Atheism as Faith
10/6/11 10:23![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBack 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)
Date: 11/6/11 05:04 (UTC)You have failed the discussion.
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 05:05 (UTC)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)
Date: 11/6/11 05:06 (UTC)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)
Date: 11/6/11 05:08 (UTC)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)
Date: 11/6/11 05:17 (UTC)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)
Date: 11/6/11 05:19 (UTC)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)
Date: 11/6/11 05:22 (UTC)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)
Date: 11/6/11 05:27 (UTC)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)
Date: 11/6/11 05:36 (UTC)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)
Date: 11/6/11 06:51 (UTC)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)
Date: 11/6/11 09:31 (UTC)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)
Date: 11/6/11 10:52 (UTC)Ideally. ;) I'd say that depends on the atheist.
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 19:17 (UTC)Exactly so. But in this case we ought to use the first definition. Hence the problem with his remark.
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 20:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 20:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 21:14 (UTC)Which individual has greater [belief in something lacking evidence]:
I don't see how the first definition makes sense. Trust and confidence aren't objective terms that you can use without any context.
the one who is suckered into a cult of jealousy or the one who refuses to pledge allegiance to any of the gods?
So one of these has more trust/confidence than the other? Trust in what, exactly?
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 21:19 (UTC)I'm not sure why you're telling me this. If you're interested in understanding the idea and it doesn't make sense to you, I suppose I would recommend doing some relevant reading. There's an awful lot of literature exploring this theme. For something recent, McCarthy's The Road immediately comes to mind.
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 21:24 (UTC)So one of these has more trust/confidence than the other? Trust in what, exactly?
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 21:27 (UTC)The OP asks "Which individual has greater faith[?]" I suppose the implication is that one of them does, yes.
"Trust in what, exactly?"
I'm not sure how the OP would prefer to have this formulated. I suspect they would be a better person to ask than me.
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 21:51 (UTC)So you can't actually discern which one has more trust based on that hypothetical?
I'm not sure how the OP would prefer to have this formulated. I suspect they would be a better person to ask than me.
So you can't answer the question by referring to the OP's own words?
Now, if we use the second definition of faith, both of these questions are easily answered. That definition is also the most common one, especially in this situation as deities and atheism are being discussed.
The atheist is described here as one who does not believe in gods. The superstitious is described as one who does. It's clear that the superstitious, when we say they have faith, that they have [belief with lack of evidence], not that they [trust] that the gods exist. It's a misnomer to say that, because trust does not convey the idea that you believe in something with no evidence to support that belief.
Superstition, by definition, borrows heavily from the second definition of faith. They're synonyms. When Plutarch talks about faith, he's talking about believing in things without evidence. He's not talking about issues of trust or confidence.
If the OP believes otherwise, then the OP is wholly misinterpreting Plutarch's words. However, since the OP's conclusions are the same as Plutarch's, I would assume they're using the same definitions.
It makes no sense otherwise.
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 22:03 (UTC)I suppose the implication is that the reader would in fact make a discernment about this.
"So you can't answer the question by referring to the OP's own words?"
I don't particularly care in any case.
"Now, if we use the second definition of faith, both of these questions are easily answered."
Unfortunately, however easily you think the answer is provided by this method, it remains an invalid answer, since it's a fallacy of equivocation, as has been noted.
"That definition is also the most common one, especially in this situation as deities and atheism are being discussed."
If it's the most common one, then this simply illustrates how commonly people are mistaken, since it's the incorrect definition. And since it's not the definition the OP has in mind in any case, using definition two remains a fallacy of equivocation.
"It's clear that the superstitious, when we say they have faith, that they have [belief with lack of evidence], not that they [trust] that the gods exist."
No, this isn't clear. Moreover, it's incorrect for the reasons noted, namely that it's a fallacy of equivocation.
"When Plutarch talks about faith, he's talking about believing in things without evidence."
Incorrect. The term only appears once in the text, specifically at 170e, where it has the first meaning.
"If the OP believes otherwise, then the OP is wholly misinterpreting Plutarch's words."
Incorrect. The OP's meaning coincides with that used by Plutarch, as just noted, and it also coincides with the relevant meaning of the term in this context, as has been noted.
"I would assume they're using the same definitions."
They are indeed. You and the_rukh are the ones using the wrong definition.
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 22:18 (UTC)I don't particularly care in any case.
This is a big point of contention for me. If you can't understand what the OP means, then either the OP means something other than what you think, or it's deliberately vague so as to promote incorrect responses. The former seems more reasonable to me. If you can't tell me your opinion on the matter in the same breath as telling me that I'm getting it all wrong, then I'm going with my first assumption.
Unfortunately, however easily you think the answer is provided by this method, it remains an invalid answer, since it's a fallacy of equivocation, as has been noted.
If it's the most common one, then this simply illustrates how commonly people are mistaken, since it's the incorrect definition. And since it's not the definition the OP has in mind in any case, using definition two remains a fallacy of equivocation.
No, this isn't clear. Moreover, it's incorrect for the reasons noted, namely that it's a fallacy of equivocation.
This assumes that the original meaning was clear, and then was changed. I contend that the original meaning was the different the entire time in every instance, so this has nothing do with do with a fallacy of equivocation. To do that, I would have to claim first that the first definition was used and then switched to the second. I never made this claim.
Incorrect. The term only appears once in the text, specifically at 170e, where it has the first meaning.
So, you're contending what someone who is superstitious is NOT believing in things that lack evidence? I'm curious: Where in the definition of trust does it apply to superstition?
Incorrect. The OP's meaning coincides with that used by Plutarch, as just noted, and it also coincides with the relevant meaning of the term in this context, as has been noted.
They are indeed. You and the_rukh are the ones using the wrong definition.
The first definition of faith is trust. If you believe that this is the relevant definition, then tell me how. Explain to me how superstitious people exhibit trust in their superstitions and not the second definition of faith.
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 22:24 (UTC)I understand what the OP means just fine.
"...then either the OP means something other than what you think..."
Since the OP has already told us what she thinks of the_rukh's/your definition, we're in the fortuitous position of not having to speculate on the matter.
"This assumes that the original meaning was clear, and then was changed. I contend that the original meaning was the different the entire time in every instance, so this has nothing do with do with a fallacy of equivocation. To do that, I would have to claim first that the first definition was used and then switched to the second. I never made this claim."
You're mistaken. The fallacy of equivocation arises from your misattribution of meaning to the OP's word. You don't have had to have changed your mind about this, indeed you evidently have been engaged in the exact same fallacy of equivocation all along, treating the word as if it meant definition two when in fact it meant definition one.
"So, you're contending what someone who is superstitious is NOT believing in things that lack evidence?"
I'm contending that the term only appears one in the text, specifically at 170e, where it has the first meaning.
Incidentally: no, in the text "superstitious" does not mean "believing in things that lack evidence" or anything like this.
"I'm curious: Where in the definition of trust does it apply to superstition?"
What?
"The first definition of faith is trust."
Right.
"If you believe that this is the relevant definition, then tell me how."
Tell you how what?
"Explain to me how superstitious people exhibit trust in their superstitions and not the second definition of faith."
What are you talking about?
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 22:35 (UTC)su·per·sti·tion
/ˌsupərˈstɪʃən/ Show Spelled[soo-per-stish-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 11/6/11 05:50 (UTC)