Scientist's use belief/faith too?

[Ryan_m_b]

Religious faith/beliefs are often set in stone and resist change even in the face of evidence, often violently or oppressively when politics is involved.

Not always, strangely there is a sort of supra-faith to many specific faiths, that being the ultimate belief that one or one's religion is right not matter what even if more specific faiths change. A good example of this is the creationist movement throughout history, originally accepted as true by certain religions who hold the belief of an infallible leader it is now regarded as false yet in spite of the contradiction of having infallible leaders who pronounce people still have faith that what they believe is correct.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi routaran,

i certainly agree that belief is an acceptance of a position. that is about as general as one can get.

to me, the word acceptance at least implies less than full proof evidence. if i say to you "i accept such and such to be true". that certainly means something very different than "i think this is true" or "i know this is true".

but i don't want to get bogged down with the semantics of a word. it is best to try and talk ideas.

this is why i wanted an exact definition of "fairies". to me, they are magical creatures, much like leprechauns. while some are bad, they are typically good natured. i do not link that term with god in any sense. so i suspect that the previous discussion was attaching quite different thought patterns to that term.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Atheism is not a belief that there is no god, it is a lack of belief such a thing exists. There is a difference. An atheist has nothing to defend.

hi evo,

i read this several times, and i am not sure i understand for sure what you are saying. it should be very apparent that the word "belief" just simply is not a good word to use.

all of us seem to attach different criteria to it. it reminds me of the word "beautiful", and others with different connotations for everyone.

it is my understanding that theism is a "belief" in god. atheism is a "belief" that there is no god. and agnosticism is a "belief" that there is no evidence either way, so no way to make any conclusions, thus being perfectly on top of the fence, so to speak.

once again, we are seeing disagreements based upon at least some variance in the ideas of labels, which is why i hate labels so much. they lend towards miscommunication of the ideas that someone is trying to make.

i am not saying that my connotations of the terms are any more valid or less valid than yours or anyone else's - simply that there are multiple connotations. sort of like you are speaking spanish and i am speaking german and wondering why we arent accomplishing much - LOL.

 

[Evo]

it is my understanding that theism is a "belief" in god. atheism is a "belief" that there is no god. and agnosticism is a "belief" that there is no evidence either way, so no way to make any conclusions, thus being perfectly on top of the fence, so to speak.

No, atheism is a lack of belief.

I've written a number of articles about how religious theists, but especially Christians, try to argue against the broad definition of atheism as simply the absence of belief in gods. This myth explains why this is so important to some theists: if atheism is just the absence of belief in gods, then it's not making any claims that all atheists must defend, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves.

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/LackBeliefGod.htm

Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subcategories of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

What's really silly is that theists need to apply a category to people that lack belief in supernatural dieties, as they can't seem to accept the fact that many people just don't buy into religion. IMO.

 

[Drakkith]

To link a few things from Wikipedia:

From Belief:

To "believe in" someone or something is a distinct concept from "believe-that". There are two types of belief-in:[12]

Commendatory - an expression of confidence in a person or entity, as in, "I believe in his abililty to do the job".
Existential claim - to claim belief in the existence of an entity or phenomenon with the implied need to justify its claim to existence. It is often used when the entity is not real, or its existence is in doubt. "He believes in witches and ghosts" or "many children believe in fairies" are typical examples.

From Religious Belief:

Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine.

And:

While religions invariably involves a belief system, not all belief systems are religions. But belief concerns mainly the religious thought.

From Atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

There is no real way in my opinion to state the differences in a simple manner. It takes an understanding of the issue to realize what is meant by "lack a belief". To say that I believe that god doesn't exist implies that I have reasons and possibly evidence. To LACK a belief that god exists doesn't imply that at all. To me it implies that I would need reason to believe in the first place. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Evo]

Yes, and this has gone off topic into purely a discussion of religion instead of about scientists, which was define early in the thread.