One can agree with the conclusion and yet not agree that the argument is valid. — Banno

That's an important distinction.

Whenever I've thought about objective morality (as a secularist), I've tended to hold that if you select a presupposition like human flourishing or Sam Harris's well-being, you're choosing that foundation from a range of possibilities - and that choice itself is not objective. However, once you've chosen a goal, you can work objectively toward achieving it, just as there are objective rules for playing chess, even if the game itself was a human invention based on "made up" conventions.

There cannot be values without life; therefore life is valuable.

Now perhaps most folk would agree that there cannot be values without life, and think life is valuable, and yet agree that the second does not follow from the first.

There is a gap between the "is" of "There cannot be values without life" and the "ought" of "Life is valuable. — Banno

Well this is kind of where I got to 18 days ago on the first thread dedicated to this idea.

3. The "Life = Good" Axiom

Life must see itself as good. Any system that undermines its own existence is naturally selected against. Therefore, within the frame of life, the assertion "Life = Good" is a tautological truth. It is not a moral statement; it is an ontological necessity.
Example:
Suicidal ideologies and belief systems ultimately self-terminate and are selected out. What remains, by necessity, are those perspectives and practices that favor survival and propagation. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam persist precisely because they endorse life-affirming principles, even if imperfectly.
— James Dean Conroy

Tom Storm - Aren't these is/ought fallacies?

Just because life tends to organize and propagate doesn’t mean that it should. Evolution describes tendencies, not values. Saying that because something happens in nature, it is therefore good, risks committing the naturalistic fallacy (a form of is-ought reasoning).

In addition, there remains the obvious question: why ought life continue? Perhaps what ought happen is that life ought be deleted, maybe in order to remove all suffering. Again, I am not advocating this, but pointing out the logical gap in the argument. — Banno

Yes, again, I think I made a similar point. I'm obviously not a lone voice.

Please don't take this as ganging up on you. I just struggle to see your argument as working properly, even though I think I understand what you're trying to do - grounding morality in a foundational presupposition. As I understand it, you believe that since life is the only basis for judging what is good, the continuation of life must itself be good — or something along those lines.

I'm always fascinated by arguments which work to ground morality in foundational principles.

I’d be surprised if you were upsetting any kind of status quo—there are several perspectives here that regularly jostle with each other, but no single dominant view that I can see. There seem to be thoughtful contributors from a range of approaches, from analytic philosophy to Neoplatonism. I enjoy reading people’s views and occasionally throwing in my own to see how they land. But it does seem that certainty or members who believe they've solved a great quandary are often met with skepticism. Which would make sense for a philosophy site. Disagreement is good, as long as it is managed without rancour and abuse.

To be clear - I’m not accusing you of bad faith. But I do think it’s worth being self-aware about how ideas are filtered and who gets to set the tone. — James Dean Conroy

Good—no worries.

I'm here because I've never really prioritized philosophy. I find the forum experience interesting, and I enjoy asking people who’ve done more reading and thinking than I have what their perspective is. Even if they agree with me, that doesn’t mean I think we’re both right, it just suggests I’m not entirely off base. I find 's approach clear, and he’s more knowledgeable than I am.

But yes, there’s always the risk that here many of us gravitate toward those who share our dispositions, presuppositions and values. Just like life in general.

Tom Storm, with respect - it seems you're just agreeing because the framing confirms your prior stance. There’s no fresh argument here, just a "yes, that’s how I see it too." That’s not engagement; that’s confirmation bias. A very clear example of it. — James Dean Conroy

You're partly right. I was wondering if my take was right or not, so I asked for his view. It does correspond to some of my thoughts, so there's that. I’m not sure that qualifies as confirmation bias—if it does, then all agreement would count as such, which seems unlikely.

What did you make of Assange’s endorsement of Albo?

Yes. Although you're technically not fined for not voting, you are fined for not ticking your name off the list and taking the ballot sheets. You can actually just walk to the ballot box and drop the paperwork in untouched.

Edit - just repeated what you wrote.

24 hours to go folks. Are you nervous — javi2541997

No, I forgot until you mentioned it. I voted on Monday.

Obama said that if he could take one thing form Australia it would be compulsory voting. Australia consistently has turnout rates above 90%, while U.S. elections often see low participation (65%), especially the midterms (53%). Obama believed that requiring everyone to vote would lead to a government that better reflects the will of the people. I think this is largely true, but not watertight.

No doubt libertarians and Right wingers will disagree ("Governments shouldn't force anyone to do anything!"), but I agree with legal drinking ages, seatbelts, environmental laws too, so I'm in favour of it. There are about 15 countries who enforce compulsory voting and about 20 who nominally have it.

My understanding of hte way virtue ethics work is that its a non-religious moral system that allows someone to say "The type of person i ought to be is *insert religious ideal*" and so work toward that, under the guise of non-religious development. — AmadeusD

Isn't it also said that there's an elitist element to it? Only certain people with the right reading and education and sensibilities are able to understand and achieve virtue in this way?

Well these people sound nice. I wonder why it is that when I spoke of "atheists generally" your mind went straight to Dawkins and Hitchens and not to these guys. — goremand

D&H as polemicists have had the most traction on the internet. I guess they are entertaining polemicists, if you like that kind of thing. The New Atheism was a publishing gimmick for a while, and it seems to me that people quickly lost interest. Where I live, neither atheism nor theism interests most people. They seem to be default atheists, with no particular arguments against gods, just a lack of interest. I guess this is our secular age in action.

When I was a young atheist I read mainly pamphlets and listened to secular talks and read Robert Ingersoll.

A far cry from the timeless, genderless, emotionless, unfathomable "being" all the serious thinkers seem to end up with. — goremand

The problem with this esoteric (and sometimes apophatic) version of God is that it's so hard to get people interested in it. Why would they care? Theistic personalism seems to have more vitality.

You again tempt me in to threads I really should just avoid. — Banno

You always bring precision to the cause.

as if it were self-evident... at least, that seems to be what he means by it being a "structural observation" - that it is somehow inconceivable that it were false. I'm not seeing it. — Banno

Ok, good. I guess that's where I sit.

There's a pretty clear violation of is/ought here, it seems to me. Values are what we want, and facts are how things are, and since nothing in how things are tells us how we want them to be, there is a logical gap to be crossed. — Banno

Well there you go.

Does that help? — Banno

Indeed. Thanks. I think this is similar to what I said at the start of an earlier thread on this.

To reiterate:
Synthesis is axiomatic: not a claim to be believed, but a structure to be tested.

I hope thats clear, that we all understand what axioms are, and how to interpret and interrogate them. — James Dean Conroy

@Banno can you help me understand this appeal to axiomatic or foundational truth? This is an axiom held within a system developed by JDC. But is there any reason to accept it from a broader philosophical perspective?

And I would hope that what is worth saving from the religions is aimed at that (and that indeed there is). — Wayfarer

That's fair.

:up: Well... I'm not sure we have access to truth. Philosophy begins with folk conceptions of the world, which explains why debates like realism versus idealism persist. These foundational perspectives continue to shape metaphysical inquiry, even as our methods, frameworks, and language become more sophisticated. The Trump phenomenon partly shows what happens when folk religion is weaponized to support bigotries, so it's still a live issue. Is it philosophy? Not entirely, but not entirely unrelated either.

But again this predicated on the expectation that existence ought to be a state of perfection, or a state of being where there is no suffering, predation, death or loss. What is the basis of that expectation? — Wayfarer

My conversations with theists who argue this time and again. All these sorts of arguments exist solely as a riposte to to common arguments put out by theists. Of course, not all theists hold to this but what percentage of Christians and Muslims do you think are out there with sophisticated accounts?

In my experince there is always a way for theists to get God 'off the hook.' If you are passionate about your beliefs you will find a work around. Remember the exculpatory interpretations the Communists used to provide for Stalin? Everyone likes their rationalisations - even the atheists.

As it happens theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart has cited suffering as the argument that gives him the most amount of doubt and his understanding of God (disliked by some Christians as being too progressive or Left and therefore mistaken) is highly sophisticated.

When someone proffers the design argument and appeals to the perfection of nature one can always argue that this perfection is dubious at best since nature is full of horrors and fuck ups and if God were a car manufacture, he would likely be prosecuted and shut down.

Having this reasonable confidence in Bob is trust—no? You trust him. Right? — Bob Ross

In so far as the evidence affords. But there’s a limit.

