Where do atheists draw the line when it comes to matters of faith?

Question

I'm looking for direct answers to this question please.

Please hold off on any efforts to prove or defend your beliefs or lack thereof.

For example: Since you weren't there to observe it, you must take it on faith that you came into this life through birth by your mother.

Another example: evolution can't be directly observed and requires some amount of faith in that the researchers are being truthful about their observations, and/or what the observations should be interpreted to mean.

FYI: It's not an argument, it's a question. I never said I was on one side of the fence or the other. I'm actually neither a theist or an atheist.

If you have absolutely NO FAITH whatsoever, then what keeps you from being a solipsist? Why not rob a bank to get money? In fact, why get a job and work for money which has a value you're uncertain of, nor do you believe your employer will pay?
If you have "evidence" for something, and don't need faith (as so many people stated) you still take the evidence on faith that the person who supplied it is being truthful... or that the person really even exists outside of your mind. It's all extreme, but that's the line of thinking I had in mind when asking "Where do you draw the line?"

I'll try to make it more clear:
Does the gap between all doubt (even unreasonable doubt) and indisputable fact need to be bridged with faith?

Answer 1

I don't. I study a lot of religions and take what I find true and useful from each of them. I do draw the line at believing that there is only one right way and that there is a God.

If I was ever presented with irrefutable evidence that I was wrong, I would change my mind.

I believe that faith is a beautiful thing unless you rely on faith solely without taking action.

Actually, you don't need to take it on faith that your mother pushed you out during birth. There are witnesses to that event and a lot of births are videotaped.

Answer 2

One of the most disingenuous things about Christianity is that while using the bible to defend its virus-like ideology, it tosses around words like “reason” and “logic.” However, anyone who has read the bible surely knows that it has very little to do with either. The 'holey' bible is so full of contradictions and errors that it can hardly be considered a valid source from which to extrapolate the kind of objective truth that forms the foundation of the entire Christian belief structure. Most people believe the religion of their parents. It's the way they were brought up. If a group of parents placed a block of wood on the table and told their children that it was God and that because of it they are enjoying the lifestyle that they do, the children would grow up believing it and another religion would be born. Then we'd have even another group: Atheism vs. the Block of Wood. At the same time, if these people were told that they were wrong and the real God is this mysterious 3 in 1 Godhead who lives in the sky and if you don't do what he says, he will send you to hell where you will burn forever without end, they would probably laugh and say, "You've got to be kidding! My block of wood makes a lot more sense than that. And look, it's real too."

Answer 3

Good point. Even non-dogmatic science requires a certain degree of faith since we aren't usually directly involved in the unraveling of these scientific "truths". But you generally won't find people referring to it as "faith" when it comes to science; instead, you'll just see an agreement with the empirical evidence provided, which by the point you're making -- is in some essence the same thing. If you're not a scientist, you gotta obviously have enough faith in the scientists presenting this empirical evidence to take it in as truth. Only difference, though (and people will argue) that science is easier to prove because it is set up in such a way that any other scientist should be able to recreate the same setup and get the same result. Whereas with spiritual faith, you can't.

Answer 4

Could you be more specific, please?

edit: OK, using your example of birth.

I of course do not remember my own birth. I am however, very aware of how humans are born, as a result of my education. Additionally, I have been present at the birth of my children.

Therefore it is a logical assumption that I was born in the same manner.

edit #2: Your Evolution Example
Evolution has been put forward and studied and challenged by the scientific community. Scientific ideas are always open to scrutiny and are therefore more honest.

What I mean is, if a new science came along today, which radically changed an old idea (i.e. the world is flat) and could be independently verified, then the old theory is (almost) universally discarded. Too bad at that point in history this wasn't the case.

I am more apt to believe a theory that doesn't begin with some dogma. The scientific community is open to going where the evidence leads them, there is no offence, no feelings hurt when a better explanation comes along.

Answer 5

Hmm ... well, attempting to keep my answer reasonably short, I guess I balance logic, evidence and personal experience.

So using evolution as an example, I understand the general workings of a scientific theory having studied science to degree level. I have seen fossils and variations in existing species with my own eyes. And so, since I am not interested to constantly read up on the most current theory, I am happy to accept the general mechanisms outlined by Darwin and Wallace as a reasonable explanation of how organisms adapt to their environment.

Conversely, the argument that everything was created by a being that exists outside the normal 'laws' of physics seems contra-logical and (in terms of Occam's Razor) 'unnecessary' to me.

In consequence, when faced with the question of how life (or the universe itself) came into being, I find a scientific rather than religious explanation most satisfactory.

Clearly however, I have not proved the issue for myself. Nor am I aquainted with the foremost proponents (or their work) for either side of such an 'argument'. So yes, in this case, the gap between doubt and indisputable fact does in deed need to be bridged with faith. IMO
.

Answer 6

when it comes to faith people go in circles either trying to prove one thing or another or simply trying to defend themselves as far as their faith is concerned. I think it's best to draw the line when u think what u r about to say might offend the person u r dealing with. Whether it is the religious faith we r dealing with or simple scientific evolution. we were not there when evolution took place and we were not there when the world and human beings were created. the knowledge we have is based on what people b4 us said happened. Whatever one wants to believe in it's a matter of individual interest or belief. I'm always careful not to condemn the faith that i dont belong to coz it always triggers unnecessary argument. Besides i believe people have the right to choose what they believe is convincing to them.
So when or where do i draw my line?....when i sense that the talk is becoming uncomfortable or is taking the wrong direction.

Answer 7

I don't draw the line in matters of faith. I have faith in many things. I draw the line in matters of fantasy. You are talking nonsense you want to draw the line on evolution but no one else can have a say. I know for a fact my mother gave birth to me I wasn't molded from clay like your fantasy man. You are the cousin of the chimp. It has been proven fact with DNA. You can deny it all you like. That is things I have faith in. If you are neither a Theist or an Atheist you are a pu$$y trying to straddle a fence.

Answer 8

I draw the line when people of faith try to make their faith mine, or try to legislate their faith into laws that apply to me as well.

They may believe all they like, they may educate their kids in their faith -- in their churches, not in public schools.

But I do not appreciate being told I will go to "hell" for not believing as they do, and I do no think that civil law should be dictated by religious belief.

edit -- Fallacious comparison. I do not have to "take on faith" that I was born to my mother. It was observed by many, it was recorded by the government, it was photographed and recorded, and I bear a strong resemblance to her. That is very different than taking something completely unseen and unknowable "on faith". Only a fool does that.

.

.

Answer 9

Where atheists draw the line depends on the individual atheist. The only thing atheists have in common is that we don't believe in gods but I've known atheists who don't believe in gods but who do believe in other nonsense for which there is no evidence e.g. horoscopes.

Personally, I don't believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Deciding whether to believe what people tell me depends on what I know about the person, what their motives might be for not being truthful etc etc.

Answer 10

Education. If "faith" in some idea is supported by reasonable evidence (the Bible does not work here), then it is OK. One can say that I have "faith" in science and logic, but this is the best social tool we have to guard against delusion.

edit----------------------
You illustrate a common error when people speak about the philosophy of science. "Evidence" does not equal "direct observation", it can, but that is not the only form.