Atheism requires faith as well...?

[Cite134]

Okay, so I am taking this anthropology class which, (needless to say lasts for four hours) covers the study of religion, shamanism and magic. This professor instructing the class is quite adamant about the aesthetic aspect of religion. In this class, we basically talk about all of the religions and their practices.

Personally, I have no problem learning about the different cultures throughout the history of humanity along with the different religions associated with it. However, there are a few statements my professor made tonight where I could not agree (I honestly believe a few were the general misconceptions on atheism). I am sure many of these points have been covered before, whether it be on this site or just in general.

She essentially says the following.

1. Atheism takes faith.

She 'backs up' this claim with this analogy. "Lets look at the speed of light. Do you actually know the speed of light? Or do you just take what scientists say to you? I highly doubt that you go out and measure this yourself, so you concede that light goes 186,000 miles per second based on what another group of people told you".

Now of course, I'm thinking to myself that that analogy doesn't hold much weight, because I don't have to be a sceintist to know that certain things are simply...true. (i.e. I do not need to be an astronomer to know that the earth is round).

2. Science vs Religion. A false dichotomy.

 She did not explain in detail...but she essentially states that most people believe that science and religion are truly seperate only because of some event  that occured that had to do with the French Revolution? Sadly, I don't have sufficient knowledge about that. Could anyone elaborate on this correlation between the french revolution and the 'misconeption' of this true dichotomy of science vs religion?

The third statement is basically my interpretation on her view on 'atheism'.

3. You BELIEVE that god doesn't exist.


Is this equivalent to saying "You believe that dragons do not exist?" Is this some type of semantic trick to insert the word believe? I don't know. However, I am curious on the community's thoughts on my professor's assessment of this

[Sophus]

I see this all the time. First off, it seems they know that faith is not a good thing if they're trying to pin it on us. Second, no I don't have faith. I don't believe God doesn't exist (although I think it most likely) I simply don't believe any gods exist. It's the complete lack of belief. Also, believing in the absence of something does t necessarily require faith anyways. It doesn't take faith to believe that elephants don't exist in Yellowstone Park.

I've always seen religion and science as two different sides to the same coin. They are both looking to explain things but science is based on proving what you're saying by means of empirical evidence, religion is based on faith, believing without a shred of evidence. Not believing in something based on lack of evidence never requires faith.

[Cite134]

I see this all the time. First off, it seems they know that faith is not a good thing if they're trying to pin it on us. Second, no I don't have faith. I don't believe God doesn't exist (although I think it most likely) I simply don't believe any gods exist. It's the complete lack of belief. Also, believing in the absence of something does t necessarily require faith anyways. It doesn't take faith to believe that elephants don't exist in Yellowstone Park.

I've always seen religion and science as two different sides to the same coin. They are both looking to explain things but science is based on proving what you're saying by means of empirical evidence, religion is based on faith, believing without a shred of evidence. Not believing in something based on lack of evidence never requires faith.

Exactly! I do not subscribe to the faith at all.
Okay, so this is the only thing I want to clear up.

"I believe god(s) doesn't exist" =/= "I don't believe god(s) exists"??

My only 'problem' with the former, is that I can't find a flaw in the statement, but I do not like the word 'believe'. For some reason I fully concede the "I don't believe", but I find "I believe don't" tasteless. But I'm failing to see the difference.

[tymygy]

Let me put this simply, Faith is a believe of something with no evidence or proof.

Therefore, if you only "believe" in evidence and proof, its not faith, its open-mindness.

[Thumpalumpacus]

1. Atheism takes faith.

She 'backs up' this claim with this analogy. "Lets look at the speed of light. Do you actually know the speed of light? Or do you just take what scientists say to you? I highly doubt that you go out and measure this yourself, so you concede that light goes 186,000 miles per second based on what another group of people told you".

It doesn't take faith to demonstrate this; it takes instrumentation. And for those of us without instrumentation, we can read articles.  However, articles can be faked.  How do we know they're not?  Peer review.  How do we know that is not faked?  Because I'm typing this response on a website which relies on things like light-speed and QM.  Science works, and that is the final test.  Faith need not apply.

2. Science vs Religion. A false dichotomy.

 She did not explain in detail...but she essentially states that most people believe that science and religion are truly seperate only because of some event  that occured that had to do with the French Revolution? Sadly, I don't have sufficient knowledge about that. Could anyone elaborate on this correlation between the french revolution and the 'misconception' of this true dichotomy of science vs religion?

Science and religion are disparate because religion demands faith and science abjures it.  One aspect of the French Revolution was that the revolutionaries rejected religion because it was cited by nobility as the reason for the king's position: divine right.  In tearing down the king, the revolutionaries had to naturally attack this concept.  Furthermore, that revolution was born out of the Enlightenment, which largely introduced the ideas of agnosticism and atheism into European culture.  Thus, the two were associated.

3. You BELIEVE that god doesn't exist.

She's wrong here.  I only believe that claims ought to be supported by evidence.

As an aside, I wonder about the legality of her pronouncements.

[Cite134]

Yeah, everything I posted is almost an exact quote. She seems to have a vibrant personality and I don't dislike her or anything. Yet, being a professor, I thought she would understand the definition of atheism and faith.

[pinkocommie]

Yeah, everything I posted is almost an exact quote. She seems to have a vibrant personality and I don't dislike her or anything. Yet, being a professor, I thought she would understand the definition of atheism and faith.

Especially being an anthropology professor.  As an anthropology student, I'm a little appalled.  Then again, personal bias - hers and mine - is probably a factor here as well.

[Sophus]

My only 'problem' with the former, is that I can't find a flaw in the statement, but I do not like the word 'believe'. For some reason I fully concede the "I don't believe", but I find "I believe don't" tasteless. But I'm failing to see the difference.

One is affirmative, the other denies. Think of Dawkins' Theist/Atheist scale. Most atheists rate themselves at a 6 out of 7 meaning they don't know that god does not exist, but are atheists de facto.

[Davin]

1. Atheism takes faith.
[spoiler:1r7ro0oc]She 'backs up' this claim with this analogy. "Lets look at the speed of light. Do you actually know the speed of light? Or do you just take what scientists say to you? I highly doubt that you go out and measure this yourself, so you concede that light goes 186,000 miles per second based on what another group of people told you".

Now of course, I'm thinking to myself that that analogy doesn't hold much weight, because I don't have to be a sceintist to know that certain things are simply...true. (i.e. I do not need to be an astronomer to know that the earth is round).[/spoiler:1r7ro0oc]

Does it take faith to not believe that the speed of of light is 186,000 miles a second? No, because it doesn't take any kind of faith to not believe in something. Now if you want to take it on authority, you can, that does take faith (I would argue a far different way, but in basic terms... sure). However you can find out on your own in a way that takes no faith (sans solipsism). Any way, how the speed of light relates to atheism I don't know.

2. Science vs Religion. A false dichotomy.
[spoiler:1r7ro0oc]She did not explain in detail...but she essentially states that most people believe that science and religion are truly seperate only because of some event  that occured that had to do with the French Revolution? Sadly, I don't have sufficient knowledge about that. Could anyone elaborate on this correlation between the french revolution and the 'misconeption' of this true dichotomy of science vs religion?[/spoiler:1r7ro0oc]

It depends on the context whether you can consider this a false dichotomy or not, because there are religious scientists. How they go about finding the truth is a true dichotomy: science works on following empirical evidence to the truth, religion works on pure speculation to merely assert the "truth".

3. You BELIEVE that god doesn't exist.
[spoiler:1r7ro0oc]Is this equivalent to saying "You believe that dragons do not exist?" Is this some type of semantic trick to insert the word believe? I don't know. However, I am curious on the community's thoughts on my professor's assessment of this [/spoiler:1r7ro0oc]

Depends on how you word it. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "I believe dragons don't exist" because in the time we have been alive, there has been no evidence of dragons. This works the same for god, "I believe god does not exist" is perfectly reasonable because there is no evidence for god. Now before you go on with this though, there are colloquial statements and there are technical statements, you must find out which these are. I will say that I believe there is no god, however if pressed to be as accurate as possible or to be technical, I will clarify it by saying that it's extremely unlikely that there is a god.

Depends on who I'm talking to, if I'm talking to friends I'll not feel the need to be technical because we usually are interested in honest discussions, but when talking with people I don't know, I'll be very clear. The reason why I do this is because of what this person is trying to do: compare two different kinds of statements: like you saying, "evolution selects the species that live" then this person saying, "aha, so you believe that evolution is a conscious entity picking and choosing which species survive." Analogy versus technical fail.

[George]

@Cite134
It's good that you've remained so diplomatic about it. I think I would have got really annoyed with her! Not because this is her view but because her expressing this view in class and from a position of authority is gonna affirm this nonsense to all the theists in the class.

