OK, I can get on board with all of this, especially when you say that to say “There is no god” requires no faith.
If you stop there, perhaps this person could be described as an “agnostic atheist?”
That could be stated another way: “God/a god/an intelligent creator did not create the universe.” Correct?
So, faith (here’s my view) re-enters the equation when the atheist begins to posit ideas of how the universe was created, because that matter, regardless of how widely accepted certain theories are, has not been settled.
Voyager, I added some thoughts/questions in bold in the above quoted…
I’m getting there, simster
But, if “X” is god, doesn’t the statement “X does not exist” create a vacuum of new questions… Questions that have answers that require faith?
I guess the question almost requires god as an example, and not Oscars, X-Men, or five-foot presidents, because the non-existence of those things doesn’t create a vacuum of questions that still require answers.
So, you’d almost have to say. God does not exist, so the universe came from “X.”
And X, at this point in time, requires faith, no matter how scientifically sound (that’s my argument, anyway)…
Only when ‘special pleading’ is involved - meaning that sure, unicorns don’t exist, but since ‘something’ created the unvierse, god must - even though the evidence for both is exactly the same.
After that, it depends on the answer to said question(s) - and what you have to back it up.
“I don’t know” is always a perfectly acceptable answer.
“We may never know” is also a perfectly acceptable answer.
If you say “God did not create the universe” - thats more ‘faith based’ yes - because you are positing a specific entity and a specific act however, the atheist does not say that - the atheist generally says "I don’t know what created the universe " - which again, requires no ‘faith’ - it is ‘enough’ that the universe ‘exists’ (and there is evidence for that).
(I should qualify here of course, that an atheist may say that - but its generally more so that 'since I don’t believe god exists, I have no reason to believe that ‘god created the universe’ either).
Further, what science attempts to do is determine ‘what happened AFTER it was created’ - and posits things like the ‘big bang’ as a description of what is observed to be happening ‘because’ of that creation. Similarly, Evolution is not about the ‘origin’ or ‘creation’ - but the process of what happened afterwards - and this makes perfect sense - since we have no way of observing things ‘before’ that event.
Quantum mechanics does start to explain how ‘something can come from nothing’ (quantum foam, etc) but that again is not establishing ‘what created it’ only ‘that it was created, and here is one way it might have happened’ - and they do it thru repeatable, observable phenomena - the ‘scientific method’ and ‘peer review’ take care of the rest.
The deist, on the other hand says “god did it” and that generally ‘ends’ the quest.
right - but thats the whole point of the passage - none of them actually saw the risen christ, and they are being persecuted for being in this new thing - and they are being reminded what faith is - that its 'assurance in the things hoped for" - they will have a new life with christ - due to the “confidence in the things not seen” - none of them saw the raised christ, they all got the info second hand.
Its basically saying that “yeah, I know you have no reason to believe this, thats why we call it faith”.
It literally has nothing to do with unanswered prayers - at the time of the writing of hebrews, the ‘gospels’ didn’t quite exist, so the readers may or may not have heard Jesus’ words on “whatever you ask for, you’ll get” or “mustard seed faith can move mountains, literally”.
Not settled, but there actually is evidence for cosmological theories of the universe’s origin. We actually have something we’re looking at. The stars are out there, they do seem to change color depending on their velocity, etc. This is evidence.
The interpretation of the evidence is, of course, open to debate. But this is why proper scientists don’t “believe” in such things; they carefully say, “The current evidence suggests…” Science does not invoke faith. At any point where it would have to do so, it retreats, instead, to the honest confession: “We don’t know.”
What kind of questions? In working practice, again, science never offers answers that require faith. It is honest enough to say “I don’t know” instead.
As long as you’re willing to take “I don’t know” as an answer, then nothing is unanswerable! The questions you allude to do not “require” answers. Nobody is pointing a gun at anyone and demanding that they “Say yes or no.”
And I would disagree. Observations of astronomical objects is an examination of real evidence. There isn’t any “faith” involved. Again, science, as an institution, is scrupulous. Ideas are always based on evidence, and hypotheses are always labelled as such.
Yes, textbooks make definite statements – “The universe is 14 billion years old” – and generally don’t include the whole twenty pages of legalese boilerplate – “According to the best evidence yet accumulated by observations including instrument observations, and as interpreted in the following manner…” But the understanding of the interpretation is vital to a sound science education. You have to go beyond the idea that a “Theory is just a guess.” No: a theory is an explanation, and we tend to favor the best current workable explanation.
It ain’t faith. It’s an approach to knowledge, relying heavily upon testing the ideas, and throwing away the ones that don’t work. Meanwhile, we’re always making more observations. Tomorrow, we might have a better age for the universe.
