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

[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]

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

They're not 100% interchangeable.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"They're not 100% interchangeable."

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.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

VVVV continue this in the other sub-thread.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

We don't let people take communion at RBCC unless they swear on the Bible that their faith is completely and without reservation not based on any evidence or reasoning whatsoever. If they can support any of their beliefs with evidence and reason, we get them the hell out of there before they infect the others.