Faith is Not a Source of Knowledge
A common characteristic of both theism and religion is their reliance on faith: belief in the existence of a god and in the truth of religious doctrines is neither founded upon nor defended by logic, reason, evidence, or science. Instead, people are supposed to have faith — a position they wouldn’t consciously adopt with just about any other issue. Faith, though, is an unreliable guide to reality or means for acquiring knowledge. Faith is a very like able word that is used stupidly to defend anything and everything equally. When confronted Bt religious ppl about faith ; I wonder how many atheists handle this topic well. ?
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Faith (belief without evidence) is often the foundation of my debates with religious. I often assert presenting faith (belief without evidence) as "Truth" (things that can be demonstrated with evidence) is a dishonest argument.
NoMagicCookie
Level 8
May 8, 2018
1
Faith, by definition, is the belief in anything without the presence of evidence. Ive found that when religious people are informed of this, many are offended. They'll recount episodes of coincidence or simply events they cannot explain and attribute them to the existence of, or actions of a supreme being. Conversations often devolve into them trying to "help" me believe. Now THAT'S offensive!
Chefrob
Level 2
May 8, 2018
4
Religious faith is a failed epistemology (theory of knowledge). It does not lead toward truth; in fact, it tends to lead away from it. The failure of religious faith to explain or predict experienced reality was instrumental in my rejection of my faith of origin.
mordant
Level 8
May 8, 2018
2
I have faith that superman will save us, but the facts show otherwise.
x0lineage0x
Level 6
May 8, 2018
2
As Peter Boghossian says... it's pretending to know things you cannot know.
azgreenskeeper
Level 4
May 7, 2018
3
Two points: I personally think that deep Spiritual awareness does not require belief. Many CHURCHES require belief, but that sort of belief is worthless. Comparing deep awe for the implications of existence with the scientific method is like comparing apples and oranges—they are two different things. I recently met a deeply religious woman from a Buddhist tradition, and by trade, she is a physics professor. There is no contradiction.
Faith is not the sole province of churches. Everyone exercises faith every day—it is part of the human condition. Very little or nothing is known with absolute certainty, and we have to use faith in order to survive and function.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
May 7, 2018
1
@icolan my dictionary has faith and trust as synonyms for one of the definitions. If you are talking about blind faith in some religious dogma, then I agree with you 100%
In addition, I think that often certain dogmas are associated with atheism also.
@Bobby9, @icolan some people who call themselves atheists believe in a materialist/reductionist model of reality. Their faith is that reality consists of what they perceive with their senses. Another common belief is that conscious awareness is caused by the firing of neurons in our brains. Neither of these beliefs holds up to scientific scrutiny.
@icolan I think that to understand a person you have to look farther than their statements about what they believe or disbelieve. You have to ask them why they believe or disbelieve. If the question stirs up defensiveness, then that figures into the assessment. We are not dealing here with science or mathematics. IMO true religion is not interested in belief, but in awareness and appreciation.
If you throw all religious sentiment into the same basket and condemn it, then you fault such notable physicists as Albert Einstein, Max Planck, and many others.
I am a disbeliever of church dogma, but I do not call myself an atheist. Arguing over the existence of “God” is a boring, dead end street because no one can define or understand God. A better term would be “The Great Unknown”.
@icolan There are various shades of atheism. IMO it is not as simple as a lack of belief. If you say that you do not believe in God, how is that any different than saying that in your opinion there is no God? You might claim to be making an assertion only about yourself, but in reality, you do believe that there is no God.
There are various concepts of God. If you lump them all together and reject all the concepts out of hand you are throwing out the baby with the bath water in my opinion. In order to reject all concepts of God you would need to reject the idea of a higher reality beyond our space/time/matter model. I am not talking here about the supernatural. I am talking about an aspect of nature that we can not experience with our senses. Also, there is a profound mystery connected with conscious awareness. In order to reject every concept of God you would have to believe that conscious awareness is caused by the firing of neurons—another dogma.
I do not call myself an atheist, but I very much value the intelligence and courage exhibited on this site. I feel much more at home here than I would feel on some sort of church site. I respect your opinions and I hope y’all will allow me to participate. A person’s opinion about religion is only a very tiny, trivial fraction of the whole person.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.