Meanwhile, show me observations of God. I’m an atheist, because no one has ever managed to do this.
I prefer the above bolded (and I agree with that statement), because the phrase “I don’t know what created the universe” (not faith based, I agree) seems to require an extra qualification if one were to be classified an atheist, and not an agnostic, i.e.: “I don’t know what created the universe, but I know/believe it wasn’t god/gods/intelligent designer” which as you said, requires at least a degree of faith.
If I may, can we remove individuals and their beliefs from the discussion for a moment, and see if we can agree with these statements:
Science never requires faith. Theism always requires faith.
Sort of along that line of thinking, this is a question out of pure curiosity, but do most scientists identify with any ontological position?
It would almost seem, based on what several people have said on this thread, that when a scientist is asked, “Are you an atheist or a theist?” the proper response would be, “No, I am a scientist.”
If that question sounds a little snarky, I ask in all sincerity.
Also am I correct in understanding that:
Agnostic Atheist=“God did not do it.”(end quest)
Agnostic Deist=“God did it” (end quest)
???
Going along the lines from earlier in this post, does it change the meaning if the above bolded is changed to “those who practice proper science”?
Also, that last statement, I can agree, demonstrates history, reason, logic, and does not necessitate faith…
See! I’m trying here !!!
an atheist simply does not believe in god/gods -therefore it follows that ‘god could not have created the universe’ - no faith is required there - its a natural progression of the ‘atheist’ statement.
So, an athiest saying "I don’t know what created the universe, but ‘god’ didnt do it’ is not a faith based statement, since it follows the basic atheist belief that there are ‘no gods’.
The simple statement of “god did not create the universe” without any other qualifiers about the person, etc - would be a bit more ‘faith based’ (we do not know what they are positing did create the universe. but alone it implies a ‘belief’ in god (I do not know of anyone that would actually say that, however).
(I hope that makes sense).
Now to the second bolded part -
You are confusing what an ‘agnostic’ is -
An agnostic simply says that ‘God is unknown or unknowable’
from earlier in the thread -
[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 - for the ‘agnostic atheist’ - nothing changes - god didn’t do it (god doesn’t exist or is outside of our ability to know) -
For the ‘agnostic theist’ - nothing changes - god did it (god exists but is outside our ability to know).
WHen I say “god did it” is the end of the quest - its that I like questions more than I like answers - and if the answer is always “god did it” - well, there isn’t alot to be gained from that as a method of discovery - it seems to ‘close’ the book instead of opening it.
As stated earlier - an honest “I don’t know” is better than “making up something”.
I can’t answer the question on scientists, etc - like all things, there would be a variety of positions - the scientific method is what will allow them to separate their ‘faith’ from ‘fact’ (or have it done for them) - but I do agree in principal with
I don’t see any need for the change. A proper scientist is one who practices proper science. What difference do you perceive?
However, I will expand it to “people who talk properly about science,” which I hope is everyone participating in the thread. I’m not a scientist at all, only someone with some education in the field. I think I know what I’m talking about…but am willing to be shown wrong.
Definitely! I get “good vibes” from you. We may end up disagreeing, but I hope there is no sense of antagonism. One of our most precious freedoms in a free country is the freedom to be wrong. I would hate to live in a country where religion was mandatory…or in a country where it was forbidden. Atheism, like faith, must always remain an option, freely chosen, openly available.
In my opinion, religious faith should be a little like personal preference in cuisine and other art forms. If I say, “I really like beef stroganoff,” no one should come along and say, “You’re completely wrong in that!” How can a preference be wrong? Thus, if someone says, “I believe in God,” what kind of fool would say “No, that’s wrong.”
The religious man who says, “If you pray, God will cure your cancer” is going too far. But when he says “If you pray, God will lighten your spiritual burden,” I can’t think of any reason to object.
It is easier to respond if you quote individually. Don’t worry, you’ll catch on, and you’re doing great with the important stuff.
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I think that someone who had some crazy idea of the creation of the universe not involving any god or gods and who persisted this idea in the face of evidence could be considered as having faith also. We mostly talk about religious faith because other types are scarce - but they certainly can happen.
To address the intelligent creator problem. We can’t know this. Having taken a Theory of Knowledge course in college I’m more sensitive to this word than most. But we can assign qualitative (not quantitative) probabilities to some of the options.
No, clearly only one of these would be true - though if you use the various proofs of God to prove lots of gods at once would make things interesting. But I was discussing the bi-omni god and the like. People who came up with God ideas before Aristotle are not going to notice logical impossibilities - and some after.
