Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

I think its odd how many atheist-naturalists have such disdain for the word faith (when it means believing in something regardless of evidence or facts). Most of the atheists in this board have complete faith in the belief we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces that without plan or intent created a universe, life and sentience. If this belief wasn't based on faith I'm sure I'd be beaten over the head with countless facts, data and evidence that would show its not faith its fact!

That must be a new ingredient, I've heard of a straw-man argument (See Sorginak) for a full explanation. I haven't heard of a straw-man fallacy but I like it.

So this in your mind is a bogus argument are you suggesting atheists are actually skeptical of the claim we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces that without plan or intent created a universe, life and sentience? I have never seen a modicum of doubt that mindless, lifeless unguided forces could and did cause a universe, life and mind to exist have you? What other part of the argument is bogus?

Epiphenomenalism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.  Atheists, who are not necessarily scientists themselves, often stray into metaphysics (without disclaimer, either unconsciously or deceitfully) in order to justify their philosophical positions.  They even claim that their philosophical positions (but not that of others) are fact, not fiction.

[Baruch]

You see Sorginak, you have to have faith that faith exists (takes a bow);-)

Faith clearly exists ... the question is ... is faith justified.  And that very word "justified" ties us right back into theology.  Like in a tar pit, the Pleistocene rhetoricians are trapped in the tar of their own words.  I would agree that faith isn't justified, because I am a radical empiricist.  Trust is appropriate for children, but something they outgrow in their teens.  But not all of us have killed our inner child.

[SGOS]

I try to think if I've ever drifted unknowingly into faith in something or other, but I can't think of an example.  Not that this would be something that bothers me.  I have no vested interest in maintaining a lack of faith in anything.  If I found an example of having faith in something myself, I would simply excuse it, recognizing that I have signed no contract with anyone promising always to be rational.  I am allowed to make errors, and experience consequences.

As a small child, I remember believing there was a god, but I don't identify it as a form of faith.  I was simply told by an adult in great detail about God and the Devil, and I was too young to understand that adults constantly failed to be intellectually consistent, emotionally stable, or rational, let alone always right.  What I believed about adults at the time was based purely on lack of awareness (ignorance).  It had simply never occurred to me that they might be wrong at best, or even delusional at worst, or might suffer from an infinite array of human failures.  While some of God's features did challenge what little I did know about reality, I simply shoved them aside.  I had not yet experienced a great need to lie or deceive, and that I might to do so unconsciously was beyond my grasp.  So it never occurred to me that adults would do anything like that.

I remember being naïve, ignorant, and accepting, but never experiencing faith.  In my definition of the word, I demand a quality beyond ignorance and naivety, something I could recognize as reliable, identifiable, and knowable, but I don't ever remember experiencing something like that.  I couldn't even say, "I have faith in myself."

I suppose that some atheists and some skeptics might have articles of faith, maybe in in certain ideological philosophies that are not reality based, such as politics and economics, but it would be wrong in claiming that all atheists, skeptics had faith.  The concept of faith in natural causes is beyond my grasp.  At best, we can understand natural causes.  We can extrapolate from what we know, and use that to make predictions, but that is not my definition of faith.

[Baruch]

Conditional trust I have had, but not faith (as in blind trust).  Except maybe as an infant or small child, but I can't remember.  One becomes aware, at a pretty young age, that the other children are flawed ... and eventually as you become an teen, you become aware that adults are flawed.  If one is lucky, in early adulthood, you learn that you yourself are flawed.  One can despair at that, or move on into accepting one's humanity.

What people claim to have happened in the past, I have always taken with a grain of salt, and that was with the generosity of believing that people aren't congenital liars.

[trdsf]

I suppose that some atheists and some skeptics might have articles of faith, maybe in in certain ideological philosophies that are not reality based, such as politics and economics, but it would be wrong in claiming that all atheists, skeptics had faith.  The concept of faith in natural causes is beyond my grasp.  At best, we can understand natural causes.  We can extrapolate from what we know, and use that to make predictions, but that is not my definition of faith.

I think 'faith' carries with it a connotation of being held despite available evidence, or that it would continue to be held to even in the face of evidence to the contrary.  It is something of a loaded word.  Belief, at least the way I use it, is in terms of an extrapolation from the known to the unknown -- so one might 'believe' in a particular political theory, but it doesn't make sense to say one 'has faith' in a particular political theory, even when they are held to with a near-religious fervor.

