Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's fine, as the second sentence of the quote you picked demonstrates.
The point is that I see no reason for forum-going atheists to pretend they are agnostic about God.
Pretense isn't necessary.
Not believing something because you don't know it to be true (and it is reasonable to doubt or be skeptical) is a perfectly reasonable stance.
Is it a fallacy to say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Not necessarily, especially when absence of evidence is taken to be conspicuous.
The first thing I'd like to know is from where you've taken your own definition of 'faith'? Did you take it from one authoritative source, or did you synthesize your own definition through research by bringing together various sources on the issue? Or, did you just ponder it all on your lonesome and come up with the notion that 'faith' is a form of 'confirmation bias'?
Also it doesn't help that my computer keeps kicking me out mid-post!
I don't really want to do an "aha! gotcha you're stupid and here's why post.." more of a "come on guys let's be mature about this and really try to understand another using the best methods available to sort through our positions" kind of thing
Kinda like one who does the same with evolution...actually, exactly the same thing.
As in..."Because scientists say it's true",
Nor can sceince prove where we came from
, and from there a little logic/common sense goes a long way.
A portion of the link attached by Kalliqa:
Critical thinking makes use of the tools of logic and science because it values skepticism over gullibility or dogmatism, reason over faith, the science of pseudoscience, and rationality over wishful thinking.
This is what you are trying to teach and encourage as the proper way to unity?
All it is is a hope and an attempt to appeal to man's emotions that if they remove GOD, there will be unity.
This supports unbelievers
And all on a Christian Apologetics Forum
Yeah...........and sometimes, the religious are....wrong. It has happened before. In fact, there evidence that it happened during Biblical times as well. Imagine that! People screwing up their interpretations about God's intents for the world.Can't speak for @Khalliqa, but I'ld say that what I understand by the word "faith" in the religious sense, is entirely based on how the religious use and express it.
As you might have noticed, I think there are a lot of semantic nuances that have to be cleared up with the term 'evidence,' depending on the contexts from which one thinks she is working.And from that, I concluded that faith is the excuse people give to accept something as true, when they have no rational evidence to support it.
As far as I can tell, biblical epistemology incorporates BOTH, and that's what makes this problematic for everyone. And add to that the complexity of human epistemic positions apart from theological considerations, and it gets really complicated.If they did, they'ld say "i accept it as true for such and such reason" instead of saying "i accept it on faith".
Sure. I'd actually agree. If a Christian tries to posit that 'faith' is purely rational belief based upon a logical analysis of Scripture, then they are adopting a more Modernist approach to belief that never really fit with the Biblical epistemological indices in the first place. But, that shouldn't be surprising....So that type of "faith" seems little more then gullibility. The defense of which, often (if not always) comes down to one or more of the reasoning errors already expressed in the OP and the subsequent post by JD16.
Yes, and I don't think the bible was written specifically to be the Fort. Knox of religious faith, no matter what Fundamentalist Christians might say. But, neither was it meant to be a purely Existential enterprise, either.You can't defend the undefensible with reasonable argumentation.
Huh? What do you even think faith is, and what argument do you have to claim that it is "confirmation bias"?
Faith is a kind of trust, it is believing something on the authority of another.
A recent thread highlights the ways in which all people, believers and unbelievers, exercise faith. Why do those of us who have no direct evidence of Australia believe in its existence? Because of faith.
Because we take mapmakers, so-called Australians, history books, and reputed pictures and videos at their word. We trust that other people are telling us the truth when they directly or indirectly inform us of Australia's existence.
Jupiter
, Evolution
, black holes
, or ancient China
Without faith there is no progress in science, no interdisciplinary study, no elementary education
Without faith our collective knowledge plummets to almost nothing.
The witnesses of Australia will tell you otherwise
Yes you can choose not to believe their testimony
Will it harm you for not believing their testimony?
No
Not if we're talking about Australia
This is true, however, the atheist too, has to use circular reasoning to support his ultimate standard. The atheist has determined in his mind that the Bible is not true to conclude that the Bible is not true. This is circular reasoning.
Do you have evidence that proves the Bible isn't true?
Yeah...........and sometimes, the religious are....wrong.
As you might have noticed, I think there are a lot of semantic nuances that have to be cleared up with the term 'evidence,' depending on the contexts from which one thinks she is working.
As far as I can tell, biblical epistemology incorporates BOTH, and that's what makes this problematic for everyone.
And add to that the complexity of human epistemic positions apart from theological considerations, and it gets really complicated.
Sure. I'd actually agree. If a Christian tries to posit that 'faith' is purely rational belief based upon a logical analysis of Scripture, then they are adopting a more Modernist approach to belief that never really fit with the Biblical epistemological indices in the first place. But, that shouldn't be surprising....
It's possible that Francis Collins might invoke it that way, I'd have to check. But, then there are Christians like Mary Healy, or Dru Johnson, among others, who take a little different tact...I don't think I've said that I was talking about just "some" religious people.
It's generally rather consistent among theists, how they use and express faith.
It varries in degrees and stuff sure...
For example a YEC will invoke "faith" a lot more often then a more reasonable theist like Francis Collins, for example.
But to the point that both invoke "faith", they invoke it in the exact same way.
How 'Loftus' of you to think that.Disagree. I think the prefix of "rational" in "rational evidence", is all the nuancing required in this context.
...that again depends on what faith ACTUALLY amounts to for each and every separate individual. People aren't cognitive clones.Anything supernatural from the bible is taken on faith. For the simple reason that there is no extra-biblical support for it in any way whatsoever.
And again, I'm not the kind of Christian who says that the bible has to be taken ipso facto with every jot and tittle. I'm going to go on a hunch and suppose that philosophy of most kinds (other than the use of logic) holds very little import for you, does it?Then there are also various non-supernatural claims in the bible that could have extra-biblical evidence, but not all of it does. Many actually are flat out contradicted.
Yeah...about the proving capacity of 'extra-biblical' evidence--how would such evidence work by the way?Accepting such claims without extra-biblical evidence, especially those claims that are even contradicted by extra-biblical evidence, are believed on faith as well.
Or, it could actually be psychologically complex and even complicated, and you just happen to see as an atheist that the 'win' over religion comes most easily by denying all of this and instead continuously affirming DIRECT REALISM, combined with Evidentialism and Foundationalism as your favored working modes of assessment. And Whaa-Laa! Instant 'faith' take-down! boom!It's actually only complicated because you insist on complicating it.
In reality, it is rather simple. Either a thing is supported by real-world empirical data or it isn't.
LOL! If you open your eyes, you'll probably learn to see it. Or you might not, depending on what you want to see.What "Biblical epistemological indices"?
The bible is a collection of claims. These claims are either supported by real-world data or they aren't.
This is a category error, creation "scientists" are not scientists as they do not come to their conclusions via the scientific method. They start out with a belief and try to use scientific means to support it. Science is also officially neutral on subjects that it can't address with objective evidence.
God is not evidenced via scientific means. It is not an issue of "worldview" it is a matter of methodology.
If you look at the Noah flood story and dismiss the physical evidence because you believe in a creator god that can do literally anything (a completely unfalcifiable assertion), then you aren't a scientist any longer as evidence can't touch your conclusions.
If the evidence does not guide your conclusions you are not a scientist, that is what science is, a methodological means of gathering and testing evidence.
It's not even a challenge. For sound arguments you need true premises which can only be done via evidence gathering.
It's not just a bias, they have decided what is true and then went out and tried to show it.
When you do this, it is called confirmation bias rather than science.
It's not a circle. You start out not knowing whether or not the bible is true and you look at the evidence to see whether the idea "the bible is true" is supported and you come up lacking.
As an aside I would never categorically reject the Bible as being "not true" but I merely say that one of it's main thesis "god exists" is unsupported.
That is not at all how I determined that the bible is not believable.
I looked at what the bible actually said and contrasted it to what I know about reality as well as other religions.
From that exercise, I concluded that much of the bible is demonstrably false and that the other stuff, the supernatural things in particular, are not believable.
I did not assume the answers before I asked the question.
See the "philosophical burden of proof" fallacy on page one of this thread.
JD16--Regarding the bible, Atheists have many reasons to determine that the bible is not true, mainly that is has to be believed on faith. I've yet to come across an Atheist that does what you mention, if so, then yes that would be circular reasoning.
Butch5--It has to be believed on faith? How so? The future promises are believed on faith, but why the Bible?
Do you have evidence that proves the Bible isn't true? If not then it seems the claim is based on your own determination that it's not true. That is circular reasoning.
JD16--Nope, not circular reasoning at all. As the late Christopher Hitchens said 'what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'. I don't need evidence that proves the bible isn't true, the proponents of the bible has yet to prove that its true....you are trying to shift the burden of proof here.
Butch5--Not at all. You said, 'atheists have many ways to determine the Bible isn't true.' I simply asked you for the evidence for your statement. If you have none then the determination is made in your mind thus your conclusion is just a restatement of your premise which is circular reasoning.
Evolution is not assumed, it is concluded.
First, nobody says that in "defense" of mainstream biology.
Second, if anybody did say that, it would be a fallacy of "argument from authority", not circular reasoning.
DNA testing, disagrees.
Comparative genomics tells us exactly where we come from (in terms of genetic lineage).
Even if I would assume your false premise that science can't tell... then the only logical, common sense conclusion is that we don't know.
Any other conclusion would be an argument from ignorance.
So.... faith isn't confirmation bias but rather.... an argument from authority?
I don't require faith to know Australia exists.
What a ridiculous statement...
No. It's because we understand how technology and the world works. It's because I understand that I can buy a plane ticket to the country at any time and actually fly there.
It's because I understand the concept of falsification and how it would require a "conspiracy" on the scale the world has never seen before among millions upon millions of people who are all in on it, and this for many centuries.
It's just not sensible.
In fact, it's the other way round.
The only thing that would require "faith" with respect to australia, would be the idea that it does NOT exist.
I can fly there at any time.
I can look through telescope
I can repeat any and all experiments and analyse the evidence myself.
I can repeat those detections as well.
I can visit the archeological sites.
Literally NONE of your examples requires me to "just believe" without the option of double checking for myself.
Demonstrably false.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?