However, to say that some claims are “extraordinary” (which is straight out of Hitchens’ playbook btw) that cannot be, even in principle, verified other than through a belief devoid of trust—well, I don’t know what that kind of claim would look like. — Bob Ross

It’s 1980’s Carl Sagan, I think. New Atheism is just packaging the free thought arguments of earlier times.

If someone says they have a puppy at home I would have no reason to doubt this. But it could be untrue. However is someone says they have a dragon at home I’m going to need robust evidence. That’s all I am saying. For the most part, the more extraordinary the claim the more important the quality of that evidence is.

Firstly, if they have it on valid faith, in principle, then it would be warranted to believe it; and you are implying it would be irrational for them to. — Bob Ross

Valid faith? Are you saying faith is uneven? How does one determine which faith claim is valid and which one is not?

I would say this is agnosticism (viz., the suspension of judgment about a proposition); whereas atheism, traditionally, is the belief there are no gods.
— Bob Ross

False. We've been through this, but the etymology doesn't quite allow for this.

"A-gnostic" means "no knowledge". It is the position that we cannot know whether or not God exists. Atheist is literally A-theism. "no theism". That's literally it. In any case, i set out months ago why your use of the word is unhelpful. Not your fault - lots of people think that. But it is the reason these silly debates occur. — AmadeusD

Yes. I don’t believe in gods. Doesn’t mean I know there are no gods. Most atheists today distinguish between a belief claim and a knowledge claim. Some are more certain about particular gods such as Zuess or Yahweh.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from; as I used to also be in a similar mindset. After all, this is what the new atheism movement has produced throughout our culture (and, to fair, it is a response to poor argumentation and reasoning which common theism has offered). The layman theist tends to emphasize ‘faith’ as juxtaposed to ‘belief’ or ‘knowledge’ and brings it up mostly when they are referring to what is really ‘a high degree of faith of which this belief is based on’; and, naturally, the layman atheist latches onto this disposition and becomes the counter-disposition, equally flawed and vague, that ‘faith’ is a useless concept which only refers to blind belief that only makes sense within the context of religion. — Bob Ross

Nicely written. I don't really have a problem with this. When I have debated God with others it is usually fundamentalists so my approach is perfectly adequate for those purposes. Those arguments are just about creating larger conversations through the smash and grab of polemics. Of course it's not philosophy and it doesn't need to be. The sophisticated religious people I know (who are generally Catholic clergy) would never use faith as a justification and they are often suspicious of Christians who reference faith. For reasons you have described.

I've been an atheist since the 1970's. In relation to the New Atheists - I haven't read their works. I have little interest in Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens. Was Dennett one too? Actually I read God is not Great - Hitch was a polemicist. And we need that. But I'm not really a customer. My atheism was informed by various freethinkers prior to 1990 and by reading Christians like Bishop Shelby Spong, Richard Rohr and David Bently Hart and others. For me atheism isn't a positive claim that god doesn't exist. It is simply that I am not convinced. To me belief in God is similar to a sexual attraction - you can't help who you are drawn to. The arguments in my experince generally come post hoc.

Most of the time when I hear a layman theist and atheist debate, I think they both are getting at something that is correct but the ideas are malformed and malnourished; and each’s consciousness is developed parasitically on the other: their view is worked out through a response to the other’s view. — Bob Ross

Another nicely expressed and accurate assessment.

I would bet you would trust Bob, given his serious track record of honesty; and this belief that the liquid will harm instead of help would be an act of pure faith. Is this pure faith irrational? I don’t think so; because the evidence to support having that pure faith, in this case, adds up. — Bob Ross

I have to confess I am not good with thought experiments. I would say here that faith isn't a great word for what's happening - I would say that I have a reasonable confidence in Bob's judgments because he has empirically demonstrated himself as reliable over many years. A more poetic expression for this could be "faith in" but I don't see the need to use it myself and it lacks precision.

However if Bob said to me, 'wash your hands in this water and you will be cured of any cancer because the water has been impregnated with a new anti-cancer vaccine', I would not accept his word because the claim requires much more than trust. It is an extraordinary claim. I might even avoid touching the water because it might well have something in it that is not safe. An unusual claim like this would come with warning bells.

To be honest, this discussion of faith has me thinking that my use is mostly ok and when I am talking with someone who says they have it on faith that homosexuals are corrupt, I can safely tell them that they are using faith as a justification for bigotry and for a lack of evidence. This is not the same as saying all examples of faith are inadequate, nor is it an attempt to say religious people are deluded.

