Mountain Man

Then we do not agree. I have no "absolute" proof of anything.... nor do I require it... and my Atheism is not based on "absolute" proof since such proof is unobtainable.Huh. I'll assume that's some kind of satire.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Yes. It was satire.

PoodleLovinPessimist

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it was difficult and unnecessary to defend. Certainty is irrelevant to atheism.

This thread is not about certainty. If you want to talk about certainty, ask a mod to split out the derailment into a new thread.

Oxymoron

The sense in which an atheist might use the term 'faith' is really quite different from that used by a theist. In fact a polar opposite.

I use 'faith' inductively to mean that (if you'll pardon the liberty with tense) if the future was like the past in the past then it will be so in the future. Hume's "Uniformity of Nature" IOW. Something for which we have a vast amount of evidence.

On the other hand, a theist almost always has faith in something that defies the Uniformity of Nature - the rising of a martyr from the dead, for example, when we know from billions of dead people that they don't do that sort of thing.

When challenged with this, they will point to Hume's problem that the Uniformity of Nature is an assumption that is not 100% valid epistemologically because it might not be true tomorrow. Then again, god might be equally fickle, so that's no refuge. And in the end, no epistomology is 100% valid since the Brain-in-a-Jar hypothesis is utterly unrefutable, theist or otherwise.

RPS

I think faith is best defined as something like confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Thus the justification for a Christian's belief in the Christian God is predicated upon that God's level of trustworthiness. Since the use of "faith" is so tied-up with religious belief, I would prefer not to use it in relation to atheism, even though as an idea it qualifies per the definition.

I applaud you for this view. When I was college in the 1970's, atheism was seen as a movement with a worldview. I suspect that the failures of communism (and perhaps Freud too) have been key to what I perceive to be atheists' seeming unwillingness to step-up and defend a movement and a worldview. The minimalist view of atheism which seems to be preferred today strikes me as boring and essentially irrelevant (though I'm hardly an unbiased observer).

Does a belief in mathematics deny empirical epistemology?

I don't share that view but I don't think it's necessary to debate it.

I strongly disagree with your first contention, but I don't think we need to argue about it in this discussion (though we can discuss it if you wish). I think we all hold lots of beliefs not based upon evidence and I don't think that's a bad thing. Not only do we need some foundational assumptions, but I also think that we are far less rational than we often assume. You might check out this book for example.

The second contention has at least two parts. The first is the obvious -- evidence for God -- and very interesting. The second relates to personal revelation. While I grant your point about personal revelation in individual cases, I can imagine a cumulative impact such that delusion is far less likely. However, since I don't claim personal revelation we'll likely focus on the evidence for God (if that's your wish).

PoodleLovinPessimist

I'm monumentally uninterested in discussing the "correct" definitions of either faith or atheism. It's about the fourth stupidest discussion I can imagine participating in.

Belief that mathematics is true in and of itself does in fact deny empiricism. Belief that some particular mathematics is a simple description of some phenomena can be established by virtue of observation, and is thus empirical. The idea that "2+2=4" is true (and not just valid) regardless of our experience is non-empirical. The idea that if you put two cookies in a jar and then put two more cookies in a jar you will count four cookies in the jar is empirical.

This is a side issue, though, because even if we do admit to some epistemological value to pure thought you still can't get to a god.

It's at the root of the difference. Remove this issue and we have nothing to talk about except who gets to define whom.

Again, this is the root of the discussion because...

... I don't hold any cognitive beliefs not based on evidence, and I do think that's a bad thing. A very bad thing.

Really, please stop telling me what I do and do not believe, and on what basis. If you want to prove it, that's one thing. But a bare assertion as to my belief or its basis is at best patronizing and presumptuous and at worst insulting.

Speak for yourself. You might be irrational. I'm not.

I'll add it at the back of the list. The list is about 1,000 books long. It might be a while before I get to it.

If we're going to focus on evidence for God, we probably ought to ensure that either we both mean the same thing, or that we full explain the difference between our meanings. Hence the point you so blythely dismiss about the defintion of evidence becomes critical.

Jobar

PLP, I find it useful to distinguish between two definitions of faith. One, 'strongly held and previously tested belief', is the sense in which atheists can have faith; strongly held, yes, but admittedly falsifiable. But the religious sense is 'absolutely held belief', as in 'evidence of things not seen and substance of what is hoped for'. We've all seen that there are religious believers who can be presented with reams of evidence tending to disprove their ideas of god(s), who yet continue to hold their belief.

We atheists say, almost universally, that given the extraordinary evidence which would prove the existence of so extraordinary a being as a god, we would then believe. We freely admit that our (dis)belief is falsifiable. Thus, we have no faith in the religious sense; we make no claim that our (dis)beliefs are absolute, and held in the face of any and all evidence, or none. This distinction between atheist and theist belief is why I often use the terms 'believer' and 'unbeliever'.

RPS

It's your thread.

As it was not my intention to be perceived that way, please accept my apologies. But I don't think any of us can avoid accepting lots of things without evidence and acting on them. Indeed, most of the truly wonderful things in life fall into this category -- art, literature, your reasons for dressing the way you do, liking the foods you like, making love the way you do, and deciding the great questions of life (e.g., Beatles or Stones). Each of these choices may well have a reasonable explanation when viewed from the outside looking in, but your conscious motivations aren't based upon either rationality or evidence. When it comes to life's [cue fanfare] *Big Questions* and *Meaning* the four F evolutionary answers just don't cut it -- our lives are about a lot more than that. We need to make it up as we go along and don't have much in the way of evidence to guide us.

Too bad. It's thrust is a defense of the computational impossibility of even being largely rational as evolved creatures in the real world.

I dismiss it not as unimportant, but rather because I don't rely upon personal revelation. Though perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

Hoodoo Ulove

If your belief that God does not exist is indeed "falsifiably justified by the evidence" then the "alternative of pure delusion" is not merely "the simpler explanation" but also justified by the evidence.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Your apologies are accepted. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but please (as you do in a moment) argue the point, don't just assert it.

None of these beliefs are cognitive (i.e. true/false) beliefs. I don't believe it's "true" that Van Gogh is a great painter in the same sense that I believe the law of gravity to be true: True for everyone, regardless of taste.

If you want to put religious belief in the same category as literary or artistic appreciation, you'll get wholehearted assent from me. If you like your religion, then you like it, and I'm happy for you. It's just not true.

I don't think that your big questions are so big. My big question is: What is the universe like? What is true? As far as what theists seem consider the "big questions" (Who am I? Why am I here?), I think they're rather trivial. I am what I am*, and I just don't care why I'm here. There's no evidence to guide us, and all we can do is make it up ourselves.

I can think of a dozen reasons off the top of my head why such an analysis might be fatally flawed. Perfect rationality is infeasible, but we can still do the best we can with what we have; the opposite of perfect rationality is imperfect rationality, not irrationality.

If you don't rely on personal revelation, if you're relying on shared, verifiable evidence, then at least we're in agreement on this point (w00t!). We still have the logical connection between hypotheticals and the evidence to consider, where falsifiability comes into play.


*If it's good enough for Yahweh & Popeye, it's good enough for me.