Is faith a good thing?

Faith is essentially trust without evidence. Trust ties into faith, but they are not entirely interchangeable terms. Trust requires some evidence to some degree.

In most religions, faith is a prerequisite. Atheists/agnostics have said that if God were to make himself known (e.g. manifest as a physical being), then they would know that he exists and believe in him. This would end all religious wars, conflict, divisions, interpretations, etc. However, then it would no longer be a question of faith.

It would appear that faith does have some value. The question is, what is that value and is it a good thing?

Amadeus said:

Faith is essentially trust without evidence. Trust ties into faith, but they are not entirely interchangeable terms. Trust requires some evidence to some degree.

Click to expand...

It isn't always trust without evidence. It's trust without evidence that others find to be suitable for themselves. I have faith based on evidence that I know, and that I understand, based on my own previous experiences. This would not be suitable to someone who wanted provable scientific evidence. Iow, my faith has a basis in experience, but it would not be meaningful to most other people.

For me, it's not a matter of faith being good or bad- it just is. It is something which has been made evident in my life.

lizzie said:

It isn't always trust without evidence. It's trust without evidence that others find to be suitable for themselves. I have faith based on evidence that I know, and that I understand, based on my own previous experiences. This would not be suitable to someone who wanted provable scientific evidence. Iow, my faith has a basis in experience, but it would not be meaningful to most other people.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. I should have said that faith is trust without empirical evidence.

Faith used to mean trust. Religious faith used to be trusting this or that deity or spiritual thing to have your interests at heart. Everyone took it as a given that they existed. There wasn't need for evidence as we understand it, but the myths and fables that previous civilizations had were their version of evidence. Now it's obvious that these gods don't exist, and that their myths and fables are evidence of nothing. So faith has become asserting things without evidence. Trust in things you can evaluate is still perfectly fine, of course. You can trust (have faith in) the people in your life, in the workings of society, in the technology that we use every day. We have evidence to justify that trust. But when it comes to religious beliefs, we understand now that the foundations are nonsense and that nothing written or supposed about these gods or the nature of their universes can be trusted or truly evaluated, since they're all false.

Amadeus said:

Faith is essentially trust without evidence. Trust ties into faith, but they are not entirely interchangeable terms. Trust requires some evidence to some degree.

In most religions, faith is a prerequisite. Atheists/agnostics have said that if God were to make himself known (e.g. manifest as a physical being), then they would know that he exists and believe in him. This would end all religious wars, conflict, divisions, interpretations, etc. However, then it would no longer be a question of faith.

It would appear that faith does have some value. The question is, what is that value and is it a good thing?

Click to expand...

Religious faith is one thing and that is a matter for each person to decide - even in the face of hostility from others for that faith.

"Faith" as a general concept can be a good thing: faith in your civil or matrimonial partner is one kind of (good) faith, faith in your fellow soldier to watch your back is another and faith in team mates to be where they should be or that they will deflect attention from you (in sports) can be a tremendous thing.

These kinds of faith can be trained into you, they can be earned and we probably develop the instinct to make it feel like a kind of faith.

Amadeus said:

Faith is essentially trust without evidence. Trust ties into faith, but they are not entirely interchangeable terms. Trust requires some evidence to some degree.

In most religions, faith is a prerequisite. Atheists/agnostics have said that if God were to make himself known (e.g. manifest as a physical being), then they would know that he exists and believe in him. This would end all religious wars, conflict, divisions, interpretations, etc. However, then it would no longer be a question of faith.

It would appear that faith does have some value. The question is, what is that value and is it a good thing?

Click to expand...

I think faith in the religious sense is a bad thing because it is essentially abdicating your own moral and intellectual decision making processes to that of ancient authors. I wish more people would use critical thinking to decide for themselves what's right and wrong instead of doing things just out of tradition and blind faith. I think if more people did that the world would be a better place.

It's neither good or bad. It just is. Something faith helps. Something faith hurts.

Amadeus said:

Faith is essentially trust without evidence. Trust ties into faith, but they are not entirely interchangeable terms. Trust requires some evidence to some degree.

In most religions, faith is a prerequisite. Atheists/agnostics have said that if God were to make himself known (e.g. manifest as a physical being), then they would know that he exists and believe in him. This would end all religious wars, conflict, divisions, interpretations, etc. However, then it would no longer be a question of faith.

It would appear that faith does have some value. The question is, what is that value and is it a good thing?

Click to expand...

More or less.

