ext_6933 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2011-06-10 10:23 am
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2011-06-10 10:23 am
Entry tags:
Atheism as Faith
Back in the day, a guy named Plutarch wrote an essay comparing atheism with superstition. In his estimation, superstition is worse than atheism because it puts divinity in a negative light. Of course, the school of thought to which Plutarch belonged did not view jealousy as a divine attribute. The jealous gods were not part of the higher pantheon. This perception of divinity is shared with Buddhism which depicts the jealous gods at a level below the higher gods.
One of my favorite ways to challenge the ignorant is to ask them where they got the idea that there is only one deity. They often point to a biblical passage that fails to support their assertion. That passage does not assert the non-existence of other gods, but instead affirms their existence. The jealous deity seeks to enslave people into his cult at the expense of a higher order understanding.
Which individual has greater faith: the one who is suckered into a cult of jealousy or the one who refuses to pledge allegiance to any of the gods? From where Plutarch sits, the atheist seems the more judicious of the two and hence the one closer to a sublime life path. Those who fail to become seduced into the luxury of ignorance are more likely to follow the path less traveled. The atheist is freer to bond with the eternal than is the religious bigot who has become immersed in a quagmire of primitive precepts.
What does this have to do with public policy? It promotes secularism as a spiritual enabler rather than as a negation of faith. It contradicts the crippling dogma of those who seek to put superstitious supplications back into public schools.
One of my favorite ways to challenge the ignorant is to ask them where they got the idea that there is only one deity. They often point to a biblical passage that fails to support their assertion. That passage does not assert the non-existence of other gods, but instead affirms their existence. The jealous deity seeks to enslave people into his cult at the expense of a higher order understanding.
Which individual has greater faith: the one who is suckered into a cult of jealousy or the one who refuses to pledge allegiance to any of the gods? From where Plutarch sits, the atheist seems the more judicious of the two and hence the one closer to a sublime life path. Those who fail to become seduced into the luxury of ignorance are more likely to follow the path less traveled. The atheist is freer to bond with the eternal than is the religious bigot who has become immersed in a quagmire of primitive precepts.
What does this have to do with public policy? It promotes secularism as a spiritual enabler rather than as a negation of faith. It contradicts the crippling dogma of those who seek to put superstitious supplications back into public schools.
no subject
They wouldn't say, "Do you have faith in my findings?"
They would say, "Do you trust my findings?"
Technically, you could ask the first question, but by and large people use the second.
This is just semantics bullshit.
no subject
You certainly might be the first definition, i.e. the one which is relevant here.
no subject
Trust doesn't have the definition of believing in something that lacks evidence. That properly is solely attributed to faith.
no subject
I'm certainly open to the idea that you have some nuance you would like to introduce to distinguish them. However, that doesn't change the issue at hand, which is the false equivocation introduced here about lacking evidence.
"Trust doesn't have the definition of believing in something that lacks evidence."
Neither does faith, according to the first definition quoted here, i.e. the one which is relevant here.
"That properly is solely attributed to faith."
Not according to the first definition quoted here, i.e. the one which is relevant here.
no subject
Not according to the first definition quoted here, i.e. the one which is relevant here.
Yes it does. It's there in the second definition
no subject
You're mistaken.
I'll quote it again:
faith
[feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith:)
"It's there in the second definition."
But not in the first, right?
no subject
Words have context.
Which definition you use is based on the context.
Understand?
There is NO context for trust in which you believe in something without evidence. There IS for faith.
no subject
Indeed.
"Which definition you use is based on the context."
As I keep pointing out.
"There is NO context for trust [the first definition] in which you believe in something without evidence [the second definition]."
If that's true, I suppose we must conclude that the use of the two definitions must be kept quite separate.
I'm not sure why you think that's relevant.
Anyway, the definition to use in this context is the first one, i.e. the one about trust or confidence, and not the second one, i.e. not the one about having no evidence.
no subject
I'm not talking about the difference between the first definition and second definition of faith, I'm talking about the difference between WORDS. I would ask you to please refrain from further fabricating arguments that I never made.
The fact is, the first definition of faith is trust. The second definition is NOT trust. They're not the same word, and there are situations where trust is not applicable. Like, if you are describing a situation in which you believe something without any evidence in it, you have faith in it. You are using the second definition. There is no definition of trust that describes this, therefore they are not 100% interchangeable.
You do not understand what a synonym is.
no subject
Indeed.
The one we should be using here.
