Atheism - Yet another faith ?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But do you think it is likely. Can you, for almost certain, say I am not in fact an alien, and I am not in fact from the Planet Zarg.

I can say it's extremely unlikely.

Wicknight wrote:

Or to use an example I used in an earlier post, how do you know a dragon isn't about to fall on your head. There evidence at all that a dragon is about to fall on your head, but then there is no evidence that a dragon isn't about to fall on your head.

You only know for certain based on direct evidence that a dragon isn't about to fall on your head when you look up and see that there is no dragon about to fall on your head. But there might be in a few minutes. Do we spend our lives contantly looking up? Or can I say right now, without having to look up that a dragon is not about to land on my head. I think I can.

I think you can say that the probability is extremely low.

Wicknight wrote:

So I can safely say that dragons don't exist. I actually have no evidence that dragons don't exist, and it contradicts what a lot of other humans have said, but I can still safely conclude that dragons don't exist. I am not a dragon agnostic, I am a dragon atheist. I don't believe dragons don't exist, I reject the concept of the dragon as something based in reality.

I think you can safely conclude that you have an alternative theory which fits the facts better (the misinterpretation of crocodiles).

Wicknight wrote:

So the likely hood of a dragon, a creature that actually never existed in the first place, landing on my head in the next few minutes, is certainly not going to happen. Of course I would be a bit surprised if it did happen, but I don't think anyone is going to argue with me if I state for certain it isn't going to happen.

I'm arguing with you. You can't state for certain that it will not happen, although you can state with certainty that it won't, given that the probability is so low.

Wicknight wrote:

The argument that we can never really know anything that we don't have direct evidence for is fine, but in reality we don't live our lives like that, or even shape our view of reality like that.

I don't believe gods are real anymore than i believe dragons are real. And I can say for certain that neither exist, even though I have no direct evidence that neither of them exist

As above. You can't say for certain, you can only say with certainty.

Certainty is what we live our lives based on - after all, I can say with a good deal of certainty that there is not a CIA operative about to break into my house.

Certain is something we can use to found a logical position - it means 100% true. None of your statements are of that level of certainty, nor can you disprove God to that level of certainty.

In other words, while, as a day-to-day belief, atheism is as certain as it needs to be, it is not certain in the sense of being guaranteed to be true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

John Doe wrote:

Not I, that's for sure. We're going around in pretty little circles. Wheeeee.

And I'm just logic-chopping at this point - I think we're just gnawing the bones. I did hope that the thread would terminate on an agree-to-differ - that there are different types of atheist, some with faith in their position, some who feel it's unnecessary.

On the other hand, I think there is another discussion in here struggling to emerge, but I can't articulate it.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yossie

Scofflaw wrote:

Certain is something we can use to found a logical position - it means 100% true. None of your statements are of that level of certainty, nor can you disprove God to that level of certainty.

In other words, while, as a day-to-day belief, atheism is as certain as it needs to be, it is not certain in the sense of being guaranteed to be true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

To me it seems like you are hung-up on "Decartes Demon", that the only thing we can logically know for certain is our own existence and as you point out nothing else is 100% guarenteed. Anybody who doesn't except this is clinging to dogma.

BUT as I said before, the absence of absolute proof is not a reason to suspend the forming of beliefs from the evidence to hand. These beliefs cannot be considered acts of faith unless you think every belief is an act of faith.

A very strong case can be made for atheism over all other theries including theism. Everthing we know about the world shows it to be consistent with naturalism and univeralism. Everything we know indicates that the "mind" is exclusively an action of the brain and does not exist without the brain; when your brain dies you die.

In short, all strong the evidence is in favour of atheism, hence a faith-free belief in atheism is justified.

Scofflaw

Yossie wrote:

BUT as I said before, the absence of absolute proof is not a reason to suspend the forming of beliefs from the evidence to hand. These beliefs cannot be considered acts of faith unless you think every belief is an act of faith.

In short, all strong the evidence is in favour of atheism, hence a faith-free belief in atheism is justified.

I think this may be about the word 'faith' itself. I do think every belief is an act of faith, yes - greater or lesser faith attaches to any act of belief. Atheism is, to me, the best-justified belief system, but it's still a belief. Holding to it therefore requires a certain amount of faith.

I have not intended to imply that atheism is 'a faith', just that atheism requires faith - faith in one's reading of the evidence, faith in scientific evidence, faith in logic and the tools of reason. Given the amount of worshippers in the world, and the way the world has of throwing nasty moments at us, I think sticking with atheism requires a lot more faith than most theisms.

regards,
Scofflaw

Yossie

Scofflaw wrote:

I think this may be about the word 'faith' itself. I do think every belief is an act of faith, yes - greater or lesser faith attaches to any act of belief. Atheism is, to me, the best-justified belief system, but it's still a belief. Holding to it therefore requires a certain amount of faith.

I have not intended to imply that atheism is 'a faith', just that atheism requires faith -

I think you are right, the problem is with the word "faith", to some extent. I think your usage is a little wide. For you, it is an act of faith claiming your mother is female. For me it doesn't apply when there is substantial evidence, but instead only when dogma is involved. I think this is an important distinction. Using the one word for what atheists believe and the very different beliefs of theists is mistaken, imo. If you do insist on that word then i would suggest maybe you differenciate by saying "blind-faith" in the case of theism.

For me if you work off the evidence, and are willing to change your opinion in light of new evidence then it ain't an act of faith.

Scofflaw wrote:

...faith in one's reading of the evidence, faith in scientific evidence, faith in logic and the tools of reason. .

The cheeky answer to this would be - "kangaroos are the devil's underpants, because motorbikes don't have windows".;)

Your right. Of course we make those asumptions, but they are neccessary and justified because we cannot interact with the world without them. Those assumptions have been tested everyday by everyperson who has every lived and we have yet to find better or more well founded versions.

Scofflaw wrote:

Given the amount of worshippers in the world, and the way the world has of throwing nasty moments at us, I think sticking with atheism requires a lot more faith than most theisms.

One might argue it takes a lot more will to be atheist perhaps, but not faith. Weathering the storms of life without the emotional/mental crutch of a god isn't easy. There are also all the other biological/psychological aspects to theism, including our very natural habit of seeing agency where there is none.
Either way these are only weak forms of evidence for theism.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

just that atheism requires faith - faith in one's reading of the evidence, faith in scientific evidence, faith in logic and the tools of reason.

But that is not "faith" in any meaningfull religious context. The "faith" (as you describe it) I have that what I am seeing in front of me actually exists, or that when I see something happen in front of me it is actually happening in reality, is not the same "faith" that someone has in the Bible, or teachings of the Pope.

You are using the term faith here in two different contexts

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But that is not "faith" in any meaningfull religious context. The "faith" (as you describe it) I have that what I am seeing in front of me actually exists, or that when I see something happen in front of me it is actually happening in reality, is not the same "faith" that someone has in the Bible, or teachings of the Pope.

You are using the term faith here in two different contexts

I don't think so. I quite like Yossie's suggestion of "blind-faith" to indicate people believing something they have no evidence for, and "faith" to indicate people just believing that the world is real, but I think it's unnecessary. It seems to me to just be a matter of degree rather than kind.

While it certainly sounds ridiculous to use the term "faith" of believing the world is real, there is no evidence for the world being real - it's merely pointless to suppose that it isn't. On the other hand, a Buddhist, for example, would disagree. To use your earlier example, you have faith that the roof over your head continues in existence without you checking it. It's not a big faith requirement, but it's there.

I'm only arguing this point to counter the suggestion that atheism is somehow a position that is completely logically justifiable. That it is not is also quite ridiculous, but such are the demands of formal logic-chopping. It's also a hostage to Creationists and their ilk - as long as you're unaware of it.

We are beginning to see a quite public dichotomy between the "faith-based" and "reality-based" (Google the reference if required!), and the real difference between us and them seems to come down to one starting assumption: our assumption is that the world is neither more nor less than it seems to be, and theirs is that it isn't.

Starting from our assumption, it is clear that there is no evidence for God, because only material evidence is admissible. Starting from their assumption, non-material evidence is admissible, and the world turns out to be full of it - also, to them, even material evidence requires interpretation, and much of their interpretation turns out to support their views.

While it would seem obvious that ours is the correct assumption, all we have going for it is an elegant economy.

Dades

Yossie wrote:

Me knowing someone is Irish, means i can justifably assume they speak English, although this might prove not to be the case. I wouldn't be justified in assuming they speak chinese, or were morally corrupt, however.