In the context you are putting this, faith is complete trust or confidence in a doctrine or system of belief. "Evidence" or empirical understanding does not come into play here, core tenets of just about all systems of faith are based on a spiritual understanding rather than some disposition of proof. Just that term proof, has an entirely different meaning when it comes to systems of belief vs. systems of science (spiritual understanding vs. empirical understanding)

Because of the above, faith is not inherently good or bad. It all comes down to what is done with that faith that determines anything from individual impact all the way up to history book level implications. Like most things, the value of faith usually is an after the fact judgement based on that impact. For the individual spiritual understandings can be an extremely positive and a powerful attribute. The flip side is also true in various reasons for self motivated behaviors that end up harming others. On an entire system of faith level it can also be good or bad depending upon what is done with that organization. Bring people together in common spiritual understandings under a system of faith can be socially positive in a community, but also could be negative where those outside could be looked at as adversarial. Or, a reason to look at them in terms other than live and let live.

Atheists have more in common with Theists than they do Agnostics, in my opinion. Both Atheism and Theism believe something to be so, it just happens to be polar opposites of each other. Atheism has no more proof there is not a God or Gods than Theism has proof that there is a God or Gods. But in that context I am talking about empirical understanding, for both of those faiths. They are still flip sides of the same coin making statements of belief that neither can really prove in empirical or scientific process terms.

Agnostics, right down to the definition, have no horse in that race. Agnostics generally consider that nothing is known or can be known on the nature of God or Gods. Material phenomena is one thing that does not necessarily have to be dismissed. At the end of the day Agnostics claim neither faith in or lack of faith in God or Gods. That does not mean spirituality is out the window either, just perhaps a different take on the implications of spirituality linked to systems of faith. Regardless that lack of faith is neither inherently good or bad, and for very similar reasons.

OrphanSlug said:

Atheists have more in common with Theists than they do Agnostics, in my opinion. Both Atheism and Theism believe something to be so, it just happens to be polar opposites of each other. Atheism has no more proof there is not a God or Gods than Theism has proof that there is a God or Gods. But in that context I am talking about empirical understanding, for both of those faiths. They are still flip sides of the same coin making statements of belief that neither can really prove in empirical or scientific process terms.

Click to expand...

Do you need evidence of non-existence in order to not believe something? If I make up something is that just as intellectually sound as you not making up something? I say there's a giant telepathic octopus controlling all of the world's politicians minds. If you don't believe that but don't have evidence, does that mean you and I are both acting similarly?

Atheism is not a statement that gods do not exist, it is a statement that you do not believe gods exist. You don't have to prove a negative in order to not believe something, so stop pretending like you do. Non-belief is the default position.

Amadeus said:

Faith is essentially trust without evidence. Trust ties into faith, but they are not entirely interchangeable terms. Trust requires some evidence to some degree.

In most religions, faith is a prerequisite. Atheists/agnostics have said that if God were to make himself known (e.g. manifest as a physical being), then they would know that he exists and believe in him. This would end all religious wars, conflict, divisions, interpretations, etc. However, then it would no longer be a question of faith.

It would appear that faith does have some value. The question is, what is that value and is it a good thing?

Click to expand...

Of course faith in a positive is a good thing. Faith in a negative is really just fear.

What a person does with that faith is not the same thing simply having it.

RabidAlpaca said:

Do you need evidence of non-existence in order to not believe something? If I make up something is that just as intellectually sound as you not making up something? I say there's a giant telepathic octopus controlling all of the world's politicians minds. If you don't believe that but don't have evidence, does that mean you and I are both acting similarly?

Atheism is not a statement that gods do not exist, it is a statement that you do not believe gods exist. You don't have to prove a negative in order to not believe something, so stop pretending like you do. Non-belief is the default position.

Click to expand...

Not really what I am getting at. We are talking about a concept, deity, that in our terminology means not being able to prove or disprove using known empirical means. In that sense Atheism is a system of belief just as Theism is, and neither can pass by the empirical standard to prove their case. Now inside that system of belief is another matter.

And Atheism is most certainly a statement saying there is no God or Gods, that being a belief system. In this case a disbelief (or lack of belief) in the existence of God or Gods. Atheism and Theism get to be flip sides of the same coin, neither passes empirical standards.

OrphanSlug said:

Not really what I am getting at. We are talking about a concept, deity, that in our terminology means not being able to prove or disprove using known empirical means. In that sense Atheism is a system of belief just as Theism is, and neither can pass by the empirical standard to prove their case. Now inside that system of belief is another matter.

And Atheism is most certainly a statement saying there is no God or Gods, that being a belief system. In this case a disbelief (or lack of belief) in the existence of God or Gods. Atheism and Theism get to be flip sides of the same coin, neither passes empirical standards.

Click to expand...

