Is Atheism a form of Faith?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Is Atheism a form of Faith? » Is Atheism a form of Faith?

Is Atheism a form of Faith?
I've wondered when reading posts if for some atheists their stance is a faith

Page: First 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Last

Is Atheism a form of Faith?

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 129

Posted 11/02/09 - 11:54 AM:	#441
Another thing I can't quite understand is people not understanding that we cannot know, with certainty, past events. We all seem to understand this with future events but not past ones. Now I can be fairly certain what happened a second ago and what will happen in a second but the further I move from the present the greater degree of uncertainty. If I try and remember something exactly from 10 years ago it is impossible, there will be gaps and I will draw my conclusions from what is left. And so this applies to history. Somebody presumably experiences the event. Then when they pass it on it immediately becomes more false as we get someone elses interpretation of someone else interpretation. And this is what makes history a powerful tool: that we are willing to accept certain peoples takes on event as if they were certainty. Take the Bible, for example. It only takes 1 idiot to take as completely literal what an author meant as a metaphor to send the house of cards tumbling down. Yet people are willing to suspend their belief and disregard the bible in the literal sense. Yet many people don't read Plato as a purely literal exercise (sadly they appear are all-too-oft to apply this to The Republic'). Anyway the intent to write as non-fiction usually suggests an element of truth. The way Plato writes about Socrates suggests that Socrates did exist (furthermore he appears in other authors work) but it becomes clear that he has probably taken liberties beyond the exact Socrates, presumably to make/emphasise his points.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/02/09 - 12:20 PM:	#442
walker wrote: And this is what makes history a powerful tool: that we are willing to accept certain peoples takes on event as if they were certainty. The problem arises when we attempt to define "certainty" a part from the context in question. I think that with respect to the nature of historical investigation some approximation to certainty is reasonable. However, "certain" like "actual" or even "objective truth" are so loaded with their own issues, it is better to believe we can be accurate and subject to error. We can be certain that a willingness to correct mistakes will lead to a better understanding of past events. I suppose our resident historian may have a few insights.
Or not.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/02/09 - 12:26 PM:	#443
Cheshire wrote: I was looking over the historical method and the concept of a "bias" source seemed to jump out at me. I assume any attempt to present "a chosen people" would be considered bias in this context? Any religious text is considered biased in history. Any partisan political text as well. This in itself doesn't discredit a text, it merely decreases its credibility. The thing about the old testament is that if you look at it through the historical method, you see that it is a narrative, rather than a relic. We have only weak indications of the origins, centuries after their creation, and having known to be edited, censored, extrapolated from, and so on. When we look at the time between the events, and their recordings, we find 1600 years. Which source is it from? Primary, secondary, tertiary? No, after 1600 years, try more like 80 generations worth of separation from the primary source. There are no other sources for the information. It is a religious text, the bias is obviously present. Also considering that the texts contain much that we know to be fiction. Exodus purportedly took place -- by the same text, written at the same time, by the same people -- only 800 years before they were recorded. Half the distance back of Abraham, and we know this entire story to be fiction. Disproved by Egyptian history, and archeology. From a historical perspective, this renders these texts unreliable, and not credible. Secondly, Abraham seems to serve the purpose of ancestor worship that was so common in early religions. If I am allowed a functionalist approach to the topic. This is rather an anthropological question, isn't it? Edited by Wosret on 11/03/09 - 04:18 PM. Reason: I failed math...
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/02/09 - 12:35 PM:	#444
sheps wrote: It's a moot point anyway, the historicity of the Bible is pretty irrelavent I guess. Just wanted to turn this discussion in a different direction, and to satisfy my own curiosity. No, the OP is a moot point. When discussing god it seems appropriate to to acknowledge to origins of the claim. I think it is arguably true that the majority of theist believe in God simply, because people before them also believed in God. It wouldn't be the first "truth" that arose simply from being asserted for a few thousand years. At some point you have to ask where the authority for this assertion is derived. If it turns out the source is in question, then the claim becomes highly questionable. It is only reasonable to treat the bible with the same standards as any text if the truth is really the purpose of inquiry. Others have attempted to avoid the matter entirely. Which speaks more to a lack of confidence, than a genuine desire to focus the arguments. By guarding ones own personal beliefs from criticism we only ensure that we are protecting our mistakes.
Or not.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/02/09 - 12:41 PM:	#445
wosret wrote: Also considering that the texts contain much that we know to be fiction. Exodus purportedly took place -- by the same text, written at the same time, by the same people -- only 800 years before they were recorded. Half the distance back of Abraham, and we know this entire story to be fiction. Disproved by Egyptian history, and archeology. So, as far as historians are concerned there isn't evidence for the Exodus?
Or not.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 129

Posted 11/02/09 - 12:43 PM:	#446
Cheshire wrote: The problem arises when we attempt to define "certainty" a part from the context in question. I think that with respect to the nature of historical investigation some approximation to certainty is reasonable. However, "certain" like "actual" or even "objective truth" are so loaded with their own issues, it is better to believe we can be accurate and subject to error. We can be certain that a willingness to correct mistakes will lead to a better understanding of past events. But I am not trying to draw any great certainty from the Bible. If I believed God solely from the bible they I would be commiting a fallacy against myself because that is not me deciding but someone else. I'm also saying that I see the Bible and get the idea that parts of it were written in good faith and that it may pertain to truth - I am by no means certain of this but then I can't believe that Churchill was exactly as Hastings (or any other historian) defined him. I can also guess that parts were written solely as metaphor, presumably to explain very difficult concepts in useful terms - something we all do though we want to diminish its reponsibility - and if read as such I feel you gain more from it. But to wholly put the bible down as entirely false entails a belief I can't buy in, not in my terms or probabilistically. And history is inherently biased whether we realise it or not. The only way to diminsh this is to produce facts with evidence. But this would obviously drag history down to a procession of evidence from which we would draw our own conclusions. But this is time consuming and oft-tedious so we employ someone else to do it - to decide for us. This is just one reason why the past has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 562