But using all of the same terms from the flip side, the problem of evil says our experience of God changes with or without suffering. — Fire Ologist

I am saying that this comment from you:

But the real irony is, without God, for some reason, this same life is now seen as the triumph of nature, with life finding a way despite calamity after insufferable calamity. If we take God out of the equation, we see those beings that bear suffering and overcome pain as heroic and good. Suffering almost becomes justified by all of the lives that follow it. Suffering adds to the good of living once it is overcome. — Fire Ologist

Seems mistaken.

As an atheist who doesn't beleive that there are gods, reality does not become a triumph of nature just because there's no 'magic sky wizard' or ground of being, call the thing whatever you want.

We have to assume an all-good God who was all-powerful would use that power to eliminate all of our suffering. That’s not a necessary, logical assumption. — Fire Ologist

Not all atheists accept this argument.

Suffering aside, I think it is certainly worth remarking upon that predation and cruelty are built into the engine of survival for most creatures, but this is not a disproof of god. The problem of suffering does not lead you automatically anywhere, whether you are a theist or an atheist.

Without God or anything behind it, pain is just another experience, justifiable and justified as any experience might be justified. It is what it is; that’s how evolution works. Pleasure draws things toward each other, pain repels things apart; the living grow and take over, the dying diminish and are consumed. Suffering is no longer something to be eliminated or something that can even be imagined as eliminated. Pain is now a badge of honor to those for whom that which does not destroy us makes us stronger. — Fire Ologist

I don't recognise this way of thinking. It reads like bad Nietzsche to me. No doubt atheists hold diverse views on suffering. Trying to avoid it is my path. Suffering holds no intrinsic meaning.

Interesting excerpt, thanks.

I wouldn’t always call faith itself irrational,
— Tom Storm

So what do we mean with "irrational", here? — Dawnstorm

As per my examples.

Try these. If you take it on faith that black people are inferior to white people, you are holding an irrational belief. If you take it on faith that women are inferior to men, you are holding an irrational belief. If you take it on faith that LGBTQ+ individuals are morally corrupt, you are holding an irrational belief. If you take it on faith that people of another religion are damned, you are holding an irrational belief. If you take it on faith that any group is inherently superior or inferior without evidence, you are holding an irrational belief. All of these views I regularly hear from theists. — Tom Storm

For example, I think, if a Christian fideist would use the word "irrational", they might appeal to (b) above. — Dawnstorm

Well it would depend how it's being used.



Thanks, this discussion has gone all over the shop. My original problem with faith was those who use the word to describe a reasonable confidence that a plane will fly when we have empirical grounds not to doubt this.

But I don't think there's anything I need to add to this one for now.

It's curious that you keep making arguments against positions I do not hold.

It seems you are perhaps bigoted against atheists, perceiving them all as monstrous amalgamations of the worst traits of Dawkins and Hitchens.

Religious faith is irrational. Prove me wrong." — Leontiskos

I haven’t argued that, it’s far too totalising. I would say that many religious believers hold irrational beliefs, but so do many political adherents.

So I guess you can just get back to me when you find a more objective source than Bertrand Russell, or when you at least have the intellectual seriousness to look for some objective sources. — Leontiskos

I’m not seeking authority figures to follow; I leave that to zealots and fundamentalists.

On the pejorative definition of faith, anyone who believes something without evidence must be engaged in faith. — Leontiskos

That would be a bad argument. Try these. If you take it on faith that black people are inferior to white people, you are holding an irrational belief. If you take it on faith that women are inferior to men, you are holding an irrational belief. If you take it on faith that LGBTQ+ individuals are morally corrupt, you are holding an irrational belief. If you take it on faith that people of another religion are damned, you are holding an irrational belief. If you take it on faith that any group is inherently superior or inferior without evidence, you are holding an irrational belief. All of these views I regularly hear from theists.

Calling faith "irrational" isn't automatically an insult, since rational belief is belief proportioned to evidence. — Banno

I wouldn’t always call faith itself irrational, (and maybe my wording is lacking precision) but it’s often used to justify many of the irrational ideas listed above. I’ve spoken with numerous Muslims and Christians over the years who, when unable to find sound reasons for their beliefs (which are often bigotries), simply appeal to ‘faith.’

Are all expressions of faith wonky in precisely this way? I would think not. But it seems clear to me that faith can have many problematic uses.

I probably should be clear that I would still count faith as a virtue. Sometimes we must make a leap. Or commitment to fragile, finite things — like love, freedom, or democratic life — knowing they can fail. We might still praise faith when it means trusting, hoping, or committing in uncertainty — not when it means believing without evidence about factual matters. — Banno

Now that's a good point and I can't find anything to disagree with.

Did you take a look at the SEP article on Faith? Even a quick glance will show that the issue is far from settled, especially amongst the believers. — Banno

Yes, this is instructive. And corresponds to the fact that among my Christian friends there is a range of views about what faith is and whether people really have faith and whether it is reliable. My views are also formed by talking to Christians.

So what you have done here is not only to argue against the rationality of faith, but to demonstrate it by eliciting the responses above. This was never an open discussion, at least for some participants.

Consider this in relation to the recent chats hereabouts concerning liberalism.

Thoughts? — Banno

Indeed. I am quite interested in dogma and it seems particularly prevalent in religion and politics.

My friend, a Catholic priest called John, has often said (paraphrasing Dr Johnson, I think) that "Faith is the last bastion of the scoundrel.' He has spend decades fighting Catholic bulldogs on such views as, "I have it on faith that gays will burn in hell."

Thanks. There's a lot wrapped up in this notion of faith that has been left unsaid.

I just told you why: because your whole approach to this topic is absurd and bigoted. That's why you're being insulted. — Leontiskos

The problem is that you're just demonstrating that many Christians can't argue in good faith - they have to belittle and cajole and bully when challenged.

At least, I would think this if I were bigoted against Christians. :wink:

What I actually think is that you are trying the best you can to engage with this and with a view you don't or can't accept and this is what it looks like. As it happens, I'm trying the best I can to think this through as well.

So what are the take home messages here, apart from, 'Never start a land war in Asia?"

Notice the "But once the definition of faith shifts toward loyalty, duty, trust, or group belonging, "evidence" falls away and isn't part of the conceptual structure anymore"? This begins to show our differences in emphasis with the theists hereabouts. This is probably what causes Leon such indigestion. — Banno

That has been my instinct for much of this. Interesting.

But you're not being very philosophical, are you? It's just insults and ad hominems, presumably because you hate atheism and see everyone in the image of Dawkins or Hitchens.

You haven’t attempted to respond to this:

I recall talking to some apartheid-era South Africans who had it on faith that black people were inferior to white people. That’s the problem with an appeal to faith – there is nothing that can't be justified using an appeal to faith, since it is not about evidence. As per Hebrews 11: 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' — Tom Storm

Maybe consider the idea that your whole approach to this topic is absurd, and that this is why you are being insulted. — Leontiskos

Well, you're the only one doing the insulting. I wonder why you feel this is necessary?

Provide some arguments. Dig in and show us how it is done. Make it easy for the dumb, uneducated atheist.

This is ironic, Tom. "Conviction" is here translating elenchos, which in many translations is rendered as 'evidence.'

For example, the King James Version, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." — Leontiskos

Good that's better - I got this off the Revised Standard Version. But no doubt there are endless arguments about which translations are correct, etc.

Just to be clear, ChatGPT was used here in order to cut the amount of work involved in Austin's method, which he envisioned as being done by a team of nerds in the confines of a few rooms in Oxford - after his experiences during the war... — Banno

Fascinating!

Well, your account was that faith involves trust in an authority. If this were so then we might expect to find "trust and "authority" amongst the main words found. While "trust" is there, "authority" isn't. — Banno

Curious. Am I wrong to want to include 'evidence'?

Are we able to talk without personal attack?

If so, then let's step this out.

It's hardly surprising that an atheist would consider religion to be wrong about reality and the world, just as you would consider the millions, perhaps a billion atheists to be wrong (possibly irrational) too.

But why stop at your precious 2.4 billion folks? Why not all the other billions of people from all the other religions?

I assume many Christians would hold that the 1.9 billion Muslims and 1.2 billion Hindus hold erroneous if not irrational beliefs.

So what?

I think faith is a bad pathway to truth. I'm talking about faith, not faiths. So we differ on this, and you appear to think you have transcendence and scholarship on your side. Isn't this what philosophy is about—conversations about positions that are different from our own?

If I'm wrong, there is nothing at stake here. I'm grappling with this material like anyone else.

As I said to Mr Ross -

I don't think 2.4 billion people are believing things without evidence. And we'd need to include other religions like 1.9 billion Muslims and 1.2 billion Hindus too. My view is that people believe in God for many reasons (faith not being the best of them), but mostly people hold the religion and values of their culture and upbringing. — Tom Storm

I hold a rather complex view on why people follow religions, and I spend a significant amount of time with theists (mainly Catholics). I am partial to Father Richard Rohr (no doubt a heretic to some) and to Thomas Merton. I consider spirituality to be a significant part of many people's lives.

But that doesn't mean I won't attempt to test views and thinking on a philosophy forum to see what works and what doesn't.

To be fair, I do think that there is a prominent sense colloquially where confused theists will explain faith in this manner; but I think if we are iron manning the position then what they really mean is that some propositions that they believe as true they could not completely verify themselves but, rather, they trusted some authority, in this case God, to tell them — Bob Ross

Ok, well that seems a more reasonable explanation.

If you believe, even in part, that the airplane will not crash because you trust the pilots to do their job (e.g., without drinking on the job, without making an improper turn, etc.); then that belief is in part faith-based: it has an element of faith mixed up in it. — Bob Ross

So this is probably at the nub of our difference here. I generally hold that “faith” isn’t a useful term outside of the religious use. But I see that perhaps my position here is unorthodox. For me it’s about a reasonable confidence given empirical results of flight. There is no need for faith.

But thank you for helping me rethink my position. As I said to Leon much earlier, I may well be wrong about this; I’m just trying to talk this through.

I don't think 2.4 billion people are believing things without evidence. And we'd need to include other religions like 1.9 billion Muslims and 1.2 billion Hindus too. My view is that people believe in God for many reasons (faith not being the best of them), but mostly people hold the religion and values of their culture and upbringing.

I recall talking to some apartheid-era South Africans who had it on faith that black people were inferior to white people. That’s the problem with an appeal to faith – there is nothing that can't be justified using an appeal to faith, since it is not about evidence. As per Hebrews 11: 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.'

As far as self-proclaimed atheists qua atheists, Austin Dacey is the only one I have read in this vein. Dacey is not irrational enough to believe that 2.4 billion people are just believing things without evidence, but the same is true of any atheist with half a brain. — Leontiskos

Cool. Thanks, I will check him out.

I don’t think we should continue a conversation about faith since you’ve determined that I’m an unreasonable interlocutor, and so this can only go, even further, to shit.

I can't tell whether your righteous indignation is genuine or just a performance. We're simply having a conversation about faith here. If that's enough to make you throw around insults and accusations so conspicuously, it suggests you might be struggling with the subject matter more than you're letting on. Is this a case of attack being the best defence?

I always assumed that engaging in philosophy means being open to challenging discussions and differing viewpoints. If disagreement feels like a personal attack to you, perhaps it's time to reflect on your commitment to philosophical inquiry. If you feel the need to twist other people’s arguments to justify such antipathy, perhaps you need to draw on your Christianity more deeply and find some compassion for those unlike yourself who are only asking questions. It’s not all about you, Brother.

What, in ongoing social praxis, does it even mean to "trust that a plane will fly me somewhere safely" — Dawnstorm

Theists often say to atheists, “You guys live by faith too—every time you fly.” I wouldn’t have thought to compare those two ideas myself.

I raised it because it seems like an equivocation.

The point is you don’t need faith that planes fly; the empirical evidence of their capabilities is so strong that to doubt this would be irrational.

Similarly, the focus on "faith that god is real" seems off, too — Dawnstorm

Evangelicals I sometimes converse with tell me, “God is real.” I ask how they know that. They say, 'my faith tells me it's true." It’s not my argument; I’m just responding to it.

So what are we comparing here to begin with? — Dawnstorm

We are comparing faith in the truth of a particular God with a reasonable expectation and belief in successful plane flight and, particularly, the role of evidence in both.

Clearly, both theists and atheists don't expect to crash when they get on a plane, and clearly both can find themselves in a crashing plane, and not quite as clearly but still somewhat transparently, both know that they can find themselves in a crashing plane before they get on. — Dawnstorm

The discussion has nothing to do with how anyone feels while on a plane or if, in rare instances, one may crash.