'...so bear with me while I plaster on a fake smile and plough through this **** one more time.' - Bill Hicks

Atheism is NOT a system of belief, it is a lack of belief in the existence of deities, it says nothing about anything else. It is not a positive assertion so it does not have a burden of evidence in the same way that belief does. You can't shift the burden of evidence. You can't prove a negative. You can't use a strawman to attack it. The A in Atheism does not mean opposite, they are not flip sides. Atheism is the default position and passes the empirical test because by any reasonable standard of evidence, there there is a lack of evidence. That will probably be enough to be going on with for now.

William Rea said:

'...so bear with me while I plaster on a fake smile and plough through this **** one more time.' - Bill Hicks

Atheism is NOT a system of belief, it is a lack of belief in the existence of deities, it says nothing about anything else. It is not a positive assertion so it does not have a burden of evidence in the same way that belief does. You can't shift the burden of evidence. You can't prove a negative. You can't use a strawman to attack it. The A in Atheism does not mean opposite, they are not flip sides. Atheism is the default position and passes the empirical test because by any reasonable standard of evidence, there there is a lack of evidence. That will probably be enough to be going on with for now.

Click to expand...

How else would you describe this? We are talking about a group that says something does not exist without the empirical means to prove their notion. It must then be a belief system.

Religions usually promise huge possible rewards (mainly in the afterlife - thus requiring faith) but, unlike the lottery, merely playing by the religion's rules is said to suffice while winning the lottery requires that one choose specific winning numbers as well. In either case it is said that one must play to win, but the lottery acknowledges the long odds of winning up front.

OrphanSlug said:

How else would you describe this? We are talking about a group that says something does not exist without the empirical means to prove their notion. It must then be a belief system.

Click to expand...

Right, so define what a 'belief system' is and then tell me how 'Atheism' matches that definition?

Amadeus said:

Faith is essentially trust without evidence. Trust ties into faith, but they are not entirely interchangeable terms. Trust requires some evidence to some degree.

In most religions, faith is a prerequisite. Atheists/agnostics have said that if God were to make himself known (e.g. manifest as a physical being), then they would know that he exists and believe in him. This would end all religious wars, conflict, divisions, interpretations, etc. However, then it would no longer be a question of faith.

It would appear that faith does have some value. The question is, what is that value and is it a good thing?

Click to expand...

I reject the idea that faith is "knowledge without evidence" or "trust without evidence". I would agree that having that kind of faith is bad. And many Christians give this as the definition of faith. It's garbage.

However, "faith" by my definition I think would even be acceptable by the atheist as good. Basically, I include the evidence part. Knowledge with evidence, trust with evidence. I have never seen gravity, but I can see plenty of evidence for it, and it seems completely rational to believe. I have never seen evolution, but I can see plenty of evidence for it, and it seems completely rational to believe. I have never seen China, but I can see plenty of evidence for it, and it seems completely rational to believe. I have never seen cause and effect, but I see plenty of evidence for it, and it seems completely rational to believe.

I don't believe in God simply because "I have faith". That's circular. I believe in God because I see plenty of evidence for it, and it seems completely rational to believe.

William Rea said:

Right, so define what a 'belief system' is and then tell me how 'Atheism' matches that definition?

Click to expand...

I did that already.

Radical said:

I reject the idea that faith is "knowledge without evidence" or "trust without evidence". I would agree that having that kind of faith is bad. And many Christians give this as the definition of faith. It's garbage.

However, "faith" by my definition I think would even be acceptable by the atheist as good. Basically, I include the evidence part. Knowledge with evidence, trust with evidence. I have never seen gravity, but I can see plenty of evidence for it, and it seems completely rational to believe. I have never seen evolution, but I can see plenty of evidence for it, and it seems completely rational to believe. I have never seen China, but I can see plenty of evidence for it, and it seems completely rational to believe. I have never seen cause and effect, but I see plenty of evidence for it, and it seems completely rational to believe.

I don't believe in God simply because "I have faith". That's circular. I believe in God because I see plenty of evidence for it, and it seems completely rational to believe.

Click to expand...

What evidence do you see concerning God?

William Rea said:

'...so bear with me while I plaster on a fake smile and plough through this **** one more time.' - Bill Hicks

Atheism is NOT a system of belief, it is a lack of belief in the existence of deities, it says nothing about anything else. It is not a positive assertion so it does not have a burden of evidence in the same way that belief does. You can't shift the burden of evidence. You can't prove a negative. You can't use a strawman to attack it. The A in Atheism does not mean opposite, they are not flip sides. Atheism is the default position and passes the empirical test because by any reasonable standard of evidence, there there is a lack of evidence. That will probably be enough to be going on with for now.

