Why do atheists have so much faith?

[harvey1]

It's shocking to me to see so many atheists have as much faith as they do. They are so close to the agnostic in terms of what they believe, however the agnostic has the least amount of faith while the typical atheist shows more faith than most theists. What can account for this huge difference between an agnostic and atheist?

My own thought is that an atheist is so committed to their worldview that they cannot step outside of that worldview, hence many atheists have great faith because of their inability to see that they can be wrong. Many agnostics, on the other hand, are so uncommitted to a worldview that they have lost touch with what faith is. Another possibility is that atheists mostly come from religious fundamentalist religions, and they are more likely to carryover their fundamentalist beliefs to their new religion. Whereas agnostics are composed of mainly the secular populace who don't have a history of strong belief in fundamental beliefs. Any ideas?

[QED]

Howdy Harvey. I like your idea about converted fundamentalists except that I doubt if ever there was such a conversion in the history of theism. What would a fundamentalist atheist be like I wonder..? Anyhoo, I can tell you why I have so much faith in atheism...

It's obvious to me that there's nothing 'up there' that's listening-in on our prayers. Nothing that could fill a volume 13.7 billion light years in radius with galaxies of stars and planets (and that's just to the horizon... I read last night that there are estimates of up to around 87 billion parsecs for the whole shebang) could possibly be the least bit interested in whether we can pay-off our bank-loans (or whatever). The late pope had how many millions praying for him, but IIRC he never got better.

It's obvious to me that there's nothing all merciful 'up there' when hundreds of kids get slaughtered in their classrooms in Beslan (almost an anagram of another infamous killing theatre). Nothing the slightest bit conscious and/or compassionate in the cosmos, with greater power than man, could look upon such events and not intervene. It looks mightily as if we have to look-out for ourselves every step of the way and there are no safety nets should we fall.

It's obvious that the cosmos is a dumb machine. It doesn't steer around us if we step infront of it, it runs right over us. It doesn't have a sense of the aesthetic because on balance there is as much (if not a helluvalot more) s*** than shinola.

It's obvious to me how the minds of men have evolved and (relatively lately in geological timescales) found themselves with the spare capacity to dream-up imaginary concepts of things like perfection, pure good, pure evil etc. unattainable things that can only ever exist in minds. Minds that are made from matter, software that runs on hardware. Just like all immaterial things we know of for sure, immaterial that stems from the material. And these thoughts and ideas have the power to impress others and by appealing to the highest imaginable authority, the disseminators of these ideas gain vicarious authority in the process. And all this supplies me with a powerful motive for those who put forward this powerful myth.

It's obvious how the atheistic anthropic principle can deliver us on these shores, with every detail in place -- a universe that looks just like ours with not a jot of the supernatural anywhere to be seen. All it needs is some mechanism that rolls a dice and there are plenty of those in our own universe: we know this has evolved stuff everywhere and all around us (in the shape of black holes) are potential new Smolin universes, and if it takes just 20 pounds of matter/energy and an Inflaton field to get a new one the size of ours up-and running then we might even have one possible solution right under our noses. So it might not give us the prime cause that philosophers seek, but it does give us a 100% match with what we see and if God was the prime cause, we can conclude from the rest of the evidence that he left the building an infinitely long time ago.

So as usual, not an exhaustive list, but just a few of the many bits of evidence I see around me to support my faith.

[harvey1]

QED,

The problem with faith, though, is that it can blind you if your arguments are not insurmountable. So, for example, a realist in the 19th century might have really believed that Newton's laws were the final say of the way the world was, however that kind of faith would have blinded them from seeing Newton's laws as mere approximations. In fact, this is what happened. Einstein modeled SR around Mach, and Mach rejected SR. Planck rejected light quanta. Einstein supported local realism to the day he died. On and on the list goes of people who made great contributions in science, and yet they rejected the grand daddy theory that perhaps was the most significant theory as they aged. Why? Because they had faith that their schemes were so "obvious" that they could not see a better theory when it came to their attention.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of faith when it goes hand and hand with reason, however how can you support a belief when it contradicts strong reasons not to support that belief? I could understand if it provides you some emotional comfort, but atheism is like a stinky fish, it cannot provide anyone with any kind of satisfaction.