Where are genuine philosopher and the poet? — jufa

What counts as a genuine philosopher and poet?

I would just clarify that faith is about trust in the strict sense of "in an authority". I could trust in the chair in that "this chair will hold me if I sit on it" because I believe it is made of strong materials and bolts by my inspection; but this kind of 'trust' is not the same as if I were to trust the chair craftsman that made it and this is why I believe it will hold me. Of course, both of these kinds of trust are in play with most of our beliefs; but it is worth separating them out for this discussion. I would say the only legitimate, strict sense of 'trust' is this kind that is in an authority. — Bob Ross

So, at the risk of becoming boring, if I trust that a plane will fly me somewhere safely because of empirical evidence that they do, almost without fail, would it be fair to call this 'faith' in flying? How does this compare to faith that God is a real?

What you need to do is recognize that religious people are human beings, that human beings are not merely irrational, and then you need to generate a sincere interest in understanding why they believe the things they do. — Leontiskos

I don’t recall saying religious people aren’t human beings. I thought you disliked rhetorical stunts like this.

I was simply asking that we consider evidence in regard to the difference between faith and belief.

Because suppose you ask the question, "There are 2.4 billion people in the world who are Christians. Why are they Christians?" The answer, "Because they are emotional and irrational," is just plain stupid. — Leontiskos

I was saying that atheists find 'faith' used to justify a belief in god as irrational — the concept we are discussing. I did not make the argument that, beyond this, all Christians are emotional and irrational.

People who think 2.4 billion humans basically form beliefs in the absence of evidence or contrary to evidence simply don't understand the first thing about human psychology. They are so biased against religion that they adopt psychologically absurd theories. They are conspiracy theorists. — Leontiskos

This may be true, but we weren’t talking about human psychology, nor have I argued what you’ve written here, so it’s a bit of a red herring.

I have read Aquinas on faith, Avery Dulles' historical survey of faith, Pieper's essay on faith, Martin Laird's dissertation-derived book on faith, Ratzinger's treatment, and various academic encyclopedias on the topic. — Leontiskos

Not sure if this is an appeal to authority or if you’re saying that you only read writers who are Christians, mostly Catholics. Either way, this does not mean that you are right about faith. It just means that you have a very specific frame you wish to prosecute here. But I have already said you may be right about this, I wanted to have the conversation and not be shut down with "I know better". Nor is it helpful to be told what kind of atheist I am, or who would laugh at me, since these are just rhetorical tricks, which are worthy of David Bentley Hart — entertaining though he is.

Psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists would get a good laugh out of that sort of intellectual unseriousness. — Leontiskos

My background is in sociology, and my staff teams have psychologists, anthropologists, health science graduates. Most of them would agree with me on faith. It comes up. But I wouldn’t presume to offer this as justification for my own position.

If we have no common point of departure, then we will just talk past each other by using different definitions of 'faith'. — Leontiskos

Maybe this is the case. Perhaps our differences are too great.

Thank you, I've enjoyed the discussion immensely and am interested to learn more about the use of and limitations of the word faith. I'm just not sure it's you who can assist right now.

I'd be interested to know what a good secular philosopher would say about this discussion.

Are there any atheists you respect, or do you think the position is irredeemably unjustifiable?

But the real irony is, without God, for some reason, this same life is now seen as the triumph of nature, with life finding a way despite calamity after insufferable calamity. If we take God out of the equation, we see those beings that bear suffering and overcome pain as heroic and good. Suffering almost becomes justified by all of the lives that follow it. Suffering adds to the good of living once it is overcome. — Fire Ologist

I don’t understand this argument at all. Much life is suffering and gloomy regardless of theism or atheism. The experience doesn’t change with or without a deity.

The only position against God, then, to me, is, God should not have created anything. We should never have been given the opportunity to weigh in on our own lives or God's creation. Fine, if you are antinatalist or a miserable solipsist, or just contrarian. But the position that God must not exist because pain exists? Seems ultimately like a complaint to the hotel manager. — Fire Ologist

Lots of ideas here. Yes, perhaps God should not have created the world. I can see this as a legitimate response. I am not arguing that god does not exist because of pain. I am saying that there’s a design argument for pain and suffering being intentional to God’s plan. The hotel analogy isn’t terrible. You know what happens to dysfunctional hotels? They are shut down and the owners are prosecuted.

No, not really. I've pointed to dictionaries, philosophy of religion, historical usage, etc. You've appealed to members of your echo chamber. That's a rather big difference. — Leontiskos

You might be right - although I don't recall appealing to an echo chamber.

Note that the pejorative argument looks like this:

1. Religious faith is irrational
2. Faith in airplanes is not irrational
3. Therefore, faith in airplanes is not religious faith – there is an equivocation occurring

That’s all these atheists are doing in their head to draw the conclusion about an equivocation, and this argument is the foundation of any argument that is built atop it.

-

We can actually parallel the two propositions quite easily:

Lack of faith, lack of assent
1a. “I do not have faith that the airplane will fly, and I do not assent to the proposition that the airplane will fly.”
1b. “I do not have faith that God exists, and I do not assent to the proposition that God exists.”
Lack of faith, presence of assent
2a. “I do not have faith that the airplane will fly, but I assent to the proposition that the airplane will fly.”
2b. “I do not have faith that God exists, but I assent to the proposition that God exists.”
Presence of faith, presence of assent (where assent flows solely from faith)
3a. “I have faith that the airplane will fly, and I assent to the proposition that the airplane will fly (and my assent is based solely on my faith).”
3b. “I have faith that God exists, and I assent to the proposition that God exists (and my assent is based solely on my faith).”
Presence of faith which is not necessary for assent (overdetermination)
4a. “I have faith that the airplane will fly, but I would assent even if I did not have faith.”
4b. “I have faith that God exists, but I would assent even if I did not have faith.” — Leontiskos

I find this interesting. Now bear with me, I'm not a philosopher, so this is just how it looks to me.

What seems missing from your summary of this discussion is exploration of evidence. Doesn't that leave out the key element?

From the atheist perspective - let’s start with the top example:

Religious faith is considered irrational because god can't be demonstrated and there is no good reason to believe in a god.

Faith in airplanes is not irrational because we can demonstrate that they exist and that people fly safely every second of the day.
Therefore, faith in airplanes is not unwarranted.

Now, I grant you that the question of whether one believes in God or not generally comes down to whether one is convinced by certain arguments. If someone doesn't share particular presuppositions and beliefs, then the argument is going to land very differently.

Do you see that this is also pejorative? — Leontiskos

Sure, I can see that it's inflammatory. But polemicists aren't always wrong. Being polemical can be a kind of poetry.

As a theist, you would of course see it as pejorative. But you and other theists also use polemics and pejorative language when talking about atheists, so as far as that goes, it seems to be open season. Both camps often convinced that the other is obtuse, irrational and wrongheaded.

Have you looked at Pieper's essay? If you want to know what a group means by faith, you have to look at sources from that group. In this case the way that group (Christians) use the word is entirely consonant with historical and lexical usage. — Leontiskos

I started it but struggled with it. It's prolix, and I would need some hours to step out the argument with notes, which I don’t have time for. But I appreciate the piece being included and may get around to it. We've ended up in a debate about whose usage is correct, and, unsurprisingly, we've landed where the theist thinks their usage is correct, and the freethinker thinks theirs is.

So I have always held that faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason.

The Russell quote seems to provide a polemical definition of faith.

My original issue with faith is that Christians often tell me that choosing to fly in a plane is an act of faith equivalent to belief in God. To me, this seems wrong on a couple of counts. First, we can demonstrate that planes exist. Second, they almost always fly safely. God, on the other hand, is a confused idea. Even within a single religion, people can't seem to agree on what God is or what God wants. And then there's the problem of proof, which in this context exists solely in making inferences of a certain kind.

But the reason I asked you about this is because how language is used seems to be a critical point in discussions of faith. I've been told that my understanding of faith is mistaken. The claim is that we all have faith of some kind, and that when we say faith is belief without evidence, we are oversimplifying or misrepresenting how the word is used. Sounds to me like there are multiple uses of the word faith going on, and they’re not all equivalent.

I don't think faith historically has ever referred to "belief despite the evidence" and that kind of usage is almost exclusively done by "new atheism" as a straw man. — Bob Ross

Forget the New Atheists - that was a publishing gimmick. I think this definition of faith has been used by freethinkers for many decades. It was certainly the one Russell used, long before Hitchens and company were being polemicists. I was using it back in the 1980's.

Your definition is clear. I'm trying to rethink mine based on feedback from theists.