Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

[Alethe]

Atheists claim that life was created naturally and spontaneously from tiny chemicals into comparatively large, complex organisms (cells). They use "could have" a lot in theories, but when it's further explored, those theories run into scientific laws that say it "could not have". It is a massive jump from those tiny chemicals to cells and actually defies natural laws. Some of these laws include, but are not limited to:

• *Probabilities: The sheer number of permutations required for even the simplest of molecules (proteins or ribozymes) defies laws of mathematics.
  *Limited Materials: No experiment, no observation, nor study of any pre-biotic Earth conditions (including space) is able to come close to producing all the components required for life in the same place at the same time (amino acids, nucleic acids - particularly troublesome, sugars, and fatty acids).
  *Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.
  *Energy: The necessary energy required to create peptide or phosphodiester bonds is also used to break those bonds, preventing them from forming the long chains necessary for life. An example; any lightning strikes that would form bonds would break the bonds the very next strike (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics especially in an open system).
  *Oxygen: Oxygen prevents bonding, but also creates ozone, protecting from the sun's UV rays. Life can't form with oxygen and life would burn up without it.
  *Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).

You see, I like science. I can trust science because it performs in consistent ways. The natural laws above actually inhibit or prevent life from forming.

Atheists have to believe that to create life abiogenetically that these natural laws broke down and didn't work, that science didn't work. Since they have to believe that science doesn't work all the time, there must be some supernatural law that supersedes known scientific law.

That sounds a lot like faith. Why do atheists rely on faith? And what is it in the supernatural that they actually have faith in?

[McCulloch]

What it comes down to is that I must have faith in my own cognitive abilities if I am going to even attempt to make judgments about the objective world.

If you lose the ability to trust your own cognitive abilities, then all is lost. That is not to say that we must all be brilliant polymaths. But we must, at the very least, be able to discern whom to trust as sources of information. Corroboration, validation and absence of serious conflicts of interest should be taken into account.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to McCulloch]

Yes, I agree. It's just that taking all those factors into account is itelf a cognitive process, so it comes back to faith in ones own cognition.

[KenRU]

[Replying to H.sapiens]
In any case, the important point is that all beliefs are filtered through ones own judgment. You have judged from your own experiences that science works. Even the reliability of the reported experiences of others is judged by you.

But who or what decided you were ever qualified to make these judgments in the first place?

You did. Under no external authority, you simply decided that you are capable of understanding the world. I classify that as faith.

I see a couple of problems with this logic.

1) Why is an external authority needed? If one was found, couldn’t we then ask the same question of it/him/her? The logic then regresses ad nauseum. So, in my opinion, why concern ourselves with it at all? As McCulloch said, if we lose our cognitive abilities then all is lost.

2) All anyone has is their faith in their own cognitive abilities. Stating an atheist relies on faith (using this logic), is like saying all humans need to breathe. There is no discriminating point made. All atheists and theist have to trust their senses. It does not further the conversation at all, in fact, I'll argue it derails it.

3) Comparing the faith one has in the trusting of one’s senses (which every living, breathing, sentient, creature must do) to the faith one has in evidenced based science is a pointless comparison at best. Given that this thread is arguing that an atheist’s faith hinges on the silly assumption that abiogenesis requires a supernatural cause, the waters get muddied when these different uses of the word “faith� get erroneously lumped together.

Given that both atheists and theists all use the faith you speak of, its a wash and not worth discussing. This brings us back to the OP. So, no, in my opinion, atheists do not rely on faith.

All the best,

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 90 by KenRU]

I would argue that while an external authority is not needed, the presence of external authorities in science, in the form of peer review and reproducibility are helpful and strongly formative.

[JonDarbyXIII]

Which of the many definitions of 'faith' are we using? If I say I have faith in my wife, I am essentially saying that my knowledge of her is such that I can reasonably believe that she will not cheat on me. faith=trust in someone

If a theist says he has faith in God, this can mean 'trust' in the same sense - ie I have faith that God will...
But faith is also belief when there is no evidence (or belief despite the evidence). Science posits all sorts of things that we cannot yet (and maybe will never) understand. But we believe them to varying degrees based on available evidence, probabilities, etc. This is not faith because it is not a firm belief that exists regardless of evidence. The beauty of science is that it is always subject to revision.

Do I have faith as an atheist? Yes. I believe in many things that I do not know to be true. I believe I can pick my nose without gouging my brain. I believe that I can open a soda can and it won't contain cyanide. However, the faith (trust) I have in these things is based on the evidence I have of prior experience. Every time I have picked my nose, my brain has remained unharmed. Every time I have opened a can of soda, it has indeed contained soda and not poison.

There is no correlating 'experience' with religious arguments. The argument: "every time I have seen a universe being created..." obviously falls short.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 90 by KenRU]

I would argue that while an external authority is not needed, the presence of external authorities in science, in the form of peer review and reproducibility are helpful and strongly formative.

I agree, which furthers my point. The faith used in the realm of science is by no means the same faith the OP assumes when he says atheists rely on faith (like theists) because abiogenesis is supernaturally caused.

Apples and oranges, in my opinion.

All the best,

[FarWanderer]

All anyone has is their faith in their own cognitive abilities.

I agree. And this is exactly why faith in anything else is silly. If it's not your mind that forms your beliefs, then you may as well be denying your own autonomy of will.