A leap of faith

“Atheism” is a belief that requires a leap of faith just as religious belief does.

An atheist like all other human persons possesses only a finite knowledge of the universe and cannot say that a “God” does not exist.

Thus the question is what position has the stronger evidence. Please don’assume that science is the only sound epistemology.

You say that atheism requires a leap of faith. That might be true for someone who categorically stated that God does not exist, but not all atheists believe such a thing. I disbelieve in God because I see no compelling reason to believe that such a being exists. Would you agree that this requires no leap of faith? If not, then what faith are you saying I have?

I don’t assume that science is the only way to understand reality. However, I would insist that any additional methods of gaining knowledge be compatible with science.

Posted on July 17, 2009 at 11:19 am by ideclare · Permalink
In: About atheism

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by Stephen McFarland
    on August 15, 2009 at 9:10 pm
    Reply · Permalink

    I agree; atheism is a nonbelief in a god. Not saying there isn’t something out there. but it isn’t the god of the bible by any means. I choose not to beieve in a god. I see no empirical evidence that supports a so called god.

  2. Written by Rudy Chavez
    on September 25, 2009 at 7:15 pm
    Reply · Permalink

    This is something I struggle with. You say that you do not believe in God because there is a lack of evidence, but there can never be evidence either way. Science is not structured to make any statements about spirituality, so there will never be evidence for or against the existence of a god. There is no experiment that science could come up with to say a god does or does not exist. Therefore, you cannot say that you disbelieve in God because of a lack of evidence, at least not in the scientific definition of evidence, repeatable experimental results.

    The problem with Western religion is that it is based on dogma. This is how it is because God said so, you can’t change it (unless you get together wear goofy outfits and pray long and hard about it). Western religions want you to accept something simply because it is written somewhere. Instead, religion should not be about worship. Religion is a connection to the spiritual. No spiritual method of gaining knowledge could be compatible with science because then it would be science, cold and ready to throw out results that don’t fit established theories or rules.

    The problem with Western belief systems, science and religion, is they are quick to throw out that which is new. It takes decades, sometimes centuries, for the West to change its mind. How long did we believe the Sun revolved around the Earth? Knowledge must be experienced without boxing it in. There should be no concept of science or religion as knowledge, simply knowledge, that which we experience. By sharing those experiences, we learn about the world we live in, always open to knew knowledge, readily accepted. It is certainly difficult to come up with any generalities like science does, but knowledge would be far more complete, instead of full of holes like our current system.

    Sorry for the rant. I’m taking a Phil class on Native American philosophy and it’s quite compelling.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply