(September 10, 2020 at 7:54 pm)rockyrockford Wrote: If "faith" is defined as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something".(dictionary.com) As an atheist, do you have complete confidence or trust in anything? or anyone? If so, what is the foundation for that "complete" faith.
I'm not looking for an argument, so you don't have to be guarded. I'm simply wanting to learn more about your belief, or absence of belief.
I do not use "faith" in that manner.
For me, the word has no actual use in understanding the world, not even when used colloquially as "trust" or "confidence" in anything. I used to, more than 2 decades ago, say the phrase: "Beyond the boundaries of knowledge, lies faith." It can be interpreted in two main ways. The first is that outside of knowledge lie unproven, undemonstrable, unfalsifiable or otherwise thoughts which cannot be shown to be true, ever. The second interpretation is that, given that our knowledge increases over time, makes this boundary between knowledge and faith increasing from the relative perspective of knowledge, and receding from the relative perspective of faith.
For me, "faith" is the sound we make for the unknown, in a futile attempt to excuse ignorance. Evolutionary, it's nothing more than a Type 2 Error in cognition (false negatives) which had little to no cost other than unfounded fear, while a Type 1 Error meant they were dinner for our primeval ancestors. So, even by natural selection, we're stacked by hereditary predictors to believe in falsehoods so easily. That's faith.
I'm an apostate. The path that lead me to atheism, is also why I remain an atheist today: Doubt.
Doubt is looked upon by scorn by the believer, especially so by Christians of most strides (apart from maybe the Gnostics), to the point of attributing doubt to the same level of contempt as a mortal sin (whereas sin, IMO, is akin to intentionally breaking your bones, all the while offering the cast in which you want to heal those broken bones - except those bones never heal, you remain in the cast forever & and are offered crutches to get around as a replacement as salvation).
My foundation is Doubt of the highest order, which by itself, invalidates the very concept of "faith".
---
The lack of doubt means you never get to correct an error, because how could you? It takes doubt in your "faith" to know you just might be wrong, and without doubt, you never get that far.
The lack of doubt means you become comfortable in your "faith", while making you unable to distinguish between knowledge and "faith".
The lack of doubt makes you confident that what you have in "faith" is true, without ever even entertain to think otherwise.
The lack of doubt makes you susceptible to lies and deception by those you hold "faith" in, because of your inability to question "faith".
The lack of doubt in "faith" itself is what binds you, enslaves your mind and makes a mockery of your reason.
It is only with doubt that you are able to really apply reason, free your mind, free yourself from the shackles of "faith", and this because of probability, provision, uncertainty and thusly making room for possible correction. Isn't it often said that the wise are full of doubt, and idiots so cocksure of themselves?
The same can be said about lies and deception, because if you're so cocksure of yourself, you will find it impossible to doubt others as well.
And hasn't an unquestioning confidence in oneself often been the shortest path to delusion in oneself as well?
And what about the ultimate descriptor, knowledge? Are you so sure what you know to be true, actually true? How would you tell? You first have to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong for even having the option for saying so. This post too. Everything actually.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