Even so, I won't object if someone says I have 'faith' that there are, for example, still-extant Martian microbes.  I do.  I am aware that I tend to focus more on observations that boost the chances, and hope that contradictory evidence turns up for observations that reduce the chances.  I am generally not disheartened by the failure to find any so far, because there are many more potential environments to examine.

The difference between this faith and religious faith is two-fold.

First, I am aware of my cherry-picking and admit to it, and that I hold only an opinion and not anything that's been demonstrated in any rigorous way whatsoever.  And I do not, will not, demand that anyone else share my opinion.  I am aware that I could be wrong, no matter how much I think I am not.

Second, while I will wail and bitch and moan if it's ever demonstrated there isn't anything currently living there, I will accept the data -- admittedly, secretly hoping they forgot to look somewhere -- and change my current optimistic "probably" to a sullen, but observation-respecting, "probably not".

I don't think you can get that out of very many who hold religious faith.

[Mike Cl]

I think 'faith' carries with it a connotation of being held despite available evidence, or that it would continue to be held to even in the face of evidence to the contrary.  It is something of a loaded word.  Belief, at least the way I use it, is in terms of an extrapolation from the known to the unknown -- so one might 'believe' in a particular political theory, but it doesn't make sense to say one 'has faith' in a particular political theory, even when they are held to with a near-religious fervor.

Even so, I won't object if someone says I have 'faith' that there are, for example, still-extant Martian microbes.  I do.  I am aware that I tend to focus more on observations that boost the chances, and hope that contradictory evidence turns up for observations that reduce the chances.  I am generally not disheartened by the failure to find any so far, because there are many more potential environments to examine.

The difference between this faith and religious faith is two-fold.

First, I am aware of my cherry-picking and admit to it, and that I hold only an opinion and not anything that's been demonstrated in any rigorous way whatsoever.  And I do not, will not, demand that anyone else share my opinion.  I am aware that I could be wrong, no matter how much I think I am not.

Second, while I will wail and bitch and moan if it's ever demonstrated there isn't anything currently living there, I will accept the data -- admittedly, secretly hoping they forgot to look somewhere -- and change my current optimistic "probably" to a sullen, but observation-respecting, "probably not".

I don't think you can get that out of very many who hold religious faith.

I agree with this.

And I'd add that many religious regard having 'faith' no matter what evidence is shown is the mark of a 'true believer' and one who will go to heaven no matter what the devil may try to do.  There is no evidence anywhere or anywhen that will dissuade them of their belief and 'strong and sincere faith' (the best kind) in their particular fairy tale.

Lately I've taken to doing my best to avoid using 'belief' and 'faith' as much as I can.  I don't have faith in my wife--I have trust.  I don't believe the Cubs will win the world series--I think they will.  Don't always remember, but I do try my best. 

[Hydra009]

And I'd add that many religious regard having 'faith' no matter what evidence is shown is the mark of a 'true believer' and one who will go to heaven no matter what the devil may try to do.  There is no evidence anywhere or anywhen that will dissuade them of their belief and 'strong and sincere faith' (the best kind) in their particular fairy tale.

Yep.  And staying the course no matter what - especially in a blind, unskeptical way - and being impervious to counter-argument is widely regarded as a positive thing, a sign of deep personal conviction and righteousness.  But staying the course no matter what just means you're more likely to venture off course as time goes on.  It's not courageous and noble, it's shamefully imbecilic.

The folly of that attitude is most obvious when comparing religious faith to scientific methodologies and courtroom procedures.  How would it look if an astronomer were to declare that Tycho Brahe's model is the unvarnished truth and that it is wicked - not to mention illegal - to say otherwise, even with ample evidence backing it up?  How about if guilt were determined by the prosecution's deeply-felt convictions?

Faith is not only the death of reason but toxic to civilization, which necessarily requires reason.  We should all be thankful that it has been pushed back to only a small sphere of human day-to-day life and carefully compartmentalized.

[trdsf]

I agree with this.

And I'd add that many religious regard having 'faith' no matter what evidence is shown is the mark of a 'true believer' and one who will go to heaven no matter what the devil may try to do.  There is no evidence anywhere or anywhen that will dissuade them of their belief and 'strong and sincere faith' (the best kind) in their particular fairy tale.