It appears, for you that there are no justified prejudices about atheists other than "no belief in god", where I hold that there are some justified assumptions. A difference that can only come out in the wash of a many atheist opinion.

This is a different thing Yossie. Justifiable assumptions about atheists are different to the definition of an atheist (or atheism).

You're right in that you can assume that an Irish person speaks English, but the definition of an Irish person is not "Someone born in Ireland who speaks English". It's is (for example) "A person born in Ireland".

The fact that they probably speak English is irrelevant to what catagorises that person as Irish.

There are likely attributes you can apply to atheists, but again, this is irrelevant to what catagorises that person as an atheist.

Zillah wrote:

Is anyone actually enjoying this discussion any more?

It's strangely addictive...

Yossie

The Atheist wrote:

This is a different thing Yossie. Justifiable assumptions about atheists are different to the definition of an atheist (or atheism).

You're right in that you can assume that an Irish person speaks English, but the definition of an Irish person is not "Someone born in Ireland who speaks English". It's is (for example) "A person born in Ireland".

The fact that they probably speak English is irrelevant to what catagorises that person as Irish.

There are likely attributes you can apply to atheists, but again, this is irrelevant to what catagorises that person as an atheist.

Statin' the bleedin' obvious;)

Of course i agree totally. Just wanted to point out that there are some justified assumptions/connotations with regard to atheists.

Dades

Yossie wrote:

Statin' the bleedin' obvious;)

You started it!

Yossie

The Atheist wrote:

You started it!

I fear I rub you the wrong way;)

Zombrex

I fear I rub you the wrong way

This is just like Brokeback Mountain ... you could cut the homoerotic tension here with a knife

God hates gay people you two (its in the Bible), and he is always watching (cheaper than paying for porn channels I guess)

Yossie

Yossie wrote:

I fear I rub you the wrong way;)

ie I don't mean to.

Yossie

Scofflaw wrote:

…..Yossie's suggestion of "blind-faith" to indicate people believing something they have no evidence for, and "faith" to indicate people just believing that the world is real, but I think it's unnecessary. It seems to me to just be a matter of degree rather than kind.

I think that there is a difference of kind. Imo that difference is the element of dogma.

Suppose I don’t believe in unicorns and you do. I have all available physical evidence on my side and also have a good theory to explain the origins of the unicorn myths, but as you point out I must still bridge the gap (all be it small compared to believing) between evidence and absolute proof. You in spite of the evidence still believe dogmatically. Now here’s the kicker – if unicorns are then discovered in some previously uncharted forest and within a few years of this one can go see unicorns in Dublin zoo, then if I still refuse to accept that unicorns exist, it is me who is adopting a dogmatic faith position on this point. The use of the word faith is only justified, imho, if it is a dogmatic position.

As regards atheism Vs theism there is the same difference. As an atheist, if someone asks if I’m 100% sure god does not exist I have to say “no” – I don’t have a problem with this, since I feel atheism shouldn’t be a dogma. I could also outline a set of circumstances where I could change my opinion on it. The theist on the other hand has only dogma to justify their belief – they believe in spite of the evidence and in most religions this kind of faith is a virtue. This for me is the crux of the difference. And in many ways is why I feel atheism is/(should be) more than just a label.

Scofflaw wrote:

We are beginning to see a quite public dichotomy between the "faith-based" and "reality-based" (Google the reference if required!), and the real difference between us and them seems to come down to one starting assumption: our assumption is that the world is neither more nor less than it seems to be, and theirs is that it isn't.

Starting from our assumption, it is clear that there is no evidence for God, because only material evidence is admissible. Starting from their assumption, non-material evidence is admissible, and the world turns out to be full of it - also, to them, even material evidence requires interpretation, and much of their interpretation turns out to support their views.

This sounds a little like “there are two types of people in the world –those that believe there are two types of people and those that don’t”.:)

Scofflaw wrote:

While it would seem obvious that ours is the correct assumption, all we have going for it is an elegant economy.

That’s an awful lot going for it! But, we also will and can change any of our assumptions with new evidence.

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

This is just like Brokeback Mountain ... you could cut the homoerotic tension here with a knife

Hold on while I don my chaps...

And Yossie - there was never a problem!
(I'm a big C22 fan too, BTW)

*Maybe this thread will finally die*

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

It's strangely addictive...

It just really seemed like it had gotten to the stage where everyone was simply repeating themselves. I bowed out long ago, I made my point as well as I could, I stand by it, but theres no point in standing around going "Yes!...No!...Yes!...No!"

Well...enjoy

UU

For Pete's sake! You are all beating around the bush! I mean there are two different ways of looking at Atheism.

One way is as a faith "I believe that there is no god/ goddess, etc." and the other way is as a lack of faith "I don't believe there is a god/ goddess".

Whichever view one wishes to take on atheism is that they are both valid and it is still atheism at the end of the day.

Good luck in your ranting!

Daniel :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

UU wrote:

For Pete's sake! You are all beating around the bush! I mean there are two different ways of looking at Atheism.

One way is as a faith "I believe that there is no god/ goddess, etc." and the other way is as a lack of faith "I don't believe there is a god/ goddess".

Whichever view one wishes to take on atheism is that they are both valid and it is still atheism at the end of the day.

I know - I think it's mostly me arguing here, and I'm not even arguing the contrary really. To sum up my position (and I think UU and Zillah are right, the discussion is pretty much out of juice), I think:

1. there are two ways of looking at atheism, as suggested.

2. one involves no more faith than is normally required to operate on a day to day basis, and is a lack of an active belief in God.

3. the other involves a greater degree of faith, a positive belief that there is no God.

4. both are valid atheist positions.

Any dissenters?


regards,
Scofflaw

Yossie

Scofflaw wrote:

Any dissenters?

I am Spartacus – no, sorry - I mean I dissent. I DISSENT! :eek:

Afraid I couldn’t live, as a strong atheist, with the above. (But don't worry, I'm not about to do anything silly;) )

Your two versions of atheism are simply “weak” and “strong” atheism, although you’re right that both are valid atheist positions. But neither involves “faith”. As you suggested before the problem lies with the use of the word “faith” for things that I think should be regarded as two totally different situations.

In one case….

Faith#1 = any belief we have in an opinion that we cannot have absolute proof for, even if justified by evidence

In the other….

Faith#2 = an acceptance of religious dogma

These are differences of kind, not degree. It is as I previously pointed out the element of dogma that is the key. The word “faith” is now so synnomous with religion i.e. Faith#2, that Faith#1 is now a misnomer, and it is not justified to use the same word in both situations without an accompaning definition. Imo, to do so short-changes the atheist position through a dodgy use of langauge.

In short - “atheists are to faith, what albinos are to suntan”.:)

If we all can accept this view, then I'm happy to leave it:D
Any dissenters?:v:

Scofflaw

Yossie wrote:

I am Spartacus – no, sorry - I mean I dissent. I DISSENT! :eek:

Afraid I couldn’t live, as a strong atheist, with the above. (But don't worry, I'm not about to do anything silly;) )

Your two versions of atheism are simply “weak” and “strong” atheism, although you’re right that both are valid atheist positions. But neither involves “faith”. As you suggested before the problem lies with the use of the word “faith” for things that I think should be regarded as two totally different situations.

In one case….

Faith#1 = any belief we have in an opinion that we cannot have absolute proof for, even if justified by evidence

In the other….

Faith#2 = an acceptance of religious dogma

These are differences of kind, not degree. It is as I previously pointed out the element of dogma that is the key. The word “faith” is now so synnomous with religion i.e. Faith#2, that Faith#1 is now a misnomer, and it is not justified to use the same word in both situations without an accompaning definition. Imo, to do so short-changes the atheist position through a dodgy use of langauge.

In short - “atheists are to faith, what albinos are to suntan”.:)

If we all can accept this view, then I'm happy to leave it:D
Any dissenters?:v:

Maybeeeee. No, not really. If this is just about the definitions of words, it's not worth arguing. Certainly the original question has been answered in the negative - atheism is not a faith, and does not have any of the characteristics of a faith (acceptance of a body of dogma, usually).

On the other hand, re. your point, there are plenty of theists who do not accept any particular dogma. They do, nevertheless, have faith in their god(s). Is that, then, a third kind of faith, or does it fall under the first definition?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yossie

Scofflaw wrote:

Maybeeeee. No, not really. If this is just about the definitions of words, it's not worth arguing.

