Why do atheists have so much faith?

[harvey1]

It's shocking to me to see so many atheists have as much faith as they do. They are so close to the agnostic in terms of what they believe, however the agnostic has the least amount of faith while the typical atheist shows more faith than most theists. What can account for this huge difference between an agnostic and atheist?

My own thought is that an atheist is so committed to their worldview that they cannot step outside of that worldview, hence many atheists have great faith because of their inability to see that they can be wrong. Many agnostics, on the other hand, are so uncommitted to a worldview that they have lost touch with what faith is. Another possibility is that atheists mostly come from religious fundamentalist religions, and they are more likely to carryover their fundamentalist beliefs to their new religion. Whereas agnostics are composed of mainly the secular populace who don't have a history of strong belief in fundamental beliefs. Any ideas?

[bernee51]

Sorry Bernee but I don't really understand your 'mirror' analogy.

The reason man has invented god is because of what Huxley describes in "Perennial Philosophy" - man has a sense of the 'divine'. The 'divine' however is within man himself - in my view the 'pure consciousness' which we all have. The Self. Of course man looks around at the phenomenal world and sees it, including himself and his fellow man, as less than perfect. The 'divine', of course, is perfect and in order to make sense of all this he invented god.

Thus the mirror.

Looking in the 'mirror' is the only place to look for 'god'. The 'mirror' is self enquiry.

One person said that an athiest has no belief. Isn't the non-existence of God a belief itself?

An atheist has no belief in god(s). Is that a belief?

[QED]

The problem with faith, though, is that it can blind you if your arguments are not insurmountable. So, for example, a realist in the 19th century might have really believed that Newton's laws were the final say of the way the world was, however that kind of faith would have blinded them from seeing Newton's laws as mere approximations. In fact, this is what happened. Einstein modeled SR around Mach, and Mach rejected SR. Planck rejected light quanta. Einstein supported local realism to the day he died. On and on the list goes of people who made great contributions in science, and yet they rejected the grand daddy theory that perhaps was the most significant theory as they aged. Why? Because they had faith that their schemes were so "obvious" that they could not see a better theory when it came to their attention.

I think you chose poor examples there. Each had good reasons for their own particular faith (confidence) which held for their own frame of reference. All knowledge is an approximation of the truth but can always be refined whenever new data arrives. I agree that this takes an open mind which is only practical, due to human fallibility, within the collective. That's why it is vital for us not to all toe one particular line.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of faith when it goes hand and hand with reason, however how can you support a belief when it contradicts strong reasons not to support that belief? I could understand if it provides you some emotional comfort, but atheism is like a stinky fish, it cannot provide anyone with any kind of satisfaction.

You've said this before so I'll say it again: This ought to be a big hint for you. It points to atheism being ruthlessly objective. All too often you appeal to consequences that suggest a lack of objectivity in your approach.

God would have omniscience and all-knowledge, why would the size of the universe hinder God?

Well, it all depends on how seriously you want me to take your hypothesis. The problem I see with an infinite God is that everything becomes infinitely small and inconsequential to him.

Well, notice that I said my question is about the faith of atheists and not anti-Christians. For the purposes of this thread, let's assume that it is the pantheist God that exists, and for this purposes God doesn't care one way or another about good and evil. Why does the atheist have faith that evil rules out this kind of God? It seems like that faith is a distraction here.

I'm not sure who's distracting who here. To introduce pantheism is sleight of hand in my opinion. It allows you to substitute a personal God with an impersonal one that could simply be a label for "the universe" and then challenge me not to believe in "the universe".

It's pretty dumb [the universe] but it still manages to pull off the feat of bring forth a universe that has constant values which are beyond mystifying.

Inflation demystifies this to a degree that will be discussed presently.

Why have faith that you have the one solution to this? Why not open your mind to the possibility that there is some kind of intelligence behind the universe that makes the appropriate decision in the selection of the physical constants? It seems you have faith there exists this very complex world which programmers cannot even imagine to program, and yet you say this faith requires that it be uncaused. Doesn't this strike you as blind faith on your part?

I do not think it is being blind to insist on Intelligence as being the product of something else. Naked intelligence makes no sense in any realm. And as for our inability to tie our own shoelaces in a mirror, what fallacy of argument is this? Argument from "our smartest Gerbils haven't been able to come up with long division"?

But, why have faith in the sociology of humans in determining the fundamental nature of the universe? I don't get that. If human sociology showed a belief in evolution from early on, would you then conclude that human sociology had tremendous insights? Can't we just consider human sociology to be irrelevant when it comes to the fundamental constructs of the world?

Knowing our weaknesses, let's just say that it would be wise to pay extra-special attention to anything that hints at wishful thinking.

But, don't you think it strange that your faith leads to you speculating on a world much more complex than the one that we see a trillionth of a second following the big bang?

More complex? Why so?

I understand what you are saying, but I asked simple questions about material causation and all of your answers came back unable to account for something as simple as to how matter can cause the future state of matter. Doesn't that strike you as a good reason to give up your faith? Why not question your faith at this point? I don't understand why you would hold to a faith that is obviously in contradiction to sound reasoning.

Ten pages and not one person even accepts your premises. If you keep blowing more and more hot air into this it will pop all on its own, but I will wade in when I get a chance (I'm supposed to be on holiday and here I am putting in hours and hours in front of a PC)

Have you thought that maybe your faith stems from your human need to understand the universe? Why not just give up on your faith and just accept that your current faith is not based on simplicity?

There's nothing simple about reconciling the world I know with a God upon high. When 1000 Iraqis die in a stampede on their way to a religious ceremony (yesterday) the nature of this Lord of the cosmos becomes just too complex for any degree of comfort.

[Diana Holberg]

Atheism is not a religion.We dont say "God doesnt exist". We only say "We dont believe in god".

That's splitting hairs... because to knowingly not believe in a God who does exist would be irrational. I don't think you're claiming to be irrational?

[Diana Holberg]

Looking in the 'mirror' is the only place to look for 'god'. The 'mirror' is self enquiry.

Looking in the mirror may find for you the 'god' who is Self. That is not likely the God who is debated by most people on a board entitled "Debating Christianity & Religion".

[bernee51]

Looking in the 'mirror' is the only place to look for 'god'. The 'mirror' is self enquiry.

Looking in the mirror may find for you the 'god' who is Self. That is not likely the God who is debated by most people on a board entitled "Debating Christianity & Religion".

I would have thought that any concept of 'god' would be open for discussion.

I only use the term 'god' in relation to the Self because I believe it is this inate awareness of our Self that many call god - for the reasons I have set our elswhere.

[Diana Holberg]

I would have thought that any concept of 'god' would be open for discussion.

I only use the term 'god' in relation to the Self because I believe it is this inate awareness of our Self that many call god - for the reasons I have set our elswhere.

Since God is not the subject of this thread, I'll be brief. I can assure you that the Christian God is a Person unto Himself -- one with Whom we strive to be united, but Who is certainly not limited to what is inate in us.

[harvey1]

I think you chose poor examples there. Each had good reasons for their own particular faith (confidence) which held for their own frame of reference.

Wouldn't that make them great examples then? Afterall, if someone with good scientific reasons can be wrong, what does that say for the atheist who has pinned their faith on their own intuitive notions as to how the universe is?

That's why it is vital for us not to all toe one particular line.

So, it is good that there are theists? Watch it, you might lose your pool privileges at the atheist club.

You've said this before so I'll say it again: This ought to be a big hint for you. It points to atheism being ruthlessly objective. All too often you appeal to consequences that suggest a lack of objectivity in your approach.

I don't agree. I think atheists generally want to see the negative because that's the world that most suits their fancy. For example, there are those survivalists who want to see the world as about to break apart. For those people, it suits their fancy because their world is based on those things happening. Why would someone want to have faith in a post-nuclear war world happening? True, it's possible that will happen, and maybe even inevitable, but is it good to have faith in something like that? I don't think so.

I think faith does serve a purpose on help keeping us convicted to the things we believe based on our intuitive/logical understanding of the world. However, when faith gets in the way of a logical understanding to the world, then it ceases to be helpful and can be downright destructive.

That's what I see here with atheism. You have a group of people (how many are truely atheists I cannot say), and they have this horrendous faith that a Las Vegas bet is the cause of the universe. When you point out contradictions to that faith, they always mention that there's a bigger casino down the street that can explain how someone could win despite the extraordinary odds. When you point out that casinos themselves require a tremendous amount of order, all they do is tell you is that they have faith that luck was on our side for there to be such a neverland Casino in the Sky. When you point out that the material cause for random dice rolling would not explain it all, they just cite to you their faith that your logic is wrong. What are we supposed to do with these Vegans who half the time aren't even Vegans, and those who are Vegans express such wild amounts of faith, and on top of it all, have faith that we're all doomed anyway because nuclear war will wipe out everything? It just strikes me as a bizarre, depressing faith. I would like to help those in that faith find their way out of that prison.

The problem I see with an infinite God is that everything becomes infinitely small and inconsequential to him.

See, again, your faith is getting in your way of seeing other possibilities. Why is an infinite God limited to seeing the infinitely big versus the infinitesimal? Why is the infinitesimal inconsequential to such an existence?

I'm not sure who's distracting who here. To introduce pantheism is sleight of hand in my opinion. It allows you to substitute a personal God with an impersonal one that could simply be a label for "the universe" and then challenge me not to believe in "the universe".

It's very important, QED, to know whether or not atheism is justified in its faith. If it isn't, then it opens up other avenues for those who are in this faith. One of the options that this faith is currently blocking the faithful from seeing is the option of being a pantheist. We both went over the differences between atheism and pantheism, and it is a little irritating that you act like those discussions never took place. Are we back to stage one where you think that pantheism is the same as atheism? It seems like you are being purposely obstinate here.

Inflation demystifies this to a degree that will be discussed presently.

Huh? Inflation requires a fine degree of constant selection. And, in addition, there are many fine-tuned constants of physics which inflation which does not determine.

I do not think it is being blind to insist on Intelligence as being the product of something else. Naked intelligence makes no sense in any realm.

Okay. We started on this thread and I neglected to get back there in my busy responses to others. I will pick this thread back up again.

And as for our inability to tie our own shoelaces in a mirror, what fallacy of argument is this? Argument from "our smartest Gerbils haven't been able to come up with long division"?

Here you are contradicting yourself. You say that Gerbils aren't smart enough to show how obvious the construction of our universe from a simple algorithmic behavior, but then you say that Gerbils are smart enough to know what couldn't have caused the universe because a small percentage of Gerbils don't think that way makes sense. Which is it, are Gerbils smart enough to figure out the nature of the universe or are they just stupid creatures having not a clue how to do something as simple as long division? You can't consistently maintain both positions.

Knowing our weaknesses, let's just say that it would be wise to pay extra-special attention to anything that hints at wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking is totally the perspective of the individual making the wish. From the survivalists perspective, all out nuclear war could be a good thing. They get to become the Noah's of the new generation that told everybody a flood of fire was coming.

In the case of atheism, I do think it is wishful thinking on their part that God doesn't exist. If you need to hear quotes from atheists about how relieved and happy they were once they came to their atheist beliefs, I can supply these quotes on demand.

More complex? Why so?

In the early universe we presumably have a broken symmetry with some basic geometry (e.g., an instanton) and a scalar or two. In the multiverse, we have an infinite, uncaused timeline from the past, a multiverse spacetime having a complex set of uncaused laws that make these universes emerge and produce a great deal of variety, along with boundary conditions that determine what is and isn't possible.

Ten pages and not one person even accepts your premises. If you keep blowing more and more hot air into this it will pop all on its own, but I will wade in when I get a chance (I'm supposed to be on holiday and here I am putting in hours and hours in front of a PC)

As I mentioned, those ten pages haven't been composed of rational reasons for rejecting both premises other than it doesn't match with the faith of the material atheist. Also, you never responded to Lynds published arguments on time that back up the choice of these premises.

There's nothing simple about reconciling the world I know with a God upon high. When 1000 Iraqis die in a stampede on their way to a religious ceremony (yesterday) the nature of this Lord of the cosmos becomes just too complex for any degree of comfort.

First off, I would say that you have an incorrect view of God is. I think you view God as a person. Secondly, let's talk about whether atheism (as distinct from agnosticism and pantheism) is justified in a faith that those two other "isms" do not share.