Sure, I'm with you on this.  I don't think faith is necessarily a good thing, even a semi-reasoned faith like mine.

But, I like my emotional attachment to the various space sciences.  I love that little frisson that goes up my spine not just at the unimagined realities like nitrogen glaciers on Pluto or the seven Earth-sized planets orbiting TRAPPIST-1, but at the possibilities that still lurk out there that we haven't discovered yet.

So there's nothing wrong with a few scientific fantasies, so long as they don't run foul of what we do know, and as long as the line between fantasy and reality is recognized.  Besides bacterial life on Mars (Europa, Ganymede, Titan, etc.), imagine, say, a relict population of trilobites still surviving in the vicinity of a black smoker.  Very unlikely, sure, but not quite impossible, and wouldn't it be fascinating?

Lately I've taken to doing my best to avoid using 'belief' and 'faith' as much as I can.  I don't have faith in my wife--I have trust.  I don't believe the Cubs will win the world series--I think they will.  Don't always remember, but I do try my best.

That's not so difficult to believe anymore.... damn it anyways (says this Indians fan)  ;)

I don't think there's anything wrong with 'believing' something based on incomplete evidence.  There are any number of things I believe are probably true, based on incomplete evidence, and which I would abandon, willingly or otherwise, if necessary.

Maybe when it crosses over to when contradictory evidence won't shake it that it stops being belief and becomes faith.

[Mike Cl]

But, I like my emotional attachment to the various space sciences.  I love that little frisson that goes up my spine not just at the unimagined realities like nitrogen glaciers on Pluto or the seven Earth-sized planets orbiting TRAPPIST-1, but at the possibilities that still lurk out there that we haven't discovered yet.

So there's nothing wrong with a few scientific fantasies, so long as they don't run foul of what we do know, and as long as the line between fantasy and reality is recognized.  Besides bacterial life on Mars (Europa, Ganymede, Titan, etc.), imagine, say, a relict population of trilobites still surviving in the vicinity of a black smoker.  Very unlikely, sure, but not quite impossible, and wouldn't it be fascinating?
That's not so difficult to believe anymore.... damn it anyways (says this Indians fan)  ;)

I don't think there's anything wrong with 'believing' something based on incomplete evidence.  There are any number of things I believe are probably true, based on incomplete evidence, and which I would abandon, willingly or otherwise, if necessary.

Yeah--I love my emotional attachment to the thought of life on other bodies in space.  I do, I do. 

I think what follows is probably more semantics than not--but I'll say it anyway.  My thinking that life exists elsewhere is based upon established facts and evidence.  When I was in grade school I was taught that life must have photosynthesis.  We now know that that is not true.  Black smokers on the ocean floor demonstrated that.  And I was also taught that life could not exist in harsh environments on Earth.  Now life has been found in all kinds of harsh environments.   I expect life to be found on other bodies in space not on wishful thinking, but on evidence found right here.  I don't believe life will be found elsewhere--I think it will be found.  And I don't have faith that we will find it--I think it most likely that it will.  I really don't think you 'believe' or have 'faith' that life will be found; I think you think it will be found.  Your (and mine) thought process is based upon evidence from Earth. 

[Drew_2017]

You see Sorginak, you have to have faith that faith exists (takes a bow);-)

I have seen him, he's doing a wonderful job of debating himself. It's like the old joke the defense went home and three plays later the offense scored.

[Cavebear]

I've been debating atheists (formally and informally) for over 15 years. I haven't seen a new argument in the past 10 years. You seem to use the same play book. Impugn theism as a baseless belief, deny any evidence exists (whether it does or not) then just hold up naturalism as a default position. But who knows maybe you'd surprise since you claim to reject theism on philosophical grounds...

I always ask theists to present any evidence they have to support their claims.  I'll ask that of you.  So, what evidence to you have to support your claims?

[trdsf]

Yeah--I love my emotional attachment to the thought of life on other bodies in space.  I do, I do. 

I think what follows is probably more semantics than not--but I'll say it anyway.  My thinking that life exists elsewhere is based upon established facts and evidence.  When I was in grade school I was taught that life must have photosynthesis.  We now know that that is not true.  Black smokers on the ocean floor demonstrated that.  And I was also taught that life could not exist in harsh environments on Earth.  Now life has been found in all kinds of harsh environments.   I expect life to be found on other bodies in space not on wishful thinking, but on evidence found right here.  I don't believe life will be found elsewhere--I think it will be found.  And I don't have faith that we will find it--I think it most likely that it will.  I really don't think you 'believe' or have 'faith' that life will be found; I think you think it will be found.  Your (and mine) thought process is based upon evidence from Earth.

Yeah, I think that's largely a semantic difference.  I think I prefer referring to it as a belief since it's an extrapolation from a single data point, which is statistically dubious under the best of circumstances.

Fortunately, given the billions of potential habitats, this is the best of circumstances.  I even expect microbes to turn up on Mars, Europa and/or Ganymede, and can't rule out Titan and the upper atmospheric reaches of Jupiter and Venus.

And as for the emotional attachment... I just got back from COSI After Dark, a monthly adults-only night at the local science museum (really amazing booze from one of the local distilleries).  In the planetarium show, one of the segments just counted time and circled stars as planets have been discovered around them, slowly at first, then coming thick and fast.  You have to see it to understand how very everywhere they are.  I don't mind admitting that I had to keep wiping my eyes.

[Sorginak]

I have seen him, he's doing a wonderful job of debating himself. It's like the old joke the defense went home and three plays later the offense scored.

Quite the transference there.

[Cavebear]

Yeah, I think that's largely a semantic difference.  I think I prefer referring to it as a belief since it's an extrapolation from a single data point, which is statistically dubious under the best of circumstances.

Fortunately, given the billions of potential habitats, this is the best of circumstances.  I even expect microbes to turn up on Mars, Europa and/or Ganymede, and can't rule out Titan and the upper atmospheric reaches of Jupiter and Venus.

And as for the emotional attachment... I just got back from COSI After Dark, a monthly adults-only night at the local science museum (really amazing booze from one of the local distilleries).  In the planetarium show, one of the segments just counted time and circled stars as planets have been discovered around them, slowly at first, then coming thick and fast.  You have to see it to understand how very everywhere they are.  I don't mind admitting that I had to keep wiping my eyes.

I suspect there is life and even sentient life elsewhere.  But that thought is statistical. not evidential.  I'm just expecting there is a LOT of pond scum, SOME multicellurs and MAYBE something beyond that somewhere. 

Life seems to have started here rather easily and possibly several times.  If so,  (and I say this only half-joking), maybe there sentient amphibians or cats somewhere looking at the sky.  And maybe a million years ago or a million years to come.  And we will never meet.

[SGOS]

I suspect there is life and even sentient life elsewhere.  But that thought is statistical. not evidential.  I'm just expecting there is a LOT of pond scum, SOME multicellurs and MAYBE something beyond that somewhere. 

Life seems to have started here rather easily and possibly several times.  If so,  (and I say this only half-joking), maybe there sentient amphibians or cats somewhere looking at the sky.  And maybe a million years ago or a million years to come.  And we will never meet.

I read one mind boggling statistic once that 99.99 % of all the species that ever existed on Earth have gone extinct.  It was a comment in passing and not explained, but it's fun to consider. 

To me it says that the ultimate fate of every species is extinction (actually that was stated in the book while musing about the implications of the given percentage).

I would add that given what a huge number that percent represents, most of those species we have no idea about.  What they looked like, how adaptable they were, how dominant; Not a clue.  There were likely a lot of unusual critters with amazing adaptations that we can't even imagine, critters that walked about the planet or swam in the oceans.
 
The only life forms NOT extinct are those living at this particular second.  Every species existing today represents only .01% of the total.  Some people may see these particular species as special, the survivors, the strongest, most adaptable, and most probable to continue, but long term, the statistic predicts that the likelihood of eternal survival is infinitely tiny, and no species has yet accomplished that.  It predicts that there are no survivors, it's just a temporary status for every species, whose destiny is to make way for other species at the end of a brief reign and never to inhabit the Earth again, and eventually even the few fossils left behind disappear leaving not even a trace.

Yet most humans assume their destiny is the continuance of their individuality through an imaginary soul.  It's a bit egocentric and doesn't even consider what happens to the rest of the species.  It's all about the individual selected for immortality in a sea of extinction and death.  Actually, it's totally egocentric, but forgivable given the almost incomprehensible nature of "never to be again."