Atheist faith

Post Reply New Topic

I have been wondering for a while now how come some atheists get onto religious people for having faith in god(s) yet they have the same amount of faith placed into science and evolution? Isn't that by nature a double standard they go after others because they place faith in their beliefs but do not like their faith questioned?

I, for one, do not care so much for what a person believes in. I'm concerned for how dependence upon what they believe in makes them irrational, and how they go about inflicting their beliefs upon others.

Religion is based upon the irrational belief in improvable concepts, while science is based upon reasonable belief in repeatably verifiable facts.

For instance: (a) It is reasonable to believe that the Earth will continue to rotate at its present rate, and cause the advent of dawn at a particular time tomorrow morning; while (b) it is irrational to believe that the universe revolves around the Earth, and that a host of lesser sky-fairies move the sun into position under the direction of the Big Sky Fairy.

There is ample evidence to support (a), but an utter lack of evidence to support (b).

Not irrational belief in them, but rational.

That is to say that when discover that certain/many religious beliefs have powerful/useful effects on one's ability to live life productively, creatively, or just more happily/less anxiously etc, it makes sense to believe in the unprovable concepts!

A rational act.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 14 Oct 2008, 2:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.

science is simply a way of finding stuff out, evolution is a theory that seems to make a lot of sense, who knows maybe it wont in the future.

Its a Theory that has been proven over and over again with physical evidence!

In fact doing that looks more rational than people who choose to believe in scientifically proven concepts without even checking to see if they have a powerful/useful effect on their own ability to live life productively, creatively, or just more "happily"/less anxiously.

Religious belief is more pragmatic/practical/utilitarian than scientific faith, which is idealistic, preferring "Truth" over "Usefulness".
.

Last edited by ouinon on 14 Oct 2008, 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pragma.

Basing one's beliefs on how practical they are to everyday life leads to buffet-style religion, where it does not matter if any two beliefs contradict each other, but only that they apply to specific cases. This is is a prime example of the irrationality of religion.

What does "buffet-style" religion look like, and what, apart from the horrible name/label given to it, is wrong with it if it is useful?

Scientists might not like the fact that Newtonian and Quantum mechanics contradict each other, ( are those the two which contradict each other?), but are not about to discard them, because they apply well and usefully to individual cases.

What is wrong with beliefs contradicting each other, if their fields of operations are clearly delimited, or at least understood by the believer?

.

Last edited by ouinon on 14 Oct 2008, 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have always assumed the atheism implied a lack of faith, and the agnostics had a faith in the unknown, but tend to be more spiritual. Personally I have no faith in the white mans gods or religions, I think of them as a virulent social disease that has infected the world, that destroyed the cultures of so many First Nations or indigenous peoples, like my ancestors.

It occurs to me that this is a classic AS blindspot; beliefs which contradict each other, and which make social life, and much of society in general, so difficult for us to negotiate because there are so many rules which contradict each other if taken "absolutely" but if used in context do not, ( ie; depending on where and "when" you are , with whom, and etc etc ).

Hmm. Interesting. Maybe why science, with far fewer of these contradictory rules, or much clearer rules about their appropriate context, seems more rational to many AS.

.

Example: If you're a "Real Christian" then you believe in both Heaven and Hell, and in a God who loves everyone even though He will send most of them to Hell. But a "Buffet Christian" is likely to pick out only the "Loving God in Heaven" part and ignore the parts about Hell and damnation, in addition to believing that if God is displeased with you, He will force you to be reincarnated again and again until you get it right. The result is a lot of "Christians" with good intentions, but hypocritical behaviour.


Quantum mechanics supports Classical mechanics, because without Quantum principles there would be no universe to display Classic principles. It's sorta like saying "The Old and New Testaments contradict each other" when instead the OT (allegedly) supports everything in the NT.


Dichotomy of mind leads to confused and deluded ideas. This has held back progress in civilization. Like in Darfur (sp?), where people are simultaneously blamed for being both the victims and the perpetrators of the same atrocities - thus, foreign aid is discussed, but not always delivered. Or in Washington, where our leaders are looked on as our best hope for the future, while simultaneously reviled for not doing enough of the right things - thus, there is a great rush to praise and elect, and an even greater rush to criticize and impeach.


Well done, Grasshopper.

I assume that agnosticism is somehow lack of faith, I mean faith is strongly related with certainty, if you are not certain about something you cannot have faith in it as that is the definition of it, atheism in the other hand seem to go more towards a faith in the opposite direction than theists, having some degree of certainty about existence or unexistence of deities, which both have in common.

About faith in science, well, fnord has a point on this, about the argument that a belief in empirical science seems more reasonable by today's standards than the belief in the mystical things, from a modern cultural perspective. Nevertheless, uncertainty on the issue seem to give room for anything, that can be argued, that cannot currently be measured by human capabilities and finite understanding, which that can be an argument from religion to support their dogmas or faith.

Last edited by greenblue on 14 Oct 2008, 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

... ... ... What is wrong with beliefs contradicting each other, if their fields of operation are clearly delimited, or understood by the believer?

There is no dichotomy, unless have difficulty understanding "context"; one example of this sort of system of beliefs: the social rules which cover lying, ( and which AS have so much trouble with ). It is true that there is fall out/abuse, but in general the rules on lying function amazingly well.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 14 Oct 2008, 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Seems" is in italics.

I think that when you use the word "rational" you just mean what makes sense to you, nothing more, nothing else, whereas it has recently occurred to me that religious belief is rational to the person believing; otherwise they would not do it.

When you say religious belief is "irrational" you just mean that it does not make sense to you, that you do not understand it.

Rational is a subjective value judgement. And finding science's simple rules more rational than society's complicated ones is perhaps a question of genetically or environmentally-determined neural networks, ... ...

or chemical state ( as influenced by food for instance. I have been gluten-free for over a year, and something odd does seem to be happening to my understanding of context, shades of grey, social rules, faith/belief, etc ).
.

I am not sure that contradictory beliefs have actually held back progress in civilisation. In fact it's possible that it is the uniquely human capacity for holding many contradictory beliefs, ( contradictory if applied in an absolute sense, but functional when related/restricted to different contexts, requiring a sort of working "social" set-theory! ) , which may have contributed to, produced, some of the most important developments in society.

Because the interface between them, where they rub together at unclear boundaries, irritates, provokes thought/growth. If people had only ever held perfectly consistent beliefs ... ... ...

.

Science requires rigorous peer review and does not rely on faith, in fact it is the job of those conducting the review to try and disprove the theory, this is hardly faith.

Religion requires faith because there is nothing to peer review