[QED]

I think you chose poor examples there. Each had good reasons for their own particular faith (confidence) which held for their own frame of reference.

Wouldn't that make them great examples then? Afterall, if someone with good scientific reasons can be wrong, what does that say for the atheist who has pinned their faith on their own intuitive notions as to how the universe is?

I would suggest that such a hypothetical athesit living in the 21st century ought to be more justifed than someone pinning their faith on a 2000 year-old storybook and using their modern intuition to rationalize it, but I haven't seen any individuals of either description amongst the present company.

So, it is good that there are theists? Watch it, you might lose your pool privileges at the atheist club.

Ever heard the expression "moderation in all things"? Besides, you misunderstand me entirely. I've told you before, I'm always on the lookout for new wrinkles and would be thrilled to find out that there was intelligence outside of that which we know of at present. It's just that the arguments you've presented for God so far don't impress me any more than reports of little green men in spaceships.

quote="harvey1"]I think atheists generally want to see the negative because that's the world that most suits their fancy. For example, there are those survivalists who want to see the world as about to break apart. For those people, it suits their fancy because their world is based on those things happening. Why would someone want to have faith in a post-nuclear war world happening? True, it's possible that will happen, and maybe even inevitable, but is it good to have faith in something like that? I don't think so.[/quote]
Your survivalist analogy does not provide a solution to the conundrum you face: you've concluded that athesist must generally want to see the negative because that's the world that most suits their fancy but unlike the survivalist, atheists do not get look forward to being helpless before an uncaring cosmic machine. You should not equate atheism with nilhism.

Then you ask if it is good to have faith in something so negative: I ask in return if this is a good reason to ignore the data and think wishfully of something more comforting.

I think faith does serve a purpose on help keeping us convicted to the things we believe based on our intuitive/logical understanding of the world. However, when faith gets in the way of a logical understanding to the world, then it ceases to be helpful and can be downright destructive.

Let's be realistic Harvey: If your logic was provable then the world will be revolutionized overnight. I'm sure such a revolution would have made it into the pages of Nautre by now. I therefore suggest that we both pay attention to your advice.

That's what I see here with atheism. You have a group of people (how many are truely atheists I cannot say), and they have this horrendous faith that a Las Vegas bet is the cause of the universe. When you point out contradictions to that faith, they always mention that there's a bigger casino down the street that can explain how someone could win despite the extraordinary odds. When you point out that casinos themselves require a tremendous amount of order, all they do is tell you is that they have faith that luck was on our side for there to be such a neverland Casino in the Sky. When you point out that the material cause for random dice rolling would not explain it all, they just cite to you their faith that your logic is wrong. What are we supposed to do with these Vegans who half the time aren't even Vegans, and those who are Vegans express such wild amounts of faith, and on top of it all, have faith that we're all doomed anyway because nuclear war will wipe out everything? It just strikes me as a bizarre, depressing faith. I would like to help those in that faith find their way out of that prison.

You've reminded me that I will shortly be starting a new topic to deal with this question of 'luck' that so irks you. Maybe it is depressing for you to contemplate that we are the product of blind chance. I can't begin to understand why, but I guess that's our essential difference.

The problem I see with an infinite God is that everything becomes infinitely small and inconsequential to him.

See, again, your faith is getting in your way of seeing other possibilities. Why is an infinite God limited to seeing the infinitely big versus the infinitesimal? Why is the infinitesimal inconsequential to such an existence?

Please stop talking as if I'm the only one with faith here. Your frequent use of this device is looking like conceit. I've given you a perfectly reasonable argument based on the properties of inifinities and straight away you answer with a condescending remark. If 'God can do anything' is all you've got here you don't deserve a serious argument form me.

It's very important, QED, to know whether or not atheism is justified in its faith. If it isn't, then it opens up other avenues for those who are in this faith. One of the options that this faith is currently blocking the faithful from seeing is the option of being a pantheist. We both went over the differences between atheism and pantheism, and it is a little irritating that you act like those discussions never took place. Are we back to stage one where you think that pantheism is the same as atheism? It seems like you are being purposely obstinate here.