One would hope. But many otherwise intelligent people explain it away. Or force it from their minds.
Right in one. And I started as a weak atheist, just lacking belief, but eventually realized that this was a chicken-shit position, and I pretty much believed that no gods exist - at least no human recognized gods, and probably none at all. I have no need for that hypothesis, since the universe seems quite godless.
Quantum mechanics has been demonstrated to incredible levels of accuracy. We know it works because the computer you are typing on would not work if we did not understand quantum mechanics 28 nanometer semiconductor processes would not work. Don’t expect me to explain them - when I was in college they etched ICs with chisels.
If you read a book by Brian Greene on string theory, you’ll see that he falls all over himself in explaining how provisional the ideas are, why they think what they do, the problems with them, and their frustration on not being able to conduct experiments. It is the very opposite of faith.
Any good graduate department or research center works by people challenging other people. Quite the opposite from the days of burning people at the stake for heresy.
If churches were run like research labs instead of sermons, where a person in authority thunders about sin or how to do good (though my rabbi never was obnoxious like this, to be fair) there would be a couple of people up there arguing about the very fundamentals of the faith, and do it in the open not locked away in theological seminaries. Kind of like here. Instead many religious people get upset by challenges. Mention the Invisible Pink Unicorn and their veins pop and they go all Hulk on us.
We can fight like this in science because the evidence decides the question eventually, and we all converge on an answer. If Physics were like religion there would be a church of Newton and a church of Einstein and probably a church of Aristotle, and all would believe by faith and none would agree.
You’re missing one important step. A scientist working on something doesn’t just say this, but says “if my hypothesis is correct, here is what we expect to see when we do an experiment we haven’t done yet.” Penzias and Wilson were important not because they did anything very exciting but because they stumbled upon the evidence that the Big Bang theory predicted.
Religion doesn’t think in terms of predictions and in terms of falsification, and when they do predict, through prophecy, and it fails big time, they always have an excuse - as we’ve seen a lot around here recently.
Any fool can explain - it takes guts to predict. And more guts to admit you are wrong.
"So, what created the universe?
“I don’t know what created the universe.”
“Do you believe it was sixteen gods?”
“Uh, no.”
“Well, do you believe it was one god?”
“Nope.”
“So do you believe it was Tarzan and Jane?”
“No.”
You say that first answer isn’t faith-based; I’d figure the second and third and fourth can be particular ways of expressing the same general idea.
Pau was a human being, and it was his belief, One can believe him or not, since he had no proof that God did or said anything. no different than any human on this board. If what Paul wrote is no different than what Muhammad claimed.
You are quoting words from another human, and cannot prove the Bible is the word of God anymore than The Koran is the word of God. Human’s decided what was of god and what was not.
OK, what about the statement, “I don’t know what created the universe, but it didn’t happen by chance.” Faith-based, or no?
I think so… Perhaps my above statement fits better here.
Gotcha, thanks.
I ask, because I’d almost like to argue that science does not require faith, but scientists do. Unfortunately, this is an assumption because one can only know what a given scientist researches, not what one believes (unless, of course, they’re outwardly working on a particular stated hypothesis). And I would agree that a hypothesis does not require faith.
I amended the statement based on an example swimming in my head of a pair of scientists, working on, say, string theory – one a theist, one an atheist – to come around to the statement that while a field (science) is not faith-based, scientists are.
But just ignore that, because my head is spinning with this whole discussion, and I’m just tripping over myself right now. My next step will be to reread the last three pages a couple more times to try and clear some things up in my head and… get coherent. Maybe I agree with what you, voyager, simster, Waldo Pepper, etc. are saying and I’m just being stubborn… Wouldn’t put it past myself.
Agreed! And thanks. I chose to participate in this forum because of the huge variety of world views and the (mostly, from what I’ve seen) civil discussions, and this thread has validated that.
Your view here would certainly go a long way in stopping “holy wars.”
I think you’d agree with my view that one can be “wrong,” and that doesn’t necessarily make them stupid. That’s why the distinction between “faith” and “blind faith” is so important in my view.
I don’t really have anything to add, but I did want to acknowledge that the work you put into this post was all well-taken, and thanks!
Thanks also for using “invisible pink unicorn” instead of the “flying spaghetti monster” that so often comes up in debates like this. He’s so played out…
The first statement is provable, the last three can only be shown as unworthy to be dis proven, so they are different…
But as I said, I need to think on this thread a little bit, just so my head doesn’t explode! I’ve gotta regroup
I believe that debate is constructive (and fun) and arguing is destructive, and I can’t even tell which I’m doing at this point…
When I was in high school, we couldn’t afford a computer. (Ended up with a “programmable calculator.” We actually used black and white marbles to simulate binary ones and zeroes!
The hypothesis has some explanatory value… It explains rain forests, elephants, the nutritive value of antelope meat; it explains rivers and waterfalls. Oh, wait, it doesn’t explain the Tookie Tookie Bird. I may have an alternative to put forward…
It had a great big “God” logo embroidered on the front of its smock.
Some day, I will go moose hunting, and carry with me a pair of largish pajamas. You’ve heard of “dressing the carcass?”
Tricky. Personally, I’d call it faith-based, because there isn’t any solid evidence of this. On the other hand, you could say “It happened because of the laws of physics” and then say that those aren’t “chancy.” It isn’t exactly something we have any way of testing.
We have actual concrete evidence of highly ordered systems arising purely out of randomized systems. A pail of water is not ordered, but when you put it on a fire and let it boil, you get highly ordered convection columns. Order arises out of chaos “by chance” if you shove enough energy at it.
The very phrase “by chance” is hard to define. A guy goes to Las Vegas and plays roulette…once. Only once. He puts seventeen dollars on number seventeen – at exactly 2:17 in the morning. He wins. Could that happen “by chance?” I don’t think anyone here sees the necessity of an “intelligent agent” causing it to happen. Why is the universe different?
There is an intermediate stage: many scientists operate on “temporary assumptions.” They can hold that a particular idea may be overthrown tomorrow, but, for the time being, they work with it as if it is true. They’re in a “subjunctive” mode, and there is always a footnote somewhere, to remind the very detail-minded of that fact. This is particularly useful when making a proof by contradiction. For instance, assume that the Rings of Saturn are solid objects – disks with holes in the middle. This leads to contradictions – they’d have to be millions of times stronger than steel. This was the first “proof” that the Rings were made up of particles.
I hold the two to be pretty much the same… For instance, the Christian might say, “But I have evidence: the Bible, and the experiences of others who have seen miracles.” But the non-Christian examines these and finds them weak and wanting as far as evidence goes. One has questionable provenance, and the other is not repeatable. So, to the doubter, the evidence proposed is not sufficient (Josh McDowell notwithstanding) and the faith seems equivalent to blind faith.
One attempts to engage in the spirit of ecumenism. (Me, I’m a “Teapotist.”
Trinopus answered the scientist question better than I could - the only thing I would add there is that we have to be careful about what version of ‘faith’ we are reffering to - as in trust or confidence - vs the ‘religious’ type.
so - lets talk about this statement -
** “I don’t know what created the universe, but it didn’t happen by chance.”**
to me - fully faith based -
a) your positing a ‘creator’ with the word created
b) you’re saying it didn’t happen by chance - which implies ‘direction’ by an outside force
So, in the statement you’ve got a ‘creation by direction’ inference - for which there is no evidence.
To be honest - I should have thrown a flag on the earlier "I don’t know what created the universe’ statement for the same reason - use of the word ‘created’ infers that something did the ‘creating’ - but its hard to describe the event at the beginning of the universe any other way - we get into these battles constantly - “we don’t know what caused the universe to happen” is likely a more accurate way of stating it.
Faith vs Blind Faith - both are believing without evidence - for me the difference is in the attitude of the believer - how much checking/thought they have put into that ‘faith’ - for example - I don’t consider a ‘pastors’ faith to be blind - they’ve studied, put thought into it, etc to come up with their faith - compare this to someone that truly believes the 911 conspiracy sites- or someone that says “I’ll vote for politician Y simply because they are in my party” - or “I believe everything that reverend Joe says” - thats the kind of ‘blind faith’ that is dangerous. The person with ‘blind faith’ never changes their position when evidence is shown to the contrary.
That was great reading thanks! Of course I’d make similar arguments about the word “dogma” as I would about faith… But that’s for a “the concept of dogma” thread
Thanks for this - I had heard of the former, but never read on it directly, and the second - I remember watching on late nite tv - thats always good for a laugh.
That’s a perceptive comment, but I’d change it to “some scientists are.” The cold fusion debacle is an example where some scientists got themselves in so deep that they couldn’t admit they were wrong. I think many believers like the world where the supreme being cares about them - these guys like the fame and the prospect of riches and a Nobel Prize.
Science accepts, not rejects, the idea that some scientists will have faith. They deal with this by supporting those without faith in challenging faith-based hypotheses, in having clear metrics about how to judge whether a hypothesis is supported or not, and by gatekeepers to the journals.
A bigger challenge is when something gets so engrained that it is practically dogma. Then challenging it gets hard, but with enough evidence (like in continental drift) the dogma eventually gets overthrown.
