Do atheists take anything on faith or is everything scrutinized?

Question

do you have to completely understand how complex life came about to agree with evolution or do you accept the outline that is told to you?

Answer 1

That "faith" has to be well earned - do you just BLINDLY trust people with YOUR hard-earned money?!?!?!?!?

;);););)

Answer 2

This atheist takes nothing on faith and makes a point of scrutinizing everything -- especially my own assumptions. At this point it is still impossible to know all the details of abiogenesis and evolution. I do accept the "outline" provided by those who are more knowledgeable about it than I. The world is now so complex it is impossible for one individual to know all possible things about every possible subject. I know that I can generally trust a real biologist to give good answers to my biology questions. A real chemist can reliably answer my chemistry questions. That's the way science works. Because science is based on the simple premise that the physical realm is objectively real, a scientist in one specialty can generally trust the opinions of a scientist in another specialty. This sort of interdisciplinary cooperation is quite common among scientists and seldom seen between members of different religions.

Can a Christian trust a Muslim to correctly answer a question about a Jew? For that matter, can anybody ever trust a Christian to correctly answer a question about something he doesn't actually "believe in"?

Answer 3

Very complex question. The simple answer if that's possible may be that I need a level of evidence equal to the claim.

I came to accept the evidence for evolution after learning a certain amount of the available evidence. But like scientists working on the various disciplines I didn't say done and closed the book.

Scientists discover new supporting evidence all the time and while there so now so much evidence it's nearly impossible to digest all of it I try to keep up.

Answer 4

this is a relatively over-simplified question for a non-simple topic... When considering a complex topic such as evolution I have to consider alot of things... mainly does it make sense. Scientists have made considerable advances in the explanation and understanding of evolution. I'd say that by this point they have accumulated enough information for me to make an informed decision. Evolution does exist. But I suppose if you want to get overly technical about it yes there is a slight degree of speculation about it. So I guess one would have to have a degree of "faith" to believe in it.

But what you fail to realize is that evolution is not a religion. Its a scientific theory. And therefore the two aren't related and the type of faith of which you speak doesn't apply here. I think thats what scares so many people in the world when they hear about evolution... they see it as a religion. They see it as something that is out to destroy them and their god. Thats not the case... its just a scientific explanation of the world we live in, and although I don't believe in a god, I don't see why science and religion can't co-exist... at least amongst the intelligent.

Answer 5

They have to accept some things on faith, or else they would never get anywhere in life. Look at the chair you are sitting in you had faith that it would hold you up, didn't you? You trust that the ground beneath that chair is stable and that the computer you are typing on won't electrocute you. You have faith that when you go to school/work/store that you'll make it back home safely and you trust the drivers on the road to not hit you.

Everyone has to have some degree of faith whether they wish to admit it or not.

As far as evolution goes, they don't have to understand it nor do they have to believe in it. I have a friend who is atheist and she doesn't believe in evolution.

Answer 6

Actually, the outline of evolution is the only thing that is known and "fixed". It's all the stuff in between that has a tendency to shift and change and have Christians say see! It can't be true if the evidence changes! So yes, I accept the outline and eagerly wait for more evidence of the how.

Answer 7

If the simplified explanations of how something works sounds reasonable, I can generally accept it for the time being. I tend to scrutinize a good amount of things, but, for all my doubts, I don't necessarily intensely determine the accuracy of my perceptions for anything unless an accurate understanding of it would be necessary to make a decision (in which case, I am usually paralyzed due to being overwhelmed with analysis).

I have faith in some things, depending on your definition. But, otherwise, I just kind of question things...

Answer 8

I do not take anything on *blind* faith.

I have faith in things that have been shown in the past to be true. I have "faith" in science because scientific methods have been shown to be good. I also know that science is willing to admit it's errors, and correct them as needed. I don't need to have *100%* understanding about how complex life came about, or even 100% understanding of evolution to trust what science tells us.

Answer 9

No two people are the same so normal people with no beliefs differ.
I myself look at the idea of Evolution from a layman's perspective the same as me not being a lawyer weighed the evidence against OJ and came to the conclusion that he was guilty. I did not need to be an expert to realize that him being guilty was the only thing that made sense, all of nature's clues point to evolution being true.

Answer 10

I work with two concepts: possibility and probability. If something is supported by evidence, but not much evidence, I will consider it possible, but with low probability. If something is supported by no evidence, it is not possible unless new evidence comes to light and it can be re-evaluated. This requires being constantly open to new information, keeping up with the most recent theories and discoveries as they happen.

Something like evolution: Possible, well-supported (high probability) but not yet "fact" because it is not completely established as fact yet.

It's a scientific way to think, and it works well because there are varying degrees of probability depending on how much evidence there is for a given claim. I don't take anything on faith. Anyone who claims that something like love or gravity can't be quantified is not familiar with the scientific method.

Answer 11

The greater astonishing the declare, and the better the exchange in action being demanded on an identical time, the greater scrutiny. If somebody claims their companion and them had a combat, then i don't scrutinize too plenty. Couples having fights is thoroughly conceivable, that is validated that that is a reasonably ordinary prevalence. in the event that they are anticipating me to make a judgement or exchange my habit, then i'm going to scrutinize sufficient to get the different fringe of the tale. in the event that they are claiming something it is unbelievable, then I scrutinize a great deal. so some distance as organic and organic evolution, i understand there are issues that are regularly occurring and demonstrable, and issues that are advised hypothesis with a intense degree of plausibility, and that i understand there are issues that are unknown. i don't could desire to do each test myself to determine that the claims to be sufficiently validated. yet those experiments and observations could desire to be reproducible, if someone so desires. The scientific technique purposes because of the fact that is consistent with finding out, not authority. that is not only issues that are "advised to you". *How* all of us understand those issues is substantial. And confident, that is issues that *we* understand because of the fact there is this ingredient referred to as shared information. without it, we could be eating berries and small animals that we controlled to determine a thank you to kill ourselves in a pre-stone age point of society.