What did I say to tick you off like this? That a panthesit God is impersonal? That it's a label for a universe with a degree of intelligence? Defining intelligence is always going to be a problem here, especially when ones view of intelligence are based on the observation that it always arises form the material.

Inflation demystifies this to a degree that will be discussed presently.

Huh? Inflation requires a fine degree of constant selection. And, in addition, there are many fine-tuned constants of physics which inflation which does not determine.

This must have been the section in Brian Greenes latest book (The Fabric of the Cosmos) that 'didn't interest' you. Perhaps you should read chapter 11 in preparation for the topic I intend to start concerning 'luck'.

And as for our inability to tie our own shoelaces in a mirror, what fallacy of argument is this? Argument from "our smartest Gerbils haven't been able to come up with long division"?

Here you are contradicting yourself. You say that Gerbils aren't smart enough to show how obvious the construction of our universe from a simple algorithmic behavior, but then you say that Gerbils are smart enough to know what couldn't have caused the universe because a small percentage of Gerbils don't think that way makes sense. Which is it, are Gerbils smart enough to figure out the nature of the universe or are they just stupid creatures having not a clue how to do something as simple as long division? You can't consistently maintain both positions.

There's absolutely no contradiction. Your argument here is obviously flawed and I've shown it before: Was the fact that the best minds of the 19th century had not come up with any way for man to fly a conclusive argument that flight was impossible?

In the early universe we presumably have a broken symmetry with some basic geometry (e.g., an instanton) and a scalar or two. In the multiverse, we have an infinite, uncaused timeline from the past, a multiverse spacetime having a complex set of uncaused laws that make these universes emerge and produce a great deal of variety, along with boundary conditions that determine what is and isn't possible.

So symmetry, instantons and scalars are obviously simple things that tot-up a score of (say) two under par, while timelines uncasued laws and boundary conditions are known to come in as heavyweigths with a score of (say) two-million over par. Perhaps you've got some better figures to substitute here? Again, I've asked before how we are to quantify complexity. How do we ascribe a par for the course? What wieghting should we apply to your concept of God?

Ten pages and not one person even accepts your premises. If you keep blowing more and more hot air into this it will pop all on its own, but I will wade in when I get a chance (I'm supposed to be on holiday and here I am putting in hours and hours in front of a PC)

As I mentioned, those ten pages haven't been composed of rational reasons for rejecting both premises other than it doesn't match with the faith of the material atheist. Also, you never responded to Lynds published arguments on time that back up the choice of these premises.

You're going to make Curious very angry if you call him a material athesit, not to mention the amount of effort he put into debating the merits of your premises r.e. Special Relativity and so-on. Lynd is a interesting young man and I've follwed-up your lead. I'm afraid to say that it looks as if you've press-ganged his ideas into your service - as the New Scientist succinctly say:

Peter Lynds's reasonable and widely accepted assertion that the flow of time is an illusion (25 October, p 33) does not imply that time itself is an illusion. It is perfectly meaningful to state that two events may be separated by a certain duration, while denying that time mysteriously flows from one event to the other. Crick compares our perception of time to that of space. Quite right. Space does not flow either, but it's still "there".

There's nothing simple about reconciling the world I know with a God upon high. When 1000 Iraqis die in a stampede on their way to a religious ceremony (yesterday) the nature of this Lord of the cosmos becomes just too complex for any degree of comfort.

First off, I would say that you have an incorrect view of God is. I think you view God as a person. Secondly, let's talk about whether atheism (as distinct from agnosticism and pantheism) is justified in a faith that those two other "isms" do not share.[/quote]

[bernee51]

Since God is not the subject of this thread, I'll be brief. I can assure you that the Christian God is a Person unto Himself -- one with Whom we strive to be united, but Who is certainly not limited to what is inate in us.

I'm pretty certain the topic has been the subject of other threads - and will so be again.

OTOH given an atheist is a person who does not believe in god then I would have thought deiscussion of such, at least obliquely, be appropriate to this thread.

Briefly...the 'Christian' god certainly has some extraordinary characteristics attributed to it over an above those of he Self. One would think that these atrributes would be overtly demonstable. I don't believe thay are.

What does Person unto Himself mean exactly?

[Diana Holberg]

What does Person unto Himself mean exactly?

A Creator distinct from His creation.