Nothing that could fill a volume 13.7 billion light years in radius with galaxies of stars and planets (and that's just to the horizon... I read last night that there are estimates of up to around 87 billion parsecs for the whole shebang) could possibly be the least bit interested in whether we can pay-off our bank-loans (or whatever). The late pope had how many millions praying for him, but IIRC he never got better.

I don't understand the reasoning here. Humans naturally make great use their environment even though there are vast amounts of information that have little or nothing to do with our main interests. Do you not pay attention to your family because there are trillions of star systems that you could also give equal attention to? Also, God would have omniscience and all-knowledge, why would the size of the universe hinder God?

It's obvious to me that there's nothing all merciful 'up there' when hundreds of kids get slaughtered in their classrooms in Beslan (almost an anagram of another infamous killing theatre). Nothing the slightest bit conscious and/or compassionate in the cosmos, with greater power than man, could look upon such events and not intervene. It looks mightily as if we have to look-out for ourselves every step of the way and there are no safety nets should we fall.

Well, notice that I said my question is about the faith of atheists and not anti-Christians. For the purposes of this thread, let's assume that it is the pantheist God that exists, and for this purposes God doesn't care one way or another about good and evil. Why does the atheist have faith that evil rules out this kind of God? It seems like that faith is a distraction here.

It's obvious that the cosmos is a dumb machine. It doesn't steer around us if we step infront of it, it runs right over us. It doesn't have a sense of the aesthetic because on balance there is as much (if not a helluvalot more) s*** than shinola.

It's pretty dumb but it still manages to pull off the feat of bring forth a universe that has constant values which are beyond mystifying. Why have faith that you have the one solution to this? Why not open your mind to the possibility that there is some kind of intelligence behind the universe that makes the appropriate decision in the selection of the physical constants? It seems you have faith there exists this very complex world which programmers cannot even imagine to program, and yet you say this faith requires that it be uncaused. Doesn't this strike you as blind faith on your part?

It's obvious to me how the minds of men have evolved and (relatively lately in geological timescales) found themselves with the spare capacity to dream-up imaginary concepts of things like perfection, pure good, pure evil etc. unattainable things that can only ever exist in minds. Minds that are made from matter, software that runs on hardware. Just like all immaterial things we know of for sure, immaterial that stems from the material. And these thoughts and ideas have the power to impress others and by appealing to the highest imaginable authority, the disseminators of these ideas gain vicarious authority in the process. And all this supplies me with a powerful motive for those who put forward this powerful myth.

But, why have faith in the sociology of humans in determining the fundamental nature of the universe? I don't get that. If human sociology showed a belief in evolution from early on, would you then conclude that human sociology had tremendous insights? Can't we just consider human sociology to be irrelevant when it comes to the fundamental constructs of the world?

It's obvious how the atheistic anthropic principle can deliver us on these shores, with every detail in place -- a universe that looks just like ours with not a jot of the supernatural anywhere to be seen.

But, don't you think it strange that your faith leads to you speculating on a world much more complex than the one that we see a trillionth of a second following the big bang? Why take this leap of faith on your part in believing in this multiverse having existed forever without cause and being able to generate all kinds of universes (also without reason)? It seems like a huge step in faith for you.

All it needs is some mechanism that rolls a dice and there are plenty of those in our own universe: we know this has evolved stuff everywhere and all around us (in the shape of black holes) are potential new Smolin universes, and if it takes just 20 pounds of matter/energy and an Inflaton field to get a new one the size of ours up-and running then we might even have one possible solution right under our noses. So it might not give us the prime cause that philosophers seek, but it does give us a 100% match with what we see and if God was the prime cause, we can conclude from the rest of the evidence that he left the building an infinitely long time ago.

I understand what you are saying, but I asked simple questions about material causation and all of your answers came back unable to account for something as simple as to how matter can cause the future state of matter. Doesn't that strike you as a good reason to give up your faith? Why not question your faith at this point? I don't understand why you would hold to a faith that is obviously in contradiction to sound reasoning.

Have you thought that maybe your faith stems from your human need to understand the universe? Why not just give up on your faith and just accept that your current faith is not based on simplicity?