It certainly ain't just hair-splitting linguistic analysis or deconstruction; there is a world of difference between faith#1 and Faith#2, i.e. dogma.

Scofflaw wrote:

Certainly the original question has been answered in the negative - atheism is not a faith, and does not have any of the characteristics of a faith (acceptance of a body of dogma, usually)

Totally agree.

Scofflaw wrote:

On the other hand, re. your point, there are plenty of theists who do not accept any particular dogma. They do, nevertheless, have faith in their god(s). Is that, then, a third kind of faith, or does it fall under the first definition?

There are plenty of theists that don't accept any religious doctrinal dogma alright, but they all accept god's existence, which can only be justified through dogma i.e. Faith#2. Just like the unicorn analogy, it is the element of dogma that is key, here.

The atheist position can be free of dogma, the theist/buddhist/unicorn believer positions can't be dogma free and that's why atheism cannot be considered a faith, imho anyway:D .

Scofflaw

Yossie wrote:

It certainly ain't just hair-splitting linguistic analysis or deconstruction; there is a world of difference between faith#1 and Faith#2, i.e. dogma.

There are plenty of theists that don't accept any religious doctrinal dogma alright, but they all accept god's existence, which can only be justified through dogma i.e. Faith#2. Just like the unicorn analogy, it is the element of dogma that is key, here.

The atheist position can be free of dogma, the theist/buddhist/unicorn believer positions can't be dogma free and that's why atheism cannot be considered a faith, imho anyway:D .

No, sorry, I can't accept your use of 'dogma'. Dogma from the Catholic dictionary:

According to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.

Religious dogma are beliefs or tenets of the faith, which are justified by the existence of God, not the other way round, as you have it.

That is why atheism is free of dogma - it has no God to justify adherence to a set of rules. But you can't use the word 'dogma' of 'faith without evidence', and claim it's different from 'faith without sufficient evidence', without sufficient evidence (sorry!).

We seem to be arguing about whether the difference in "faith" between an atheist and a theist is a difference in kind (a substantial difference, even so) or a difference in degree (a substantive difference). I therefore propose that it's "consubstantial"!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yossie

Scofflaw wrote:

No, sorry, I can't accept your use of 'dogma'. Dogma from the Catholic dictionary:
“According ..... A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

Religious dogma are beliefs or tenets of the faith, which are justified by the existence of God, not the other way round, as you have it.

“Au contraire”, what you have there Scofflaw is a catholic definition of doctrinal dogma, not a definition of dogma. I must say, it’s also rather strange to hear an atheist say “first came god then came dogma”!! Where the hell did god come from, if not the dogma?!! Did it come from the “Divine revelation” they refer to in the last line of the definition?!!!

Scofflaw wrote:

That is why atheism is free of dogma - it has no God to justify adherence to a set of rules. But you can't use the word 'dogma' of 'faith without evidence', and claim it's different from 'faith without sufficient evidence', without sufficient evidence (sorry!).

You’re putting words in my mouth here a little - never said it is free, I said it can be free of dogma, that’s important. Also 'faith without evidence' and 'faith without sufficient evidence' ain’t a fair reflection of my faith#1 and Faith#2. Faith#1 is a belief that can be consistent with evidence and can change with new evidence; with Faith#2 evidence doesn’t matter (or only as a later addition), i.e. dogma, which is .......

Chambridge Dict. wrote:

dogma
noun [C or U] DISAPPROVING
a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts

Compact Oxford Dict. wrote:

dogma

• noun - an inflexible principle or set of principles laid down by an authority [

Dictionary.com. wrote:

dog·ma P Pronunciation Key (dôg m , d g -)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m -t )
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

Wikipedia wrote:

Dogma is belief or doctrine held by a religion or any kind of organization to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.

“fixed”, “inflexible” “considered to be absolutely true” “accept without any doubts”, “not to be disputed or doubted” these are the properties of dogma and they match my Faith#2 very well and are completely inconsistent with faith#1.

Scofflaw wrote:

We seem to be arguing about whether the difference in "faith" between an atheist and a theist is a difference in kind (a substantial difference, even so) or a difference in degree (a substantive difference).

That’s what I’m arguing alright. A dogmatic belief is one where evidence is not even considered, something just “IS” true. Hence, theist presuppositions of god ARE dogmatic, where alternatively atheism (and belief in gravity and that my mother really is my mother), can all be free from this dogma.