"The fact is, the first definition of faith is trust. The second definition is NOT trust."
That certainly does seem to be the case.
"[The two definitions are] not the same word... therefore they are not 100% interchangeable."
Ok.
Anyway, the relevant meaning in this case is the first one, i.e. the one about trust, not the one about having no evidence.
no subject
You have failed the discussion.
no subject
Anyway, the relevant meaning in this case is the first one, i.e. the one about trust, not the one about having no evidence.
no subject
If you want to talk about the differences between definitions, that is a separate discussion that I am not having. You can start it elsewhere.
If the two words meant the same thing 100% of the time, they would have the same definitions.
no subject
I'm not talking about the differences between words. I'm talking about the word 'faith.' Namely, I'm pointing out that the relevant meaning of 'faith' in this context is the first one we have quoted, and not the second one.
"If you want to talk about the differences between definitions, that is a separate discussion that I am not having."
Well I believe you did in fact say "When someone uses the word faith, it implies that they do not have proof of what they are believing to be true", which is incorrect. For they might mean this, if they have in mind the second definition we have quoted. But if they had in mind rather the first, then they would mean something else.
no subject
Okay, this is an entirely different point than the one I am making. Let's just get this out of the way: You agree that faith and trust are not 100% interchangeable, yes?
Well I believe you did in fact say "When someone uses the word faith, it implies that they do not have proof of what they are believing to be true", which is incorrect. For they might mean this, if they have in mind the second definition we have quoted. But if they had in mind rather the first, then they would mean something else.
Correct, I was talking about the second definition. I believe that rukh had in mind the second definition, because he was responding to a comment that involving belief in gods, atheism, and evidence.
no subject
Right, and these are the wrong definitions to be using.
It's like if the OP said he was going to deposit his money in the bank, and you two responded that he's a complete moron because it's not safe to just thrust your money into an inclined slope of sand, and then I'd reply "No, that's the wrong definition to be using here", and then you'd swear at me for 50 comments.
no subject
How is it the wrong definition? The context is clear that he was using the definition of faith as 'belief that is not based on proof.'
I don't understand how you see that it's a strange use of the word. Using faith in that context is actually the most prominent use of the word.
When he asked: Do you see faith as a good thing?
He wasn't asking if trust/confidence was a good thing. He was asking if it was a good thing to believe in something without any evidence for it.
no subject
In that the second definition is not what the word means in the context of religious faith, which is the context here.
"The context is clear that he was using the definition of faith as 'belief that is not based on proof.'"
Who? the_rukh? Yes, that's the problem: he's wrong to use that definition. He's responding to the OP's use of the word, but that's not what the OP means, and it's not what the word means in the subject matter being treated by the OP.
"I don't understand how you see that it's a strange use of the word."
I didn't say it was a strange use of the word, I said it's not what the word means here.
no subject
Which individual has greater faith: the one who is suckered into a cult of jealousy or the one who refuses to pledge allegiance to any of the gods?
the_rukh said: Whichever one believes more strongly in the thing they have no evidence for.
This is just a tautology. (no offense the_rukh) 'The individual with the greater faith is the individual with the greater [belief in something they lack evidence for]'
This statement only works if you use the second definition of faith, which is also the most common usage of it. I mean, the third definition is also technically acceptable, but it refers specifically to the doctrines of religion, and since the topic is about atheism as a faith then we're probably considering the second definition.
no subject
The reason for me specifying "Whichever one believes more strongly in the thing they have no evidence for." is because I wanted to define for sophia_sadek the particular definition of faith I was about to use in the question in the next line.
Words have lots of definitions, and if people are using two different ones, it's hard to have a meaningful conversation. To me, its much more useful to describe the words meanings than shout how stupid someone is for using a different meaning. If they want to use a different meaning than I've heard, that's fine too, as long as I know it's a different meaning. What I'm interested in is talking about the idea that the person is intending to express, not bickering about how well they expressed it.
no subject
Yeah, it's weird that there was any problem with it. Honestly, if you just asked your question it should have been painfully obvious which definition of the word you were using, since it's the most common use and makes sense given the context of the discussion, but this comm surprises me every day!
As for what you addressed, it was weirdly-worded sophistry and neither of the two options implied a greater or lesser amount of faith. Faith doesn't drive an atheist's motivation for secularism as much as logic does.
no subject
Ideally. ;) I'd say that depends on the atheist.
no subject
Exactly so. But in this case we ought to use the first definition. Hence the problem with his remark.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject