Atheism is a lack of faith?

Question

Proposition: Faith is accepting something without proof.

Proposition: Proof must be grounded in logic.

Proposition: Any proof that uses the subject of the proof itself as part of the proof is tautological and therefore invalid.

Conclusion: The efficacy of logic cannot be proved, as logic would be required to prove it.

Conclusion: Belief that logic works is faith.

Just a couple of side notes: I'm using "proof" here in its strictest sense. I'm a mathematician by training, after all. Evidence - even a great deal of evidence - is all well and good, but does not constitute proof. I'm a great believer in logic myself - I simply don't think there's any way to prove, in the strictest sense, that logic works. To my mind, that makes it faith. I believe, therefore, that atheism is not a lack of faith. Atheists simply choose to put their faith elsewhere than God.

Comments?

*sigh*

Hot Carl - Seeing the results of logic is evidence. Good evidence, but not proof. As for the other - how do you know I have no evidence that God exists? Believing without evidence is what I term "blind faith". I have absolutely no respect for blind faith.

Steven - Meaning no offense, but anyone who never says "I don't know" is a fool.

Me Loath You Long Time - I'll give you points - at least your argument goes to one of my propositions. If we accept what you said, then my conclusions collapse. I suspect, however, that most people and most dictionaries would conform with my definition more than yours.

Brendan - I haven't forgotten it, luv. Again - that's evidence. Evidence is insufficient for proof in this sense. Maybe you just haven't looked in the right spot.

acid_zebra uncut: I really expected more from you than unsubstantiated insults. Edit that, please, and expand. You're better than that.

We'll try this one more time, and then give up.

I have not attacked atheists or atheism, at least by my standards. I have made a proposition regarding the nature of faith and drawn a couple of conclusions. There are two ways to attack that argument:

1) You can disagree with one or more of my propositions, as "Loathe" has done. If any of them fail, the argument fails.

2) You can attack the conclusions I have drawn based on those propositions - and only on those propositions. If you don't agree with the propositions - see #1.

You cannot rationally say "I don't agree with your conclusions and therefore they are poopoo." Tell me WHY you disagree. You cannot tell me what atheism IS as though that's a counter argument. I have said nothing about what atheism is except insofar as logic is a part of atheism - an ancillary argument at best. If you disagree with my conclusion about logic - well, see #1 and #2 above.

More to follow.

I have no problem with someone who has sincerely considered the evidence and concluded that there is no God, or even that there very probably is no God. I disagree with them, but I can still respect them. There are Christians in the world - a good many of them, actually - who are Christian because everyone around them is Christian, or because they stand to gain from it (the Falwell clan or the Pascal's Wager people come to mind) and I have very little respect for them. Equally, there are a lot of atheists in the world who are so because it's cool, or because all their friends are, or worse because they've never considered the alternatives seriously. I was there, once.

And please quit telling me I have no evidence for my faith. You may certainly argue with my evidence, but it seems that would be hard to do unless I tell you what it is - which, obviously, I have not done. That is not germane to the question here.

Answer 1

Atheists don't lean on faith like religious people do. Faith is just wishful thinking.

Since you have a mathematical background, think of it as keeping your axioms to a minimum and trying to be explicit about them.

Atheists tend to be more scientific, and science doesn't deal in proof. We are the first to admit that what we think we know might be wrong. On the other hand, religion throws out its baseless claims as absolute truth. That's the main difference.

And it isn't really logic that atheists have "faith" in. It is the idea that the world is pretty much as it seems. Logic tends to follow from that. All of our ideas of causality and function come from what we observe about the world. And even though our own senses can sometimes deceive us, we have learned to recognize that and see a deeper consistency to the universe. That is what we have our faith in.

Answer 2

According to Scripture your first proposition regarding faith is false. Hebrews 11:1 states clearly that faith must produce substance which will stand as evidence of our hope.

A few versus on faith, in aspect with belief, is set out and one is invited to test the proposition against real rewards; in exchange for diligent search. Any sane person should be able to do this.

Finally, those to whom your question is aimed do not have a problem with their head. Their problem is with their heart and God views it as such in Eph. 4. By faith, you should be in Eph. 2 in Christ at the very least.

I agree with you to a point on logic. Simply formal validity does not prove material validity. However, the real limitation is our essence in reason which is forever subjective despite all the objective tools one claims to support it.

In the most simple terms logic is in the head where it belongs. Faith is in the heart. Faith does not replace logic.

Faith does bring proofs not available to science. because God only deals with individuals. Atheists to my best light are mature people who still insist on tearing the watch apart to see how it works.

When atheists walk into the room of final understanding I will be waiting there, surrounded by poets and little children. Hope to see you there, sooner than later.

Answer 3

Proof must be grounded in logic and FACTS. There are facts that are true for any observer without having to use logic. Logic can be thought of as a connection of facts.

Atheism has nothing to do with faith. Atheism is asking for evidence before believing. Evidence (both logic and facts) are crucial to every human discussion. I don't see why religion should get a free pass when it comes to discussing its irrationality and lack of evidence.

Answer 4

But, you forget one important thing: logical analysis as a means of problem solving has demonstrated itself millions of times over. The "rational" side of our societies is based around it. Every time you get into a car or go to a hospital, this fact is demonstrated.

On the other hand, believing without "logical" bases has frequently proven to be disastrous.

EDIT: You can argue this point just as long and hard as you can argue such saws as "if God created the universe ..." It's pointless. For the purposes of 3-dimensional beings on a tiny planet in a corner of a galaxy in - literally - the middle of nowhere, 2 + 2 always = 4

Tautological or not, logic works.

Logical = pragmatism; pragmatism is a proven way to solve problems.

Answer 5

Well I think that Atheists don't like to obey to God, because this was the ancient atheist ..someone who preffered to live and sin without giving attention to the morality of God.

Atheists cannot explain the existence of space , because there can be a space only if there is a place where that space can take a place .

And only a God with amazing powers and a miraculous eternal World can explain the space if everything else can be explained by some although they only have the impression that they can explain , acctually they don't know how to think , because you must be faithfull to know how to think because you get the thought from God.

Aristoteles believed Univers was eternal . Well The Heaven is Eternal , Univers is made by God. Aristoteles was a little bit right and bright.

I might say ..don't give attention to atheists ...because they want do it on purpose , actually they do believe in God but they want to look more interesting to girls...I guess.

Answer 6

Atheism isn't a loss of religion, yet faith that there is not any God. it does no longer be a faith, however the outcomes could be an analogous. they suspect that their very final destiny will correspond with their ideals basically as a non secular individual does.

Answer 7

Technically the only thing you can 'prove' is that you exist, based on your ability to think. Such technical definitions of proof are absolutely useless. In any practical application, a 'standard of proof' is used. For example, criminal law in most places uses the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt". In mathematics proofs are based on axioms. You can't prove an axiom, you just have to assume they're true.
And atheism is not a lack of faith, it's a lack of belief in a god or gods. We atheists don't have faith in any god but that doesn't mean we don't have faith.

Answer 8

Using your own criteria, your very question is based on faith. The faith that what your typing can be understood. Your using logic to investigate the logic of logic. See anything wrong with this ? Your technicality that logic is based on faith is meaningless.

Answer 9

Yes/No, kind off, but it has a much higher probability than faith, in other words it has 'proven' itself much better than religous faith. Logic is best based on simple observation.

ALSO would like to add, however. 'Atheism' is simply without belief, no need to get technical on that one.

Answer 10

We can see results of logical thinking when applied to the natural world. No one asserts proof, they assert not jumping to the ridiculous conclusion that god exists when there is no evidence.