I’m sorry but you’ll have to accept that faith#1 and Faith#2 are two totally different kinds of belief (i.e. substantially different) and the one word for both is inappropriate.

Apologies for quoting myself but……..


“atheists are to faith, what albinos are to suntan”.

If we all can accept this view, then I'm happy to leave it.

Zillah

Yossie wrote:

“atheists are to faith, what albinos are to suntan”.

If we all can accept this view, then I'm happy to leave it.

Lacking in essential protective chemicals and ultimatley destined to be incinerated should they ever encounter the great bright one in the sky?

Scofflaw

Pale, damp people, much given to lurking indoors?

(Zillah's is better - more on Yossie's points later).


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Yossie wrote:

“Au contraire”, what you have there Scofflaw is a catholic definition of doctrinal dogma, not a definition of dogma. I must say, it’s also rather strange to hear an atheist say “first came god then came dogma”!! Where the hell did god come from, if not the dogma?!! Did it come from the “Divine revelation” they refer to in the last line of the definition?!!!

No, God doesn't come from dogma. Dogma comes from God. Ask any Christian.

Yossie wrote:

That’s what I’m arguing alright. A dogmatic belief is one where evidence is not even considered, something just “IS” true. Hence, theist presuppositions of god ARE dogmatic, where alternatively atheism (and belief in gravity and that my mother really is my mother), can all be free from this dogma.

I’m sorry but you’ll have to accept that faith#1 and Faith#2 are two totally different kinds of belief (i.e. substantially different) and the one word for both is inappropriate.

I understand the point you're making - that there is a qualitative difference between 'blind faith', and 'believing the evidence'. You may well be right - there may be an actual mental difference (as opposed to a philosophical one), but I'm afraid the same word certainly is used of both.

It is a useful distinction as well - one person will bend or ignore the evidence to fit their position (Creationists are superb examples), and the other will change their position based on the evidence. There ought to be different words, and there may well be, in Greek.

Faith: definitions
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

We would be faith 1, your 'dogma' is faith 2 (not 5!). If that's OK (and I think I've agreed with everything short of your choice of word), we could leave it there...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yossie

Just a few little things, which aren’t intended to undo our relative proximity to some consensus on these issues.

Scofflaw wrote:

No, God doesn't come from dogma. Dogma comes from God. Ask any Christian.

I’m hoping here that we both accept that a christrian presupposing the existence of god is an act of dogma, and the subsequent doctrinal dogma/laws/rules are then claimed as coming from a divine power. Hence in this sense, the dogma must always come first, even though our X-ian friends wouldn’t agree.

Scofflaw wrote:

I understand the point you're making - that there is a qualitative difference between 'blind faith', and 'believing the evidence'.

Exactly!

Scofflaw wrote:

You may well be right - there may be an actual mental difference (as opposed to a philosophical one),…….

Not exactly. There are big philosophical ones too – in one you make the best decision you can, believing something on the back of evidence and accepting that this may ultimately be proved wrong; the other, you hold that your belief is an absolute truth and evidence doesn’t matter and it can never be revised. I think that’s a big philosophical difference.

Scofflaw wrote:

….. but I'm afraid the same word certainly is used of both. There ought to be different words, and there may well be, in Greek.

Unfortunately true, …..but….. using the same word doesn’t imply equivalence of meaning though, which is how theists and some silly agnostics want to use it when comparing theism and atheism.

Me saying “I’m off to bed”, wouldn’t spark your interest. Me saying “I’m off to bed your brother/sister” might: Same word two very different meanings

So although I don’t like the use of the word “faith”, it is really the smudging of the definitions so as to equate atheistic belief and theistic belief that I have a problem with, since imho, there are hugely different. From your quote below, I’m glad to see you don’t do this.

Scofflaw wrote:

Faith: definitions
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

We would be faith 1, your 'dogma' is faith 2 (not 5!).

I pretty much agree ….. (but I think there could be better/tighter definitions out there for those two cases).

Scofflaw wrote:

If that's OK (and I think I've agreed with everything short of your choice of word), we could leave it there...

I think we can now put this one to bed;), if that’s all right with you?

Scofflaw

Apologies for the slow response!

I agree.


cordially,
Scofflaw