Click to expand...

Atheists wrongly claim atheism is a "lack of belief", when, it is quite clearly a belief that no deity, or creator could possibly exist. As far as I am concerned, atheism requires far more "blind faith" than Christianity. To adopt the atheist belief system, one must look at the obvious design of the universe around them and conclude that it is all happenstance. Now that is faith.

countryboy said:

Atheists wrongly claim atheism is a "lack of belief", when, it is quite clearly a belief that no deity, or creator could possibly exist. As far as I am concerned, atheism requires far more "blind faith" than Christianity. To adopt the atheist belief system, one must look at the obvious design of the universe around them and conclude that it is all happenstance. Now that is faith.

Click to expand...

Not quite what I would have said, but I had to throw a 'like' on it.

Faith is good in small quantities. Faith is good if it bridges the gap between reason and solipsism. But often faith is bad if you rely on it more than reason.

Christopher Columbus had faith. Despite the popular myth, people of his day knew the Earth was round, knew approximately how large it was, and knew the ships of his day couldn't carry enough supplies to reach India. If Columbus was smarter he would have realized his trip was a suicide mission. But he thought he could make it, and he was saved by the Americas. Faith turned out to be good for him.

But for every lucky Columbus who is successful by relying on faith, there are a hundred dead idiots.

Of course faith is a good thing, we only need to turn to the words of Phil Robertson to see this:

"Two guys break into an atheist's home," Robertson said in the speech. "He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters.

"Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot 'em and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off [sic] in front of him."

He continued: "And they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don't have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now is it dude?'"

Click to expand...

It's faith that keeps people like Phil Robertson from committing atrocities.

OrphanSlug said:

What evidence do you see concerning God?

Click to expand...

Two things stand out the most, leading me to think of two independent reasons why there is a God. First, stuff exists. Second, many things seem to have a end.

The first observation leads me to believe that stuff exists, and it doesn't exist innately. Matter doesn't have those kinds of powers. So it's existence much come from somewhere. This leads me to believe that there is something that does have existence innately. I call this something "God".

The second observation is completely separate from the first. I look at something, like a tree, and see that it has a kind of order. Not that it looks a certain way or anti-evolution, but it seems ordered to grow. Animals seems ordered to grow and sense. We seem to have an order to reason. This makes me believe that they have been ordered and/or order itself exists. The source of the order I call "God".

OrphanSlug said:

Not really what I am getting at. We are talking about a concept, deity, that in our terminology means not being able to prove or disprove using known empirical means. In that sense Atheism is a system of belief just as Theism is, and neither can pass by the empirical standard to prove their case. Now inside that system of belief is another matter.

And Atheism is most certainly a statement saying there is no God or Gods, that being a belief system. In this case a disbelief (or lack of belief) in the existence of God or Gods. Atheism and Theism get to be flip sides of the same coin, neither passes empirical standards.

Click to expand...

You are once again completely incorrect. Not believing something is not a system of belief. You don't have a system of belief for leprechauns. Could leprechauns exist? Sure, but until there's evidence for it, you don't believe it. Atheism is NOT a positive statement of "there is no god". It is only a statement that the person does not believe in god. You really don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about.

countryboy said:

Atheists wrongly claim atheism is a "lack of belief", when, it is quite clearly a belief that no deity, or creator could possibly exist. As far as I am concerned, atheism requires far more "blind faith" than Christianity. To adopt the atheist belief system, one must look at the obvious design of the universe around them and conclude that it is all happenstance. Now that is faith.

Click to expand...

Also completely incorrect. People like you do this nonsense because you're trying to drag atheism onto the same level of religion so that you can simply say it's a difference of opinion. As an atheist I am NOT saying that it is impossible for god to exist, I am saying I have no reason to believe it, so I don't. Could god exist? Certainly, and when there's even a single shred of evidence to support it, I'll adjust my world view accordingly.

Not believing something is not the same as making something up. Are you a zeus or unicorn atheist? "Doesn't not believing in unicorns require as much faith as believing in unicorns?" Don't you see how stupid that sounds?

OrphanSlug said:

How else would you describe this? We are talking about a group that says something does not exist without the empirical means to prove their notion. It must then be a belief system.

Click to expand...

Do you live your life believing that everything exists unless you can prove otherwise? The default position is non-belief. No one here believes there's a teacup in orbit between mars and jupiter. That doesn't mean there isn't one, just that we have no reason to believe there is one.

Please open your mind and learn the difference. Not believing in something does not have a burden of proof. The burden of proof only applies to someone making a positive claim.