Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?

[KingandPriest]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

[Zzyzx]

.

I detect sarcasm in your response.

Very perceptive.

What I assert is that information is with held in some cases to make certain claims appear as facts. Textbooks portray that we know the composition of the earths core. It is presented as if we know for a fact that the earths core is mostly iron. Rather than presenting it as our best guess based on available information, it is presented as a fact. There are many other 'facts' which are questionable.

The text books I used to teach university level geology and Earth science did NOT present composition of the Earth “as if we know for a fact� – but made it very clear that our knowledge is tentative and is based on specific identified evidence.

Perhaps some books present the information differently or more simplistically – without acknowledging the origin of what is presented.

Or, perhaps some people reading scientific literature (or textbooks) overlook the qualifiers and assume that all is claimed as fact.

Do we have good reason to accept these best guesses, yes. But that doesn't make them a indisputable fact.

Let's apply that to Bible stories.

Are God and Jesus presented “as if we know for a fact�?

Is it an indisputable fact that God created the universe and that Jesus was part of God?

Upon what evidence is claimed knowledge of God and Jesus based? Unverifiable ancient stories, testimonials, conjectures?

[KingandPriest]

Do we have good reason to accept these best guesses, yes. But that doesn't make them a indisputable fact.

Let's apply that to Bible stories.

Are God and Jesus presented “as if we know for a fact�?

Is it an indisputable fact that God created the universe and that Jesus was part of God?

Upon what evidence is claimed knowledge of God and Jesus based? Unverifiable ancient stories, testimonials, conjectures?

Now you see why I compare the faith needed to accept some scientific theories to the faith needed to accept claims found in the bible.

The bible is honest and admits that one needs faith to accept God or Jesus as presented in the bible. Some textbooks and other scientific literature attempt to hide the need for faith to accept their assumptions as correct. The bible is straightforward and admits that in order to believe these claims you need faith. Some scientist try and use synonyms for faith by using words like : confidence, acceptance, conviction, or assurance. In some cases, the word belief is used in the exact same manner as found in the bible, but it is then argued that scientific belief is different from bible based belief. The word belief is a word rooted in the concept of faith.

The bible does not argue that it is "an indisputable fact that God created the universe and that Jesus was part of God." The bible makes the claim and says to believe the claim, it must be done by faith.

Contrast that with some scientific assumptions. Believe the assumption is correct (even if it is a tentative assumption) because it is the best assumption we could come up with.

There are just as many unverifiable claims of knowledge in science. Indirect evidence to support an unverifiable claim. The same is used for some claims in science as those of Christian believers. If you asset that one is more acceptable because it makes sense to you, then I should be able to make the same assertion that claims in the bible make sense to me.

Why are some assumptions in science more acceptable than others?
Why is the assumption that the star will form first in a solar system? We have no evidence to support this assumption. In fact we have evidence that says it is possible that a star like our sun could have formed after a planet. The evidence says it is possible, but our assumptions say it is not possible? Why is this assumption acceptable?

[KingandPriest]

Is an act of faith or an act of confidence similar in any way?
Could it be said that an act of confidence = act of faith?

I would say the distinction between them is whether the amount of evidence justify the act.

So calling something faith or confidence is subjective. What I call faith you may call confidence because of a difference of opinion on the supporting evidence available.

You may call a certain amount of evidence justifiable and use the word confidence, while I deem it is not and call it faith. Or vice versa.

Why are the terms faith and confidence synonymous?

In some context they can mean the same thing, something along the lines of trust.

Okay, so there are similarities along the lines of trust. Noted.

Really, can you provide the empirical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt the composition of the earths core is mostly iron.

Do you have empirical evidence that can prove this beyond reasonable doubt?

Sure, seismic waves is how we figured that one out.

Seismic waves do not provide evidence of the composition of a material. Only the approximate size and density.

