Atheism requires faith as well...?

[necrobitsch]

I suppose I've got a certain amount of faith in science. I understand a reasonable amount of it, but will be the first to admit maths and physics leaves me flabbergasted when I get up close and personal. But what I do know makes so much sense, that I do have to make that leap of faith to accept the stuff I don't understand to be true if it seems validated by scientific consensus. If that makes sense?

[DropLogic]

I'm not sure if there is a better word than 'faith' to describe acceptance in the scientific method.  I take peer reviewed theories at their word I suppose.  Certain scientific facts are accepted by the entire scientific community, though eternal skeptics always argue everything.  In some ways they have a point...at one point in time everyone KNEW that the world was flat, etc.
The most important part is to always keep an open mind, and know that sometimes everyone can be wrong.  To prove that everyone was wrong takes MOUNTAINS of evidence though, and the evidence is what I trust.

[PoopShoot]

If that makes sense?

A bit.  For me it's not unfounded faith in science as much as it is trust in the scientist.  Faith is based on nothing whereas trust is based on a track record of honesty.

[Cite134]

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

I'm not sure. She didn't actually ask the class what their paticular worldview was, nor did anyone express them. I simply disagreed on her assesment of faith in relation to 'atheism'.I did not confront her because I did not want to sit there all night debating a professor on definitions. Yet, from her persepctive, atheists hinge their beliefs on science which isn't necessarily true. =/

[Sophus]

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.

I'm probably the only Nihilist here so:

1. Naturally that means not all atheists are Nihilists

2. Nihilism does not affirm, it denies. It does not deny reason, only the epistemology position that absolute knowledge can be derived from the use of it. We don't reject laws of logic or reason we simply claim not to know with the utmost certainty possible. Keep in mind, it's a very pedantic philosophy.

It's amazing that Nietzsche's philosophy is still influencing how the church paints all atheists. What's worse is they distort his own philosophy to the most shallow surface of a glance interpretation as possible. And still respond to his poems through the use of childrens' songs:

[youtube:14yq8cqx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wok-I4_Pas[/youtube:14yq8cqx]

[tymygy]

I suppose I've got a certain amount of faith in science. I understand a reasonable amount of it, but will be the first to admit maths and physics leaves me flabbergasted when I get up close and personal. But what I do know makes so much sense, that I do have to make that leap of faith to accept the stuff I don't understand to be true if it seems validated by scientific consensus. If that makes sense?

Lets take a look back at 2 of the greatest assets to modern science, Galileo and Newton. Both of them were amazingly smart, Neil Tyson himself said Newton was the smartest man who has ever lived. Both of them came up with ideas that formed our knowledge of the universe today. But for some reason, both of them believed in God, is this because God must be real? No its because not even they understood everything, and when their knowledge could go no further they placed this sense of " an impossiblity to understand" on god, or faith.

Now when you exclude a god and rely only on evidence and facts, when one encounters something he/she does not understand, they do not put it on god, only knowlege that we have not yet accumulated.

[tymygy]

I'm probably the only Nihilist here so

A little off topic, and I will create a new thread if you'd like me too, but why are you a nihilist? Life to me has alot of meanings, including, raising a child (children), bettering the lifes of others by make their "dreams" come true, and having plain-old' fun.

[Whitney]

So I say that She that is without guilt can cast the first stone...

You still don't understand what an ad hom is...but that's your problem not mine.  I know that an ad hom only refers to attacking one's character in order to disprove their argument; and doing such is a fallacy as it has no baring on the validity of their argument.  I was merely stating why I didn't bother reading a website you posted.

[Whitney]

If that makes sense?

A bit.  For me it's not unfounded faith in science as much as it is trust in the scientist.  Faith is based on nothing whereas trust is based on a track record of honesty.

If you pull out the dictionary one of the secondary definitions of faith is "trust in a person or thing" (wording may vary depending on the source).  Things like faith that your spouse is true to his/her vows, faith that a teacher is telling the truth etc.  This is not religious faith where you trust that something is real despite lack of evidence; when we trust another person it is typically because we have a history with them which allows us to have "faith" that they will continue to act in an expected manner...or with scientists we have "faith" that they will act according to their training and not just make stuff up.

[DropLogic]

...or with scientists we have "faith" that they will act according to their training and not just make stuff up.

This is the whole point.  The scientific method checks what scientists claim, instead of taking their word at face value.  This is what religion does, and questions are answered with scripture...which doesn't actually answer anything.

[Sophus]

I'm probably the only Nihilist here so

A little off topic, and I will create a new thread if you'd like me too, but why are you a nihilist? Life to me has alot of meanings, including, raising a child (children), bettering the lifes of others by make their "dreams" come true, and having plain-old' fun.

Because we invent the meanings. Life does have any one true meaning or any definite meaning at all. Doesn't mean I live that way, it just means we're a tiny pale blue dot in universe that couldn't care less about us. It's not a sad or happy thought, it's just the way life is. It has no purpose other than the illusion our minds give it.

[PoopShoot]

If you pull out the dictionary one of the secondary definitions of faith is "trust in a person or thing" (wording may vary depending on the source).

Yep.  There are a lot of colloquial definitions to a variety of words.  The usage of "faith" in this topic, however, is the religious usage of it.  If we're going to start equating definitions, then I'm going to have to start cheating on my wife because I don't have any faith.

[tymygy]

I'm probably the only Nihilist here so

A little off topic, and I will create a new thread if you'd like me too, but why are you a nihilist? Life to me has alot of meanings, including, raising a child (children), bettering the lifes of others by make their "dreams" come true, and having plain-old' fun.

Because we invent the meanings. Life does have any one true meaning or any definite meaning at all. Doesn't mean I live that way, it just means we're a tiny pale blue dot in universe that couldn't care less about us. It's not a sad or happy thought, it's just the way life is. It has no purpose other than the illusion our minds give it.

I can't disagree, but I guess the meanings we create are what I live for. Yes we are small, yes we are "not" known by any other life in the universe, but we are rare, VERY rare. And that's why I feel lucky to have life, lucky for every breathe I take. If you look at life from the view of, "yes we're here... Now what?" it does seem alot like no meaning. However, the astronomical chances that we ARE here, makes me smile.  

[Cite134]

You're not the only nihilist Sophus

[necrobitsch]

If that makes sense?

A bit.  For me it's not unfounded faith in science as much as it is trust in the scientist.  Faith is based on nothing whereas trust is based on a track record of honesty.

Trust is probably a better way of describing it, yes. It doesn't have the association with religion and blind acceptance of mythologies that faith has. I trust theories rooted in sound scientific method, even if the precise details of the methodology are beyond my comprehension. I suppose by trusting the way in which the conclusion is reached negates the need for a "leap of faith" in quite the same way. The method to reach the conclusion has been tried and tested and proved true and therefore logically and reasonably this should remain true even if I'm unable to explain the process with my own limited knowledge, and even if this method hasn't provided conclusive answers to mysteries and conundrums that are still out there.