Do we make leaps of faith too?

[DennisK]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately.  As atheists, do we make assumptions about science or our areas of expertise?  I'm not trying to give fuel to the enemy by any means.  It's more a reflection of my own self exploration.  I make assumptions according to what fits my own views.  

Think about it and be honest.  Doesn't everyone make broad assumptions based on our own current universe?  Especially when you go outside your comfort zone.  As a society, we are very compartmentalized in our lives.  We can't investigate all possibilities, so you have to make assumptions.  I'm not saying any facet of science is not verifiable, but do most of us truly understand the intricacies of science?  One of the hardest things one has to do as a human is admit you are wrong.

[Martian]

You must always assume something, no matter what you do.

[BadPoison]

You must always assume something, no matter what you do.

There is a degree of truth to this.  

[Will]

Good question, Dennis.

It's true that a perfectly pragmatic life would elude even the most realistic person. There's just no way to be an expert in everything you encounter, and even experts aren't all-knowing. It's simply a matter of doing the best with what you have.

And Snopes helps.

[curiosityandthecat]

Of course we do. We do it all the time. We have to. The atheist position is an amalgamation of a number of different areas in philosophy, biology, astrophysics, and others. The theist position is based solely on theology. They've got it a lot easier. They are fed simplistic versions of their worldview stories and are expected to believe them. Likewise, we are fed simpolistic versions of our worldview observations (think Dawkins' explanation of the rather nitty-gritty bits of evolutionary biology would make any real sense to any of us without an advanced degree in biology... doubt it) and choose to believe them because the alternative is even harder for us to believe. Fortunately, we've got the one thing they don't: evidence.

I make leaps all the time. I trust that my "leaders" (people like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russel, Robert Ingersol) have nothing to gain from me believing them, save maybe a few book sales, so their motives are far purer than the alternative.

[Kyuuketsuki]

You must always assume something, no matter what you do.

Agreed but assumptions only remain on the table of reason if they actually work, if they have a good degree of fit with everything else we understand.

Kyu

[dodgecity]

This is not appropriate.

I'm reminded of the parable of the Emperor's new clothes. Someone comes along and says "Don't you think we make leaps of faith just like Christians who take the Bible on authority? Isn't the way we think eerily similar to them?" and when one reads it, they immediately think That makes absolutely no sense. Then you say, "Oh but, I know it's difficult to admit you're wrong, but if you're truly open minded, you will admit that you're not open minded at all." and none of us see the clothes (assumptions), because they aren't there, but we don't want to look closed minded, so we fall into the trap and admit to making leaps of faith.

You're using a true statement and twisting it to mean something drastically different. Sure, we have to assume some things, to say otherwise would be to say we know everything. When I read in a science textbook about the nucleus of a cell, I am in a way assuming that the scientific community didn't make that up. I don't have any other choice because I cannot know everything because my thoughts and my knowledge are subject to scarcity. This goes unsaid. So why do you even bring it up? The amount I assume is a far cry from what a believer assumes. A far cry.

It is obviously difficult for anyone's ego to accept that they're wrong, but that difficulty has no correlation with accuracy of what they believe. You're exploiting our desire to be open minded. If a Christian said this, we would point out that it makes no sense, because it doesn't. But since DennisK professes to be a free thinker(And I am highly doubtful of that), we all have to agree with a statement that makes absolutely no sense, at all?

Shame on you curio. That bit about "leaders" is in no way representative of how atheists are, and I'm appalled that you would go so far to profess to see the clothes in order to feel good about yourself. "Oh, look at me, I'm so open minded. I admit to complete ignorance. I know nothing. And nothing is knowable."

[Wechtlein Uns]

This is not appropriate.

I'm reminded of the parable of the Emperor's new clothes. Someone comes along and says "Don't you think we make leaps of faith just like Christians who take the Bible on authority? Isn't the way we think eerily similar to them?" and when one reads it, they immediately think That makes absolutely no sense. Then you say, "Oh but, I know it's difficult to admit you're wrong, but if you're truly open minded, you will admit that you're not open minded at all." and none of us see the clothes (assumptions), because they aren't there, but we don't want to look closed minded, so we fall into the trap and admit to making leaps of faith.

You're using a true statement and twisting it to mean something drastically different. Sure, we have to assume some things, to say otherwise would be to say we know everything. When I read in a science textbook about the nucleus of a cell, I am in a way assuming that the scientific community didn't make that up. I don't have any other choice because I cannot know everything because my thoughts and my knowledge are subject to scarcity. This goes unsaid. So why do you even bring it up? The amount I assume is a far cry from what a believer assumes. A far cry.

It is obviously difficult for anyone's ego to accept that they're wrong, but that difficulty has no correlation with accuracy of what they believe. You're exploiting our desire to be open minded. If a Christian said this, we would point out that it makes no sense, because it doesn't. But since DennisK professes to be a free thinker(And I am highly doubtful of that), we all have to agree with a statement that makes absolutely no sense, at all?

Shame on you curio. That bit about "leaders" is in no way representative of how atheists are, and I'm appalled that you would go so far to profess to see the clothes in order to feel good about yourself. "Oh, look at me, I'm so open minded. I admit to complete ignorance. I know nothing. And nothing is knowable."

Dodgecity, I feel the one leap of faith that atheists make is that this, life, we are living and everything about it is real enough to justify caring about. Apparently, no body really knows what happens after death. There are some people who are so cynical that they don't trust even the idea that what they experience and feel is real. And so they off themselves.

It's true that science makes a lot of sense. It is logical, rational, and it only accepts what makes sense. But that doesn't change the fact that we assume it should make sense. This, however, has nothing to do with christianity or a theological viewpoint, which is so far removed from my own experience that I find it hardly worth remarking about here. The question of whether we make leaps of faith, I think, does not imply that we are wrong to believe as we do. In fact I think it allows a certain last amount of parity between the theologist and the free-thinker, a point of contact through which we can launch other discussions and explorations.

Now, to me, there is only communication. The only thing I believe in, as a matter of fact, is just that: Communication. I believe this is real because it is the only thing with which I am directly aware of that is not supplied to me through sensory organs or reliant on them. And yet, it includes them. I don't know what the belief in communication would assume, but I assume I'll find out eventually.

[Will]

"Don't you think we make leaps of faith just like Christians who take the Bible on authority? Isn't the way we think eerily similar to them?" and when one reads it, they immediately think That makes absolutely no sense.

Admitting that we all make assumptions isn't the same as saying we make similar leaps of faith to those that believe in the supernatural. The leap necessary to believing in the supernatural is unreasonable, unfounded, and runs counter to logic. The leaps that you and I might make are estimates, guesses based on experiences and an established understanding of science and reason.

[chuff]

We can't really look down on all "leaps of faith," because really these kinds of assumptions form the bases for practically all of the knowledge we have.

We trust the articles we use as sources, etc.

The only way we know as individuals what is and isn't true is to test it to see if it works/holds water. (ex: We know the system of logic is true and accurate because it works)

[Improbable]

We of course do make assumptions, however small. You could call that faith. But I definitely think faith is totally the wrong word for it, basically.

[BadPoison]

[
Dodgecity, I feel the one leap of faith that atheists make is that this, life, we are living and everything about it is real enough to justify caring about. Apparently, no body really knows what happens after death. There are some people who are so cynical that they don't trust even the idea that what they experience and feel is real. And so they off themselves.

This is a very deep insight. Just as I would tell a theist that there is no evidence to support his or her drastic leaps of faith, I could easily be told that there is no evidence to support the idea of this life being worth living. Prove to me that life is justifiably worth living - prove that the alternative isn't better. You can't. It's completely illogical to pretend that anyone knows differently. Sure, there are plenty of philosophical arguments on what to do with your life, and why these things are virtuous. But when it comes back to the topic at hand, you can not show or disprove the validity of death as a more or less reasonable alternative. Very deep indeed, Wechtlein Uns

[curiosityandthecat]

Shame on you curio. That bit about "leaders" is in no way representative of how atheists are, and I'm appalled that you would go so far to profess to see the clothes in order to feel good about yourself. "Oh, look at me, I'm so open minded. I admit to complete ignorance. I know nothing. And nothing is knowable."

Dodgecity, you don't know me. If you did, you would know that I am not on this forum to make you or anyone else proud of me.  This topic and my first response has obviously raised a pretty big red flag for you, touched a nerve, somehow reflected something about yourself that you either don't like or want to deny. Don't project your own insecurities onto others, especially when you don't know them.