Based on the relative prevalence of various chemical elements in the Solar System, the theory of planetary formation, and constraints imposed or implied by the chemistry of the rest of the Earth's volume, the inner core is believed to consist primarily of a nickel-iron alloy. The iron-nickel alloy under core pressure is denser than the core, implying the presence of light elements in the core (e.g. silicon, oxygen, sulfur).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#Composition

We don't know the composition beyond a reasonable doubt. We think we know and have a pretty good idea. It is possible that the core is composed of a mix of new elements yet to be discovered.

What about empirical evidence that proves the age of the sun is exactly 4.6 billion years old? There is empirical evidence that supports the age of the sun being 4.6 billion years old ± 1-5% margin of error depending on the method used. Using the most conservative margin of error, this means the sun could be as old as 4.646 billion years old or as young as 4.554 years old. This date range has a problem because it includes the possibility that the Earth is older than the sun. The date range of the earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).

There is overlap between these two dates. The older date for the sun was chosen because it was assumed that the sun came first. There is no empirical evidence to support that the sun was formed first. Just an assumption made by cosmologist.

Well, I am not familiar with the formation of solar systems to tell you exactly. But a quick google search says there is no rule that a sun must be older than its planet, it is just that solar systems forms from inside out, if indeed the sun and the Earth formed form the same dust cloud, then the sun has to be older.

Let me get this straight:

1. "there is no rule that a sun must be older than its planet"
2. "solar systems forms from inside out" (Wouldn't you call this a rule about which has to form first?)
3. "if indeed the sun and the Earth formed form the same dust cloud, then the sun has to be older"

Do you see where the assumption came out of nowhere. A rule was created out of nowhere with no evidence to back up that rule. We assume that a solar systems form from the inside out. There is no empirical evidence to support this assumption.

Back to the actual evidence. The date range for the age of the earth and the age of the sun are as follows:
Age of Sun between 4.554 - 4.646 billion years old
Age of Earth between 4.49 - 4.59 billion years old

The age of 4.6 was chosen solely because it was assumed that the sun came first. Since the oldest possible age of the Earth was 4.59 billion years, the sun had to be 4.6 billion. Eureka. No evidence, just assumptions.

Why is this assumption more plausible than one which includes an older earth? Why is a theory which includes the earth forming shortly before the sun automatically rejected?

Is there any empirical evidence to support this assumption?

We have models for the formation of solar systems.

Models are not empirical evidence. They are outputs that say our assumptions might be possible.

If I build a model of building that is supposed to depict a 1000 meter tall building, is the model empirical evidence that the building has already been built?

Is the model evidence that the engineering is correct?
No, the model is evidence that the idea of a 1000 meter building is possible. Many other models could also be built to arrive at a building 1000 meters tall.

Why accept one model simulation, when others could generate a similar result?

Is it possible that the sun is 4.554 billion years old and the Earth is 4.59 billion years old?

Not really, no. For that to happen the Earth would have to have to have formed in another solar system and later picked up by this sun's gravity well. And if that was the case, the Earth would have to be far older than 5-ish billion years old.

Are you familiar with how margin of error works?

The empirical evidence of dating earths oldest rocks and meteorites affirm that my statement above is possible. The only way it is not possible, is if you accept the assumption that the sun had to form first. By beginning with a belief and not evidence, you begin with a statement of faith and not fact.

You are saying you believe the sun forms first. Because you believe the sun forms first, it must be older than the earth. So when attempting to calculate a date for the age of the sun, you will always choose the date that is older than the earth, even if the evidence says other alternatives are possible.

What is the basis for belief that the sun forms first? Is the basis empirical evidence or conjecture?

This fact is never presented to students when they are told how the solar system was formed. We are told to take scientist word for it that the sun formed first, even though there is a possibility that this did not occur.

As with all science, things should be taken as tentatively true, until something better comes along.

So accepting a claim as true is ok as long as it is done on a tentative basis?