Just out of interest are there any other atheists in your class? If so what are their views on it all?

[PoopShoot]

Strong atheists DO have faith that there is no god.  Making that assertion that gods don't exist is a position of faith just as much as making the opposite assertion is.  Some atheists are atheists because they never really bothered to think about the issue.  They also have faith in no god by virtue of the fact that their position isn't based on knowledge.

[George]

Strong atheists DO have faith that there is no god.  Making that assertion that gods don't exist is a position of faith just as much as making the opposite assertion is.  Some atheists are atheists because they never really bothered to think about the issue.  They also have faith in no god by virtue of the fact that their position isn't based on knowledge.

I agree about strong atheists/gnostic atheists having faith but they are very much a minority. The atheists who haven't really thought about it- I would have to disagree, no way do they have to have faith, faith has not even come into the equasion for them, they just haven't deemed the idea worthy of thought and therefore have no faith either way!

[PoopShoot]

they just haven't deemed the idea worthy of thought and therefore have no faith either way!

They do if they hold a position based on nothing.  If they're "default atheists", then I would agree with you.

[freeservant]

Cambridge University has a good source where you can learn about atheism:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html

And here is where the faith must come in if you wish to follow the Aristotelian laws of logic:

? where is the evidence ?

The Argument from Dearth of Evidence: the Rational Atheist Test

Virtually all Atheists demand evidence.  Bertrand Russell said:

 

 â€œAs far as I can see, the view to which we are committed, one which I have stated on a former occasion, is that we ought not to believe, and we ought not to try to cause others to believe, any proposition for which there is no evidence whatever.”

 

Russell was referring to the existence of a deity.  However, such a sentiment must be held for the Atheist position also:

 

Premise:  â€œThere is no deity”.

 

Now, one might expect Russell and the Atheists to produce evidence in support of this premise;  but they do not, because they cannot.  There is no direct evidence, empirical or otherwise that no deity exists.

 

In fact, the logical fallacy involved is that in order to prove the statement that  â€œthere exists (No X)”, data must be provided that includes all instances where (X) could exist, but was definitively determined NOT to exist.  The data must include, therefore, all places and times where a deity might have existed, but was absolutely proven not to exist.  This is clearly impossible.

 

So it is shown that the premise, “There is no deity”, produces a direct contradiction of the Atheist requirement for “evidence or proof is denied”.  The premise, then produces a paradox, in the following form:

 

Premise expansion: “As rationalists, we maintain that evidence is absolutely required for proof of a statement; yet we maintain categorically that there exists no deity despite total lack of solid, irrefutable evidence in support of that statement, and the impossibility of ever obtaining such evidence.”

 

The premise is seen to be a self-contradictory, Type 1 Paradox.

 

The premise that “there exists no deity” cannot be proven, is not empirically or forensically supportable and cannot be shown to be true.  By virtue of the paradox in the Atheist statement, perhaps Atheists are not so categorical as the expansion would indicate, and are then, Agnostics instead.

 

The term “rationalist” (requires evidence) is paradoxical when combined with “Atheist” (no evidence is possible):

 

Premise:

“The Atheist is a Rationalist.”

Premise Expansion:

The “A” ( for which no supporting evidence is possible ) is an “R” (requires evidence).

 

Atheism is by nature self â€"contradictory…a Paradox.

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/atheismanalyzed.htm

If you are a nihilist or postmondernist who rejects the laws of logic then no rationality is needed for your view thus faith is irrelevant.

[Whitney]

Isn't anthropology the study of past cultures....not the deconstruction of the validity of the beliefs of past cultures?

And frankly, I don't care what someone wants to label me but if their definition includes the label that I know god/deity/creator is not real (the only way not having a belief in god could potentially require faith) then they have mislabeled me.  If they feel more comfortable calling me an agnostic even though I would instead say atheist who is also agnostic then whatever.

If they are referring to a Judeo/Chrsitian God then yes I know that one is not real, the only source we having for constructing a belief in that god is the bible and it is full of numerous reasons to question the validity of the source (meaning no faith required to decide it is false)

That said, I don't think your professor had any historical basis for teaching that atheist is a word which refers to people who knows god isn't real because not only is it only relatively recently common for people to self define as atheist it is also obvious from reading the past work of atheist philosophers that in the only agreed upon definition is that atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god and only part then take that a step further and say it is someone who knows there is no god.