When I read DennisK's topic, I saw it for what he was trying to say: "Have we really hit the 100% proof positive position that we want?" The answer is No. Dawkins himself has said that there is no current way, scientifically, to say with 100% certainty "there is no god." There is only the probability of such a claim. Lack of certainty and overwhelming proof does not equal 100%. Somehow, you misconstrued my message as being pandering, not an honest reflection on my own situation.

I never claimed to speak for all atheists; I was describing the atheistic condition in comparison to the theistic one. I'll say it again: theists rely on experts in theology to tell them the basics and thus assume the details are correct (they call them priests or pastors or a hundred other titles); atheists rely on experts in every other field to tell them the basics and thus assume the details are correct (we call them scientists and philosophers). We trust doctors because they have the knowledge we don't. We atheists trust people like Sagan, Dawkins, Russel and Ingersol (not sure why you had a problem with me referring to them as a pseudo-representation of who theists consider their "leaders" since they have written texts upon which we base our worldview) because they have the knowledge we don't. Now, if you're an astrophysicist that has tenure at Cornell University, or an evolutionary biologist who teaches at Oxford, I'll gladly listen to whatever you have to say on those subjects and not question you.

You're a new atheist. I get that. Your current worldview is completely different from the one you had before, and thus you are passionate about it. If there's even a single thing about it that is questionable, the whole thing could come toppling down. You're defensive about it, otherwise your post wouldn't have been so vitriolic.

Part of being an atheist is accepting the past upon which our current worldview is based: scientific method. The essence of the scientific method is you will be wrong. Frequently. I'm not saying we're wrong in our claim that there is no god. I'm just saying that, as improbable as it is, we could be.

I don't think we are. I'm 99.999999999999999% sure we're right. But we could be wrong. It's admitting that fact that makes us different from the others.

[McQ]

"Don't you think we make leaps of faith just like Christians who take the Bible on authority? Isn't the way we think eerily similar to them?" and when one reads it, they immediately think That makes absolutely no sense.

Admitting that we all make assumptions isn't the same as saying we make similar leaps of faith to those that believe in the supernatural. The leap necessary to believing in the supernatural is unreasonable, unfounded, and runs counter to logic. The leaps that you and I might make are estimates, guesses based on experiences and an established understanding of science and reason.

Hear, hear!

To add on to Will, the assumptions we make are fluid. We don't start out our lives by making assumptions. We learn to make them based on observation and experimentation. Example is a kid learning about gravity the hard way. Or learning about fire the hard way. At first, there is no way for a kid to know that sticking his hand in fire will hurt and burn him. But just try it once or twice and you begin to make the assumption that doing so will hurt. Humans are great at detecting patterns of all kinds, and it's a major way we learn and deal with the world. Each time you do a thing, or see a thing (let's say a sunrise), you begin to discern a pattern. You note that it pops up generally over the eastern horizon at a certain interval. You begin to form an expected pattern based on this observation.

Before long, you can begin to make the assumption that the sun will pop up over the horizon. Now here is where there is a difference between religious faith and scientific assumptions. Someone making a scientific assumption will go about testing his assumption, creating an hypothesis about it (I assume that the sun will rise on the eastern horizon every 24 hours, or so). Then that is tested over and over and puts the assumption up against what is observed. And it can be falsified. In fact, the point of repeated testing is to try and prove the assumptions by falsifying them or finding where they don't hold up.

No science ever says everything (or anything) is 100% certain, but it does allow you to make assumptions that are generally true over long periods of time. The ability to then predict and event is now reasonable and that's very different from a religious leap of faith.

[Kyuuketsuki]

DodgeCity, I pretty much accepted Dennis for what he says he is, I think he is a freethinker and I think it is most definitely a concern that we might be making leaps of faith in a similar way to theists.

Dennis, although we naturally do have to take a leap of faith that life is real, that what we experience actually reflects the real world the only faith we tend to have is of the non religious variety.

I, for instance, have faith in science ... science works, it achieves things, it explains things, it predicts things and the ultimate reason for having faith in science is that the bridges stay up (or at least fall down for explainable reasons).

Kyu