If a cosmologists claims the sun must have formed before the Earth with no empirical evidence, it is ok to accept the claim on a tentative basis until a better theory comes along with empirical evidence to back it up.

If another cosmologist claims the a similar theory to that found in the bible, that the Earth formed before the sun, you assert this claim should be rejected because of a lack of empirical evidence. This claim was the older theory. Why was this claim rejected in favor of the new claim (sun older than earth) when this new claim did not have any empirical evidence to support it. Was this just based on personal preference?

To accept one claim as tentatively true, you will likely reject the other possible claims.

[Kenisaw]

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

Before I answer, and noting that it has already been touched on, "faith" has different meanings depending on context. Generally at this website there are two basic meanings. Faith can be acceptance of something despite no evidenciary support (what I might commonly call religious faith), and there is faith that something will happen because it: has happened before (the sun rising), is proven to exist (evolution), or there is a track record of accuracy from that area (biological studies).

My answers will be based on the assumption that you are referring to a "religious faith" meaning of the word.

1) No. The very lack of empirical data for god beings is why atheists lack belief in them. Having faith in not having faith seems rather paradoxical to me.
2) Sure. I know an atheist who swears that the moon landings never happened. There is no evidence supporting that claim, but he believes it to be true anyway. That is a baseless faith.
3) That would be the over form of faith as I described above.
4) I'd have to say no to this, after some thought about it. I say no because every single person on the planet validates scientific theories every day, even if they don't know it. Every person on Earth verifies the theory of gravity everyday, right? Anyone that uses a GPS verifies relativity. Anyone that uses certain medicines and gets flu shot or vaccines verifies evolution and germ theory. Anyone that plays a sport, swings at a playground, steps on a brake pedal, goes swimming, and countless other activities shows the universal laws of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, etc. You don't have to believe they are true because you can prove that they are true. Even if you don't want to prove every single one, we know enough about the success of science to know the scientific method works, and therefore trust the results of the process (which is the other kind of faith I described). So I do not see a religious faith needed as it relates to science.

[KingandPriest]

Before I answer, and noting that it has already been touched on, "faith" has different meanings depending on context. Generally at this website there are two basic meanings. Faith can be acceptance of something despite no evidenciary support (what I might commonly call religious faith), and there is faith that something will happen because it: has happened before (the sun rising), is proven to exist (evolution), or there is a track record of accuracy from that area (biological studies).

My answers will be based on the assumption that you are referring to a "religious faith" meaning of the word.

1) No. The very lack of empirical data for god beings is why atheists lack belief in them. Having faith in not having faith seems rather paradoxical to me.
2) Sure. I know an atheist who swears that the moon landings never happened. There is no evidence supporting that claim, but he believes it to be true anyway. That is a baseless faith.
3) That would be the over form of faith as I described above.
4) I'd have to say no to this, after some thought about it. I say no because every single person on the planet validates scientific theories every day, even if they don't know it. Every person on Earth verifies the theory of gravity everyday, right? Anyone that uses a GPS verifies relativity. Anyone that uses certain medicines and gets flu shot or vaccines verifies evolution and germ theory. Anyone that plays a sport, swings at a playground, steps on a brake pedal, goes swimming, and countless other activities shows the universal laws of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, etc. You don't have to believe they are true because you can prove that they are true. Even if you don't want to prove every single one, we know enough about the success of science to know the scientific method works, and therefore trust the results of the process (which is the other kind of faith I described). So I do not see a religious faith needed as it relates to science.

Is faith in something (a statement, belief, theory, explanation, etc) without empirical evidence equal to religious faith?

You have stated religious faith as accepting something to be true with no evidenciary support? Does the support have to be empirical? Does the evidence have to be direct?

I ask these questions because most scientific theories have underlying assumptions which are not based on any evidenciary support. The formation of our solar system and composition of the earths core are two generally accepted theories being discussed. Based on how you have defined religious faith thus far, both of these theories are founded upon religious faith, ie accepting something to be true with no evidenciary support.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

Atheists tend to suppose that the scientific explanation for the existence of the universe seems to have the best chance for being, or at least approximating, what is actually occurring. You may refer to that as a kind of faith I suppose. Exactly the same sort of faith each of us have when we sit down, turn on our computer, and proceed to have conversations with individuals we have never met from all over the world. The same sort of "faith" that we have when we flip a switch and the lights come on. In other words "faith" that the science that provides these marvels is valid because we have daily experience with the "fact," not faith, that it actually works.

[Divine Insight]

This fact is never presented to students when they are told how the solar system was formed. We are told to take scientist word for it that the sun formed first, even though there is a possibility that this did not occur.

I've been intently interested in the sciences from very early childhood. I've taken many science courses in several different colleges. Nowhere have I ever heard it taught that the sun was created before the earth. To the contrary, I was always taught that the entire solar system formed as a single system.

Obviously there are going to be uncertainty in our measurements. The fact that science is very careful to acknowledge these uncertainties and explain them in detail is one of the things that makes science so reputable. They don't pretend to know things to a greater degree than can be known.

Precisely when we might consider the sun to have actually been "fully formed" (i.e. probably the moment when it actually began it's nuclear fusion) cannot be known precisely. Similarly, the precise moment when the earth was "fully formed" cannot be known precisely either.

However, you seem to have forgotten about the "beyond reasonable doubt" part of all this.

The earth would not have been instantly formed as we know it today. We not only know when the earth was formed, but we also know how it was formed. And it would not have been hospitable to life as we know it when it was first formed.

Therefore, from a scientific perspective, with can know without any doubt at all, that a planet earth that actually contains living creatures was necessarily "formed" much later than our sun.

So if you are trying to argue that our scientific knowledge of reality might somehow allow for the Biblical narrative to be true, then your attempt is extremely futile. To make that argument would require either a gross ignorance of known science, or a purposeful intent to try to distort that information for the purpose of supporting an ancient religious mythology.

~~~~~~

Besides, all of these types of arguments are certainly lost on someone like myself. I have studied the Bible well enough to know that the Biblical narrative is necessarily self-contradictory even without any need to bring any scientific knowledge of the real world into the picture at all. The fact that we now have the scientific knowledge on top of this only pushes the Biblical narrative that much further out of the picture.

[KingandPriest]

This fact is never presented to students when they are told how the solar system was formed. We are told to take scientist word for it that the sun formed first, even though there is a possibility that this did not occur.

I've been intently interested in the sciences from very early childhood. I've taken many science courses in several different colleges. Nowhere have I ever heard it taught that the sun was created before the earth. To the contrary, I was always taught that the entire solar system formed as a single system.

Obviously there are going to be uncertainty in our measurements. The fact that science is very careful to acknowledge these uncertainties and explain them in detail is one of the things that makes science so reputable. They don't pretend to know things to a greater degree than can be known.

Precisely when we might consider the sun to have actually been "fully formed" (i.e. probably the moment when it actually began it's nuclear fusion) cannot be known precisely. Similarly, the precise moment when the earth was "fully formed" cannot be known precisely either.

However, you seem to have forgotten about the "beyond reasonable doubt" part of all this.

The earth would not have been instantly formed as we know it today. We not only know when the earth was formed, but we also know how it was formed. And it would not have been hospitable to life as we know it when it was first formed.

Therefore, from a scientific perspective, with can know without any doubt at all, that a planet earth that actually contains living creatures was necessarily "formed" much later than our sun.

So if you are trying to argue that our scientific knowledge of reality might somehow allow for the Biblical narrative to be true, then your attempt is extremely futile. To make that argument would require either a gross ignorance of known science, or a purposeful intent to try to distort that information for the purpose of supporting an ancient religious mythology.

~~~~~~

Besides, all of these types of arguments are certainly lost on someone like myself. I have studied the Bible well enough to know that the Biblical narrative is necessarily self-contradictory even without any need to bring any scientific knowledge of the real world into the picture at all. The fact that we now have the scientific knowledge on top of this only pushes the Biblical narrative that much further out of the picture.

Adding the caveat of an earth that "contains living creatures" is totally different that plainly describing the formation of our solar system. When a date is chosen for the for the age of the sun, 4.6 billion and a smaller date of 4.54 billion is estimated, by simple mathematical deduction it can be inferred that the sun is older than the earth. Many on this forum have attempted to claim that the account in Genesis 1 is flawed because it has the earth being created ahead of the sun. I attempt to show that such a possibility can exist. I do not say the account in Genesis 1 is factually correct, only plausible.

Any student with secondary school education can decipher that 4.6 is bigger than 4.54. With respective to age, 4.6 is older than 4.54. A quick search for the age of the sun online will yield an approximate age of 4.6 billion. If you dig as to how scientist arrive at this number you will find reliance on the nebular hypothesis theory. This theory asserts that the nebulous material present at the beginning of our solar system produced a star (our sun) first. The formation of the star will yield a gaseous protoplanetary disk that led to planetary formation.

This theory is the "rule" that states a star like our sun was created before our earth. The theory actually creates a dependency on the order of formation. No star, no protoplanetary disk, no protoplanetary disk, no planets. It is upon this theory, the date of 4.6 billion was chosen. The date range of we have calculated for the age of the sun is between 4.554 - 4.646 billion years old. The number 4.6 billion was chosen because it was the most conservative estimate that aligned with the nebular hypothesis. Since the estimated age of the earth was between 4.49 - 4.59 billion years old, the sun had to be at least 4.6 billion years old to create a protoplanetary disk.

In all your studies of science courses, was the age of the sun or earth ever consistently expressed as a date range or a specific date? In my experience it was always expressed as a specific date. This was done to match nebular hypothesis.

Nebular hypothesis still has multiple issues, but rather than address these issues when it came to calculating the estimated age of the sun, it was just presumed that nebular hypothesis was right, so an older date was chosen for the sun.

No one is arguing in favor of the idea that the earth was fully formed spontaneously as we see today. I am arguing that the hypothesis which includes the sun forming prior to the planets should be on equal footing with a hypothesis that claims the earth was formed prior to the sun. Since the evidence supports both hypothesis, why favor nebular hypothesis when calculating the estimated age of the earth?

Why not just perform calculations and allow the date range to stand on its own?
Why pick a date that has to conform to nebular hypothesis?

To believe that nebular hypothesis is right, is a form of having faith in nebular hypothesis.

[ttruscott]

I think you missed the intent of the question. Question 3 is a general question, not specific to atheism. Is the act of purchasing with a bank card or check an act of faith?

Money itself and its use is all faith based....

[Tired of the Nonsense]

This fact is never presented to students when they are told how the solar system was formed. We are told to take scientist word for it that the sun formed first, even though there is a possibility that this did not occur.

I've been intently interested in the sciences from very early childhood. I've taken many science courses in several different colleges. Nowhere have I ever heard it taught that the sun was created before the earth. To the contrary, I was always taught that the entire solar system formed as a single system.

Obviously there are going to be uncertainty in our measurements. The fact that science is very careful to acknowledge these uncertainties and explain them in detail is one of the things that makes science so reputable. They don't pretend to know things to a greater degree than can be known.

Precisely when we might consider the sun to have actually been "fully formed" (i.e. probably the moment when it actually began it's nuclear fusion) cannot be known precisely. Similarly, the precise moment when the earth was "fully formed" cannot be known precisely either.

However, you seem to have forgotten about the "beyond reasonable doubt" part of all this.

The earth would not have been instantly formed as we know it today. We not only know when the earth was formed, but we also know how it was formed. And it would not have been hospitable to life as we know it when it was first formed.

