it has everyday.

Faith based on religious beliefs are different. Any track record one bases this faith on, is subjective in nature and not objective like knowing my car has started everyday for a year, which is something demonstrable and objective.

 

[variant]

If we're talking about faith as trust or confidence (rather than the much more cognitive "believing stuff without evidence"), this trust or confidence is broken down to inclinations of the will. You can't have faith without your will being proportionately in line with the thing or person you have faith in. If I say I have faith in your ability to do math but come the calculus exam I cheat off of someone else, then I don't have faith in you. It's the instances of will relating to the thing in which you have faith that determine the quality of the faith in question.

I think that if you are incapable of deluding yourself, no amount of will will help you have faith in things you don't objectively believe.

So, we're talking about having enough willpower to overcome your doubt without evidence, or, actively seeking to believe things you know you can't show to be true.

Calculus exams are tests, they give you evidence not faith.

 

[bhsmte]

The problem is when theists try to claim that Atheism is a world view even though atheists constantly tell them it is not. That would be like me an avid chess player claiming that because you don't play chess, that is a world view.


I see Atheists constantly telling theists that atheism is not a world view, but some people just don't listen!


It appears you are among those who don't listen as well! Atheists are constantly telling theists faith isn't required to be an atheist; yet they (like yourself) refuse to listen. However, if you believe atheism does require faith, please list an example where faith is required to lack belief in God.


Ken

This whole; atheist world view thing, is akin to some theists who claim atheism is a religion. It's all an effort, to paint non-belief in a God a certain way, so they can feel better about their position.

The truth is, when you look at complete world views, I may have more in common with some Christians on this board, then I do atheists.

 

[Received]

You can call it faith whether your car starts in the morning, but I would call it trust, based on a track record of provable outcomes. Sure, it might not start in the morning, just as the sun might not come up in the morning either, just because it has everyday.

Faith based on religious beliefs are different. Any track record one bases this faith on, is subjective in nature and not objective like knowing my car has started everyday for a year, which is something demonstrable and objective.

Well, whether or not you have a track record of provable outcomes (i.e., cogent inductive reasoning) doesn't exclude the need to have trust (which to me is basically synonymous with faith) in that which has earned the track record.

And I agree that faith is different in the regard you mentioned (although we can't equate "subjective" with "nonexistent"). You might say the difference is that religious faith involves less rationally motivated faith. You also have non-religious instinctually motivated faith, such as the existence of the outer world. Why do people naturally believe that a world exists beyond themselves? It's not by the result of any reasoning process, but simply because -- programmed by evolution, if you like.

 

[variant]

Well, whether or not you have a track record of provable outcomes (i.e., cogent inductive reasoning) doesn't exclude the need to have trust (which to me is basically synonymous with faith) in that which has earned the track record.

Equating trusting evidence with religious faith is an equivocation. They are different ideas.

 

[Received]

I think that if you are incapable of deluding yourself, no amount of will will help you have faith in things you don't objectively believe.

So, we're talking about having enough willpower to overcome your doubt without evidence, or, actively seeking to believe things you know you can't show to be true.

Calculus exams are tests, they give you evidence not faith.

I don't know. Part of me thinks that we're capable of developing faith in anything so long as we put forth consistent behavioral efforts. Many times this is motivated by a strong wish or desire that something be true; i.e., the world is too hard to imagine without believing that God doesn't exist, so people make the moves (go to church, pray, etc.), which motivates a sense of trust. But yeah, if doubt is strong and consistent enough, it can overwhelm any desire for something to be true, and therefore any motivation for consistent behavioral efforts that would keep faith alive.

 

[variant]

I don't know. Part of me thinks that we're capable of developing faith in anything so long as we put forth consistent behavioral efforts. Many times this is motivated by a strong wish or desire that something be true; i.e., the world is too hard to imagine without believing that God doesn't exist, so people make the moves (go to church, pray, etc.), which motivates a sense of trust. But yeah, if doubt is strong and consistent enough, it can overwhelm any desire for something to be true, and therefore any motivation for consistent behavioral efforts that would keep faith alive.

The fact that you are capable of it doesn't mean we all are.

I find Christianity quite impossible based upon my current experience and thinking. No amount of will power is going to overcome this.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The fact that you are capable of it doesn't mean we all are.

I find Christianity quite impossible based upon my current experience and thinking. No amount of will power is going to overcome this.

Agreed. That is the case for me as well. I'm constantly amazed that there are people so mentally flexible that they can engage in such Orwellian mental self-deception.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

My point is, morals only exist via value judgments. Now if you disagree, can you give an example of a moral situation existing without a value judgment taking place?

Any situation at all. The moral judgment is being made about the situation; it is not the situation.

For example, we are having a rational discussion. This is good. It is not my judgment that having a rational discussion is good because I judge it to be good. I judge it to be good because there is something naturally valuable about having a rational discussion as opposed to the alternatives, given our human natures. Goodness is not a "value judgment", it is what my value judgment measures.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ken-1122]

Any situation at all. The moral judgment is being made about the situation; it is not the situation.

For example, we are having a rational discussion. This is good. It is not my judgment that having a rational discussion is good because I judge it to be good. I judge it to be good because there is something naturally preferable about having a rational discussion as opposed to the alternatives.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Okay I will give an example. Rape; people made a judgment value and determined rape was wrong, thus it has become a moral issue. Now if in the history of mankind, nobody made a judgment value concerning rape, I am saying rape would not be a moral issue. Are you saying it would?

Ken

 

[Eudaimonist]

Okay I will give an example. Rape; people made a judgment value and determined rape was wrong, thus it has become a moral issue. Now if in the history of mankind, nobody made a judgment value concerning rape, I am saying rape would not be a moral issue. Are you saying it would?

Absolutely!

Rape is an evil whether people judge it to be an evil or not. It would be a moral issue even if people are unaware that it qualifies as one.

Are you seriously saying that rape would not be an evil if no one thinks that it is?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[variant]

Agreed. That is the case for me as well. I'm constantly amazed that there are people so mentally flexible that they can engage in such Orwellian mental self-deception.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't think you can be aware that you are doing that in those terms and still do it.

Someone would have to go through a lot of linguistic and mental hoops before they could find themselves in that position.

Hence the overt complexity of the ideas proffered by the more intelligent theists when justifying themselves as rational.

 

[variant]

Okay I will give an example. Rape; people made a judgment value and determined rape was wrong, thus it has become a moral issue. Now if in the history of mankind, nobody made a judgment value concerning rape, I am saying rape would not be a moral issue. Are you saying it would?

Ken

I'm not sure it is possible for people not to make value judgments.

In most cases I would consider it reflexive and automatic. Any time we take an action that prioritizes anything we value with regard to something else we have made a judgment. For instance, If I saw a rape and forcibly stopped it I have made an implicit value judgment about my safety, and the proper use of force and a dozen other things. If I saw one and let it go I would have as well.

Values come from valuing, the way someone values is to act. This makes value judgement pretty much automatic in any thinking thing.

Are you suggesting we must be aware we are making a value judgment to make one?

 

[Huntun]

I just started an interesting book on the whole morality thing:

Beyond Morality

By Richard Garner

The author posits that the moralist approach to questions is inherently flawed and that "there are effective non-moralistic ways to reach some of the goals moralists set for themselves and for others—a reduction in suffering and an increase in the happiness and contentment of those capable of happiness and contentment"

You can read the whole thing at the link. I haven't finished it but it seems promising so far.