I would guess that person to be an agnostic, on the verge of taking a leap of faith and becoming an atheist. No?
[/QUOTE]
No. Let me rephrase.
Imagine my grandfather says “Well, history and reason and logic are coming up empty on there being a God; I therefore lack belief in a God.”
As you helpfully put it,
[QUOTE=Gus Mayo]
If “history and reason and logic are coming up empty on me ever having won Oscars,” you can be reasonable in asserting that you’ve never won Oscars. No faith necessary.
[/QUOTE]
So if my grandfather says that history and reason and logic so come up empty on there being a God, at which point he adds that he thus lacks belief in a God, you should again note that no faith is necessary; you did it for the Oscars without postulating a leap of faith, and you can do likewise right here.
Y’know, I’ve been participating in this kind of debate for the past forty years…and you’ve just done something close to miraculous: you’ve given a debate point I’d never heard before! I’d simply never met that argument. Thank you! This is why I follow these debates: I can actually learn something from them!
There is enough information available, though, about the Oscars, to make a difinitive statement about grandpa’s lack of them, without postulating anything.
Such is not the case with the universe, of which our collective knowledge is currently limited, no?
Although granted, mine is more limited than many.
It’s a matter of perspective and default ontological position. If you consider that everything unkown or unknowable (god, in this case) requires a leap of faith to reach a conclusion of it’s existance (or non existance), you are a theist/deist. If you think that everything unknown or unknowable simply requires evidence (or falsification, as the case may be) you are an atheist.
The light she claimed to be seen was sort of like the sun shining on the snow, it was very white. according to her, it wasn’t a yellow light nor bright but too beautiful to look at. That is why she had to turn away. She realizes the mind can do a lot of things.
I cringe when people make statements like this because they are based on solipsistic and chauvenistic beliefs.
There are many other religions in the world now and through history that believe in other deities and other practices that do not include Jesus. How do you know that you’re right and they are wrong? Don’t they also have holy books and houses of worship and priests and prophets? Who are you to claim that yours is “the truth”?
But he’s not postulating anything else; he’s saying that history and reason and logic have come up empty for him on the existence of God, and that’s all. In the absence of any evidence for it, he (a) postulates nothing further, and so (b) passively defaults to lacking a belief in it.
If, at some point in the future, he adds in a wacky new postulation – or if his limited knowledge meets up with further information – then, yes, he might from that day forward start having a belief in God. But so long as that hasn’t yet happened, why do you think he needs to add in a leap of faith? Why do you think he needs to add in anything? If he’s currently lacking evidence of X, why can’t he stop right there while currently lacking a belief in X?
If you had used the word “proof” (which would include falsification) rather than the bolded “evidence” I may be able to follow you here.
Though upon further reflection, you said, “If you think that everything unknown or unknowable requires evidence, you are an atheist.”
If god/gods/creator/etc., is unknown or unknowable, wouldn’t that definition apply to theists/deists, too?
I think my biggest problem is the hijacking of the word “faith,” to be applicable only to belief in a defined unknown (pick your diety), rather than an undefined unknown (origin of the universe/matter/etc.)
Unless you categorize agnostics with theists/deists.
Also, the phrase “default ontological position” is an interesting one. I’ll have to think on that one. I’ve often wondered if there is a default ontological perspective, or if everyone’s ontological position is a choice… I guess I’d argue that regardless of ontological position, faith is required (if I’m being consistent).
Bolding mine - that is the position of the agnostic - which is a deist, generally, but there can also be ‘agnostic atheists’ - the difference being –
(Agnostic Deist) - > I believe in god(s) - but that there exact nature is unknown, unknowable
or
(Agnostic Athiest) -> I do not believe in god(s), but the exact nature of god(s) is unknown,unknowable should they exist.
the Wiki page says thusly -
[QUOTE=Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia]
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known
[/QUOTE]
So - the first is a faith based statement (I believe in X and there is no evidence for X - the second is not - ‘not believing’ is not a faith based statement.
When talking about gods/religion - faith is always this way (belief without evidence) - what you are conflating is other definitions for faith (trust, etc) and you are saying that
faith == belief
and that is simply not accurate.
Faith - or evidence - informs belief. Lack of evidence also informs belief but faith != belief.
To put it another way - and tis possible you missed my post at the end of the previous page -
It takes no faith to say “I do not know the origin of the universe, but I believe it has one”
It takes alot of faith to say “I know that <insert diety here> created the universe”
In my opinion, the greater the degree of specificity, the more absurd faith becomes. Someone who says, “There must be a purpose to the universe” is less absurd than someone who says “God is omnipotent, omniscient, triune in nature, of which the mortal person was born of a virgin…”
Each degree of detail reduces the strength of the more honest declaration “I don’t know.” Faith, by saying, “I do know” unintentionally invites the rest of us to ask “How do you know?”