Therefore, from a scientific perspective, with can know without any doubt at all, that a planet earth that actually contains living creatures was necessarily "formed" much later than our sun.

So if you are trying to argue that our scientific knowledge of reality might somehow allow for the Biblical narrative to be true, then your attempt is extremely futile. To make that argument would require either a gross ignorance of known science, or a purposeful intent to try to distort that information for the purpose of supporting an ancient religious mythology.

~~~~~~

Besides, all of these types of arguments are certainly lost on someone like myself. I have studied the Bible well enough to know that the Biblical narrative is necessarily self-contradictory even without any need to bring any scientific knowledge of the real world into the picture at all. The fact that we now have the scientific knowledge on top of this only pushes the Biblical narrative that much further out of the picture.

Adding the caveat of an earth that "contains living creatures" is totally different that plainly describing the formation of our solar system. When a date is chosen for the for the age of the sun, 4.6 billion and a smaller date of 4.54 billion is estimated, by simple mathematical deduction it can be inferred that the sun is older than the earth. Many on this forum have attempted to claim that the account in Genesis 1 is flawed because it has the earth being created ahead of the sun. I attempt to show that such a possibility can exist. I do not say the account in Genesis 1 is factually correct, only plausible.

Any student with secondary school education can decipher that 4.6 is bigger than 4.54. With respective to age, 4.6 is older than 4.54. A quick search for the age of the sun online will yield an approximate age of 4.6 billion. If you dig as to how scientist arrive at this number you will find reliance on the nebular hypothesis theory. This theory asserts that the nebulous material present at the beginning of our solar system produced a star (our sun) first. The formation of the star will yield a gaseous protoplanetary disk that led to planetary formation.

This theory is the "rule" that states a star like our sun was created before our earth. The theory actually creates a dependency on the order of formation. No star, no protoplanetary disk, no protoplanetary disk, no planets. It is upon this theory, the date of 4.6 billion was chosen. The date range of we have calculated for the age of the sun is between 4.554 - 4.646 billion years old. The number 4.6 billion was chosen because it was the most conservative estimate that aligned with the nebular hypothesis. Since the estimated age of the earth was between 4.49 - 4.59 billion years old, the sun had to be at least 4.6 billion years old to create a protoplanetary disk.

In all your studies of science courses, was the age of the sun or earth ever consistently expressed as a date range or a specific date? In my experience it was always expressed as a specific date. This was done to match nebular hypothesis.

Nebular hypothesis still has multiple issues, but rather than address these issues when it came to calculating the estimated age of the sun, it was just presumed that nebular hypothesis was right, so an older date was chosen for the sun.

No one is arguing in favor of the idea that the earth was fully formed spontaneously as we see today. I am arguing that the hypothesis which includes the sun forming prior to the planets should be on equal footing with a hypothesis that claims the earth was formed prior to the sun. Since the evidence supports both hypothesis, why favor nebular hypothesis when calculating the estimated age of the earth?

Why not just perform calculations and allow the date range to stand on its own?
Why pick a date that has to conform to nebular hypothesis?

To believe that nebular hypothesis is right, is a form of having faith in nebular hypothesis.

Jack Hills, Australia, where rocks were found to contain the oldest known minerals on Earth, a 4.4 billion-year-old zircon. Just three of the very oldest zircons have been found, ones that date back to almost 4.4 billion years ago. Their extreme age always makes the dates suspect, because of possible radiation damage.Feb 23, 2014
https://www.google.com/search?q=age+of+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

http://www.livescience.com/43584-earth- ... ircon.html

The current estimate of the age of the solar system is supported by other observations as well. As more evidence is gathered, a better and more accurate understanding is attained. So is the current estimate unarguably exactly right? Probably not. Is the estimate close? The physical evidence suggests that it is. Subscribing to what the physical suggests isn't faith as long as it is understood that the estimate may well change as new evidence is gathered.