[juliod]

What would a fundamentalist atheist be like I wonder..?

I sometimes describe mmyself as a fundementalist atheist. But I think orthodox atheist is a more accurate term. If I were a theist I would be a fundementalist, no doubt about it.

Fundamentalism, in the original meaning, was a committment to the real basis, the real basic principles, of the religion. Nothing wrong with that. They used to say "Speak where the bible speaks, remain silent were the bible is silent." And fundementalists frequently rail against weak christians who say they believe, but don't really show it in any noticable way. I have great sympathy for that point of view.

That being said, this atheists-have-faith nonsense is something we have all dealt with 50 times. Atheists don't have faith, in the religious sense. There is nothing to have faith in, since atheism is a lack of belief.

As QED said, it's obvious. God's not here. He's not over there. I've looked under rocks, and in my garage. Nothing. These are not faith-based statements. I feel no obligation to consider wild hypothetical what-if scenarios, and I don't think it should be hard to find god, since the christians say he is everywhere and wants to be my freind.

There is no "faith" componenet to my beliefs. I am reacting solely to my own experiences. I often ask theists where I can go to see, hear, feel, smell, or otherwise detect the existance of god, but none of them can help me. As far as I can tell, he is merely a figment of imagintation.

DanZ

[Diana Holberg]

Minds that are made from matter, software that runs on hardware.

Prior to the advent of the computer, no one could have conceived of such a thing.

Today, no one can reproduce the miraculous vehicles that are our bodies... the best we can do is use batteries or solar cells. But someday someone will invent a machine that "eats" and "breathes", and the atheists of that day will say, "See! We are just machines... no miracles!"

I am reminded of teenagers approaching adulthood who decide that they know it all. As we creep infintessimally closer to the unattainable intelligence of God, it is in arrogance that we cry out, "See! It's obvious You don't exist!"

[juliod]

I am reminded of teenagers approaching adulthood who decide that they know it all. As we creep infintessimally closer to the unattainable intelligence of God, it is in arrogance that we cry out, "See! It's obvious You don't exist!"

Yes, but for over 2000 years god has still failed to appear, while human progress has moved us forward by leaps, bounds, and more leaps. You said it yourself. We can do things today that could not have been dreamt of even a generation ago.

Your god is still stuck in the bronze age.

DanZ

[bernee51]

As we creep infintessimally closer to the unattainable intelligence of God, it is in arrogance that we cry out, "See! It's obvious You don't exist!"

Personally I think it is a matter of gaining knowledge, looking in the 'mirror' and saying " I see! It's obvious. You were there all the time, I was looking in the wrong place"

[Nirvana-Eld]

Sorry Bernee but I don't really understand your 'mirror' analogy.

But the belief in God is centered around the idea that if he exists it is supernatural. There is no tangible proof for supernatural so one would assume that since there is no proof for a supernatual God then he does not exist.

Now (if I'm wrong here athiests, tell me) I think that it is the absense of proof that make the athiests so vehement in their beliefs. One person said that an athiest has no belief. Isn't the non-existence of God a belief itself? Just a random thought there. I personally find it rational for my own reasons but this thread isnt about me or why i believe what i believe.

[Chad]

Now (if I'm wrong here athiests, tell me) I think that it is the absense of proof that make the athiests so vehement in their beliefs. One person said that an athiest has no belief. Isn't the non-existence of God a belief itself? Just a random thought there. I personally find it rational for my own reasons but this thread isnt about me or why i believe what i believe.

I wouldn't consider myself vehement in respect to being an Atheist. However, it does annoy me when so many of the people I'm around everyday outright ignore the information that is available. With the Internet so widely accessible , there is no excuse anymore.

Atheists have no beliefs in a religious sense, which is called faith. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I cannot logically concieve that a God exists, nor is there any evidence to assert that a God(s) does exist. Of course you cannot prove that a God doesn't exist, it's rather hard to prove a negative. However, there's a lot we cannot prove. We cannot prove the non-existence of Unicorns, Werewolfves, or pink Monkeys that live in caves on Pluto. However, we can logically assert that none of these creatures actually exist.

[sin_is_fun]

Atheism is not a religion.We dont say "God doesnt exist". We only say "We dont believe in god".