Posted 11/02/09 - 12:44 PM:	#447
Cheshire wrote: No, the OP is a moot point. When discussing god it seems appropriate to to acknowledge to origins of the claim. I think it is arguably true that the majority of theist believe in God simply, because people before them also believed in God. It wouldn't be the first "truth" that arose simply from being asserted for a few thousand years. At some point you have to ask where the authority for this assertion is derived. This may be the case. But I also tend to think that the questions surrounding a God (in the manner in which it is commonly assumed, but rather ill-defined) arise naturally whether they have historical context, or are spurred by indoctrination, etc. I think they are natural questions for an open and sufficiently consciously aware mind. We discussed this a bit in this thread. I even posit that they are inherent in sufficient awareness; that is one cannot be considered to be at a certain level of awareness w/out these questions arising. They are built-in, perhaps. Give it a bit of a read and let me know what you think there, if you please.
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 11/02/09 - 12:47 PM:	#448
sheps wrote: Sorry, not sure I understand ya. Are you saying that the person which Arthur was based on just might not have been called Arthur? You're right if you are, but I can hardly see how the change of his name in a text makes a difference. I can't get past this. I think is is sheer double-talk. "King Arthur" is not just a name, it is a persona, a character that people recognize. When you say "King Arthur", they think, king of the mythical land of Avalon, and is friend to a Wizard, and has a magic sword. To say that this character does not exist is not controversial. Saying that he does, but merely meaning that he is based on a normal historical person who did none of those things is merely obfuscating, and confusing the issue so that you can say that a character existed in history. Why not say that they are "based on" historical figures? How is the way you are putting it more informative, or conveys the meaning better than mine? Yours seems to be noting other than a tactic that allows one to call mythical characters real (whisper)in a sense(whisper) -- to what ends? To appease those who believe that they are? Isn't this a rather insulting appeasement if you aren't going to accept any of the events of their life as actual, or anything of the things that made them record worthy? Religious figures didn't do amazing human things, they did amazing magic things. If you take that away from them, then why they are being remembered at all becomes unclear. You know in the movie Willow, Ron Howard couldn't get his brother a part as he normally does, so they based the Hydra on him -- ergo, hydras are real (whisper)in a sense(whisper). Edited by Wosret on 11/02/09 - 12:59 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/02/09 - 12:55 PM:	#449
Cheshire wrote: So, as far as historians are concerned there isn't evidence for the Exodus? No, it's downright disproved. The Egyptian history tells a completely different tale, and they had records at the time exodus was supposedly taking place. The archeological evidence completely supports the Egyptian history. This is more than enough to be considered disproved in history. Edited by Wosret on 11/02/09 - 02:41 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 11/02/09 - 02:55 PM:	#450
Wosret wrote: I can't get past this. I think is is sheer double-talk. "King Arthur" is not just a name, it is a persona, a character that people recognize. When you say "King Arthur", they think, king of the mythical land of Avalon, and is friend to a Wizard, and has a magic sword. To say that this character does not exist is not controversial. Saying that he does, but merely meaning that he is based on a normal historical person who did none of those things is merely obfuscating, and confusing the issue so that you can say that a character existed in history. Why not say that they are "based on" historical figures? How is the way you are putting it more informative, or conveys the meaning better than mine? Yours seems to be noting other than a tactic that allows one to call mythical characters real (whisper)in a sense(whisper) -- to what ends? To appease those who believe that they are? Isn't this a rather insulting appeasement if you aren't going to accept any of the events of their life as actual, or anything of the things that made them record worthy? Religious figures didn't do amazing human things, they did amazing magic things. If you take that away from them, then why they are being remembered at all becomes unclear. You know in the movie Willow, Ron Howard couldn't get his brother a part as he normally does, so they based the Hydra on him -- ergo, hydras are real (whisper)in a sense(whisper). The man 'Abraham,' as far as I was aware, did not go around 'doing magic things.' Unlike Moses parting the Red Sea, for example. [Correct me if I'm wrong at any point, I haven't read the bible in a long time] My point is, people followed and continued to follow him because he SAID that he had a connection with God; he did not perform miracles. Therefore, he remains an extremely important religuous leader of men, just like Muhammed was. I am saying that he probably did exist as he could have merely gained notoriety through what he SAID, not what he DID. With King Arthur, he is based upon a real person (the opinion of many archaeologists) who really was a warlord against the Saxons in the 5th century. Like Abraham, the mythical parts of his tale have been invented in order to get future generations to revere him (by Medieval historians in his case), but the fact remains that it is more likely than not that he existed as a leader of men. This is what inspired the more fantastic tales about both men; the writers of the Bible and Medieval authors both must have had some ulterior motive in mythisising their characters. However, I believe that both were originally leaders of their time, who have been romanticised many years after their death. We don't disagree over that much; I just don't think that the mythical parts of the story created much later disprove the existence and importance of the character in his own time. And, for convinience's sake, I am prepared to believe that the original leaders who the myths were based upon were called 'Abraham' and 'Arthur.'
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Page: First 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.