atheism and belief - no, not about the god of atheism?

Question

...of course that atheism is not a religion. But does it not involve some degree of faith too - in science, and in our image of the world, for instance? [the lazy ones can stop reading here - but don't you complain about not getting my point]

I do wish science was as solid as the table I'm resting my arms on now while typing, but it requires quite a good portion of belief - if in nothing else, then at least in the uniformity of the universe - which is the one thing that should guarantee that my experiments can be generalized to theories.

So arguments please - why is this more mature and objective than religion?

(I am a rather faithful believer in science and logic myself, but I think that this exercise is needed anyway)

I do believe that we should keep a firm eye on that which we call "evidence", or "clear fact".
(and I need a cigarette now)(...can I get reported for this? Mm, too curious)

Answer 1

I'm going to be pedantic and suggest that science is more solid than your table. Your table is mostly composed of empty space. As is all matter.

Believing that your table is mostly empty space may be difficult to do, but that doesn't make it any less true. The reason science does not require faith, is that you can falsify science. If a scientific theory is incorrect it can be shown to be, and then it will be rejected/replaced/updated. Religion does not have this process - there are no tests. This is the reason science can be said to be more mature and objective.

Answer 2

That depends on how you see things. Atheism itself does not require belief. However, when you say that, there's always someone that will say: Ok, if God didn't make everything, then what did? If you want to answer this question, you have to come up with an alternative. That's when you need science. Now two problems arise:

1) Science can't explain everything, but does try to prove things based on observations.
2) You can't prove God exists through scientific methods. People who have faith don't need to.

And now we are back to square one...

Science is more objective because it does not make predictions about things that are not proven. You always have to have evidence first before you can make conclusions. Where's the evidence that religion is based on science? It's not there, though many believe so. It's no use trying to break down faith into formulas anyway.

There's only one solution: Be a theist or an atheist and try not to think about it too much. :)

Answer 3

Atheism requires faith only in that a God will never be discovered. Science is a process that has brought many good things to our lives. It as also created some bad, but overall we have learned a great deal from it. Our belief that there is a uniformity in the universe is based on experiments performed on earth and in space. We don't have access to other Galaxies, but the math works for distances and observed occurances throught telescopes, so it is logical to assume that physics and mathematics are universal throughout the universe. We have consistant records of similar reactions everytime we have tested them. If there was even one diversion that would change things, but so far they remain the same.

The scientific theories we have are based on observable results. Where as religion is based purely on faith, an unproven emotion/belief system that varies greatly from culture to culture. Science and physics remains constant irreguardless of culture because it relies on a process that will ultimately rule out rediculous theory.

Answer 4

Yes you most have faith in science instead of the supernatural for Atheism. but science is open to change, it is not set on a certain view point. as new information comes in we broaden our way of thinking and evolve. with religion you only have some ancient book that claims to know all. Atheism is a more mature point of view because we have logic and reason, i mean if the bible mentioned that the tooth fairy was a real thing then you would have people actually believing in a magical fairy that comes late at night to take old teeth away from them. Most Christians will say if its in the bible I believe in it since it is the word of God! With Atheism and science people are taught to question everything and not just blindly accept what is told to them.

Answer 5

Science requires evidence, religion does not.

Faith in science? Was that a joke? The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think - if there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational.

People also confuse the word 'faith' with 'belief'.

Answer 6

funny you should say that since that solid table consists of mostly empty space.

My first problem with religion is that you will have to postulate a god. Many religions have done so already, and most are mutually exclusive. Either christian god created the world, or Zeus. Or one of the other guys.

but the point is you have to postulate some real high-powered omniscient/potent benevolent designer first.

Then you would have to think where he came from or how he was made, or say "he was here forever".

Now, in most religions there is also an adversary. This adversary, since god is the creator of all things, is also created by god. Now how is god good again?

Answer 7

The "belief in science," as you put it, can be considered belief, but it does not go to the same extent as religious belief.

Science is based firmly upon observations made of the natural world. Theories, despite their names, are only declared "true" if there is enough evidence gained from the scientific method that support them, unlike religion. Religious beliefs are often unprovable (no proof for or against them, oftentimes), which would be unheard of in the scientific community. You don't declare a theory true just because there is no evidence DISproving it; it's only true when there is evidence proving that it is true.

So, that's pretty much it. Unlike religion, science is based purely upon physical evidence gained to describe the workings of the natural world, while religion just postulates -without evidence- how certain bits of the natural world were created/work.

Answer 8

Why would you wish for science to be as solid as your table? It is the beauty and success of science that it is always fluid. If it was solid it would be in a position to claim, as religion does, that it has all the answers. Instead it catches answers as it can and presents them as the best at the time. Then it looks for more.

Call it faith all you like, but I define faith as believing something with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. That cannot be said of our belief that science is capable of delivering results of real and practical value to our lives.

Answer 9

The trouble with any kind of religious belief is that it postulates something infinitely harder to believe than the thing it seeks to explain. It takes faith (blind faith, I would say) to believe that this give us any kind of explanation about the origin of us or the universe or anything at all.

On the other hand, it takes no faith at all to say "this argument makes no sense, I don't believe it". That's just simple, unassailable reason.

And as the Borg so rightly says below, science gives results - real, tangible, evident results that simply wouldn't happen if it was false. There's not much faith needed to believe that you understand orbital mechanics pretty well, if your spacecraft travels 50 million miles over several years and arrives at its destination within a few miles and a few seconds of what is expected.

Answer 10

It is a useful exercise. Since faith is belief in something without reason or evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, it is to be avoided at all costs: it is the ultimate evil. We seek evidence in support of the scientific method, and see it all around us: cell phones, good food, the Internet, and on and on. We seek evidence in support of religion, and find -- nothing.