Atheism as Faith

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Tell me more of your alternate universe.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, to discuss the matter rationally, you would have to be capable of entertaining the possibility that evidence exists outside of the stories you tell yourself. So long as you consider anything you don't agree with as belonging to an "alternative universe", there's nothing anyone could discuss rationally with you.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Well that was rude.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

That's what he does?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Evidently.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

Maybe, since faith by definition is already complete trust/confidence, 'greater faith' is a misnomer?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I personally wouldn't define faith as "complete" trust/confidence. If you are defining it that way then yes, a scale would be meaningless.

My opinion though is faith is just trust/confidence. So as "evidence" increases, faith decreases, and the other way too.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Maybe, since faith by definition is already complete trust/confidence, 'greater faith' is a misnomer?"

I don't think we need to say it is *complete* trust. We have faith in our siblings, spouses, friends, etc., but presumably that faith has a limit at some point, and yet we still call it faith.

The problem with the_rukh's formulation is that he doesn't know what the word means in this context, so he's invented his own definition, which of course is silly.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Maybe you can elaborate? The issue is trust.

Trust can be gained through faith.

Or evidence.

What's the problem here?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Trust is the relevant meaning of faith here.

When you say you have faith in your wife, you don't mean you believe she exists even though you don't have any evidence.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Trust and faith are not the same thing.

They can be used to describe similar things, yes, but they are not 100% replaceable with the other.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Well they're given for one another in a thesaurus, but 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.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The thesaurus gives you suggestions for things that mean similar things, not exact same things.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

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.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Do you not know what a synonym is?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's when someone politely engages in reasonable discussion of a point at hand.

No wait, I must be thinking of something entirely different.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Okay, since we've reached the end of the discussion, I am going to sum it up for the rest of the crowd:

Trust != faith.

They are synonyms, but not 100% replaceable.

When someone uses the word faith, it implies that they do not have proof of what they are believing to be true. Let's put it into context in the form of inter-personal relationships:

Trust is something that is built upon. It comes from experience. Faith just comes from the potential of trust.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"When someone uses the word faith, it implies that they do not have proof of what they are believing to be true."

Not always, and in particular not in this context.

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)

Yes, it's the first definition of a very common word in the dictionary. But for some reason it becomes a belaboured mystery as soon as the subject of religion comes up. A suspicious man might think there's something about the subject of religion that causes people to lose their minds.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

CONTEXT. THIS IS WHY WORDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION.

From your same link:

2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

99% of the time people use the word faith they use it in a situation where there is no evidence. In fact, they're generally referring to their faith in god.

I'm not making a fucking literal statement here. I'm not saying this ALWAYS happens, but more often than not it does.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"CONTEXT. THIS IS WHY WORDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION."

Indeed. I believe I've said that repeatedly.

"99% of the time people use the word faith they use it in a situation where there is no evidence."

Or perhaps 99.99%! But crucially, that's not what the word means here, and a wise man once said that CONTEXT is important.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Faith can mean trust, but trust does not ALWAYS mean faith. That's all I was saying.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

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.

And the relevant definition here is the first one, i.e. the one according to which one wouldn't mean "that they do not have proof of what they are believing to be true."

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

If you have evidence then you don't need to ask someone to have faith, because they know that they can trust you from the evidence.

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.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"If you have evidence then you don't need to ask someone to have faith..."

You certainly might be the first definition, i.e. the one which is relevant here.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

They're not 100% interchangeable man. You can't use them as the same word in EVERY circumstance.

Trust doesn't have the definition of believing in something that lacks evidence. That properly is solely attributed to faith.