(And that person is less absurd – and odious – than the guy who concludes, “And God demands you tithe of all your wealth to the Holy Church which I happen to run.”)
Here is a real example. I had this hypothesis once about how to model defects in integrated circuits. I had enough provisional belief in it to do an experiment, trying to falsify my idea by comparing it to a random approach. I succeeded - in falsifying my idea. (It was a cheap experiment and I was smart enough to not have broadcast my idea. It is often a good thing to fail small.) I no longer believed in my idea, but certainly did not have a crisis of faith. I think losing faith is traumatic to many people. Some people reject science to continue to believe in an inerrant Bible. And I doubt they’d agree that their faith was blind, even if you and I think so.
Thanks, but which one? Proof by contradiction, or bi-omni god. We’ve had big threads on the latter. The standard response seems to be that God would never choose to change his mind, so there is no paradox.
Proof by contradiction is one I’ve known a long time – I’ve used it myself – but the specific bi-omni detail was new to me. I must have missed the previous threads.
And…yeah…I guess that’s a way to bypass the argument. “It would never come up in practice.” Hm… I do still think the argument impugns the abstract ability of the omni-deity to act. Hell, I can say, “Yes, I can fly…I just choose not to.” How’s anybody supposed to disprove that? I think I’ll go and claim the James Randi prize on that basis…
(A variant might be, “Yes, he can…but it would destroy the cosmos in a gigantic causality paradox.”)
First, let me preface this post by saying I’m on the road today so I’m using my phone to reply, so that’s the main reason for my (semi) brevity. This is hard!
I see what you mean, and I appreciate your example. The only thing I’ll add is that, though the people in your last sentence would disagree with you or I about their faith being blind, it certainly fits my definition of blind faith.
Thanks for your input! I’m tying to frame this discussion around a more-simplified “there is or is not an intelligent creator” statement because specificity will distract the discussion, though your point is well taken.
I’d address each of your points individually, but bolding and seperating quotes is just about impossible on the phone! I’ll just say I absolutely agree with everything you posted here. … Almost!
I would only argue that I am not arguing that faith=beliefs, but that faith informs belief, as you stated. I’d add that faith applied WITHOUT history (all-encompassing individual experience, knowledge, previously known truth, and evidence), reason, and logic… That is what I’d call blind faith. And faith applied WITH the above mentioned, is applicable to anyone with a belief in anything that hasn’t been scientifically established or proven. That includes “There is no god.”
I think that atheists make the same argument you present in the above quote. I think that saying “there is no god” is short hand for - based on all-encompassing individual experience, knowledge, previously known truth, evidence, reason, and logic… there is no god. Evidence (lack there of) being the most important one.
It is the same reason we do no believe in the existence of unicorns - lack of evidence. However, if this position is ever falsified and a unicorn is found in nature, most rational people would change their minds.
If you would just accept the simple fact that ‘faith’ is not required to state ‘non-belief’ - faith is only required when you believe something without evidence - not believing in something that has no evidence is the exact opposite of faith.
"lack of evidence’ in this case informs the belief - not ‘faith in the lack of evidence’.
I lack a belief that the next President of these United States will be less than five feet tall; I of course grant that the opposite could someday be scientifically established or proven – but, were you to offer me a ten-dollar wager at even odds, I’d reply, “Well, upon applying reason to evidence, I lack the belief that this trend will be bucked by someone who falls short of every predecessor. I could add in faith, to reach the same conclusion; I could use faith to disregard the evidence, and thereby believe in the opposite conclusion; but, without yet having factored in faith, I’m coming up empty on said belief and will bet accordingly.”
(Okay, I wouldn’t actually say that; I’d think it, and say “How about we make it a hundred? A thousand? A hundred thousand?”)
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld Hebrews 11:1
Scientists take data and indications to determine things they often can not see. But by taking into account the facts, laws and patterns they *can *observe they reach conclusions.
For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable Romans 1:20
Faith should not be blind:
Proverbs 14:15 The naive person believes every word,
But the shrewd one ponders each step.
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.
(King James Version)
Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the most important thing, so acquire wisdom,
And with all you acquire, acquire understanding
Not all people have faith:
…and that we may be delivered from harmful and wicked men, for faith is not a possession of all people 2 Thessalonians 3:2
…On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22,23
It can be given and it can increase:
Now the apostles said to the Lord:* “Give us more faith Luke 17:5