The word FAITH?
 
“first off, I nether need, use or value it”
 
Some people may try and say but we can use faith without religion like saying “I have faith in humanity.” To me, the word faith is paramount to a feeling/emotion, it has no “evidence” value in the acquisition of knowledge of the establishing of truth nor does it in itself explain what the feeling is one is referring to. Humans are emotional pattern seeking beings that like to attach beingness to non being things, experiences or feelings which is why there is both beliefs in ghosts and gods. But we need to see the truth that this is just unfounded emotionalism that no matter how real it can seem even when we want to believe it is not real. Remember you just cant wish things into reality. Your feelings just don’t makes things real. Let’s take the statement I have faith in humanity. What is the thing you are expressing in the emotional word faith as it could be positive or negative it is incomplete as faith is not a complete expression: such as saying “I have faith in humanity” could be I have faith in humanity and its need to destroy itself or I have faith in humanity as a self-destructive self-centered entity. faith in, hope in, belief in, guessing in, wishing in, desire in, expectation in, wanting in, etc.

Faith is unnecessary there are better words with more meaning and less confusion or religious undertones. 


Theists like to claim I cannot see the truth of theism, because I don’t have faith.

Believing in the evidence quality of faith is likely “Fideism” (faith-ism) which is “Theistic Reality Confusion”

Theists like to confuse the understanding of atheism to lessen its obvious reason. So here’s a definition of atheism: all offered claims of god(s) are baseless and devoid of a shred of testable or provable evidence and the claims of or about gods either don’t represent in reality or claim to represent things contrary to reality requiring a conclusion of atheism (lack of belief or disbelief in theism). The god claim, is a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism (faith-ism)! This just sounds like a fideist, they think faith is better than reason or possibly even evidence. But faith is strong belief either without evidence or contrary to reason or evidence. Thus, in the acquisition of knowledge faith is not worth believing in and furthermore if it takes faith to see a thing as real you’re admitting such a thing has nothing to do with reality. The term “Fideism” itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism. Ref


FAITH is a mind splinted by reality confusion
 
Why was faith so alluring from the start instead of just accepting the world as it is only natural? The understanding comes by seeing how primitive humankind were motivated by fear and misunderstanding which provides the impetus making them feel they just “had to believe” in some higher entity or beneficial type rituals to controlled things in their world and the unseen spirit universe they thought was all around them. Faith is delusional mind echoes, a reason removed, nontangible, emotionally driven substance, unjustified offering that stems from a state of self-solace control born in the face of fear or knowledge egocentrism, as when one lacks understanding yet is claiming to understand.
 

Sound Thinker don’t value FAITH

“Damien, I am an atheist but i have faith in gravity tho, but it isn’t exactly “faith.” – Challenger
 
My response, “no, I don’t agree, you don’t have faith in gravity or gravitation, as it is “a fundamental force” you have proof or if lacking some direct proof would use inference and if even less evidence you use conjecture, not faith. Do you gauntly thinking you need faith in gravity because you wonder or worry that when walking down a set of stairs that you going to fall back up? You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) as there is massive proof, almost to the point that it is easily self-evident. You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) for anything, as if its warranted it will or should have evidence or it doesn’t deserve not only strong belief but any amount of belief at all as sound beliefs need something to ground their worthiness in relation to reality; the only place evidence comes.
 
“Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including planets, stars and galaxies. Gravity is responsible for various phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the Universe; for example, it causes the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun, the Moon to orbit the Earth, the formation of tides, the formation and evolution of the Solar System, stars and galaxies. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy, including light, also cause gravitation and are under the influence of it. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing, forming stars – and the stars to group together into galaxies – so gravity is responsible for many of the large-scale structures in the Universe.” Ref

Sound thinking to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief

that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can

with valid and reliable reason and evidence.

 

The Religious Faith Problem?

Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences.” Ref

We Do Not Really so much have a religious faith problem, as we have a scientific reality problem. If one would accept scientific realism over religious faith’s (fideism) antirealism/idealism world views, there would be no more religious faith problem. Fideism (faith-ism) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths. Debates about scientific realism are centrally connected to almost everything else in the philosophy of science, for they concern the very nature of scientific knowledge. Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences. This epistemic attitude has important metaphysical and semantic dimensions, and these various commitments are contested by a number of rival epistemologies of science, known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism. Epistemologically, realism is committed to the idea that theoretical claims (interpreted literally as describing a mind-independent reality) constitute knowledge of the world. This contrasts with scientific skeptic positions which, even if they grant the metaphysical and semantic dimensions of realism, doubt that scientific investigation is epistemologically powerful enough to yield such knowledge, or, as in the case of some antirealist positions, insist that it is only powerful enough to yield knowledge regarding observables. The epistemological dimension of realism, though shared by realists generally, is sometimes described more specifically in contrary ways. For example, while many realists subscribe to the truth (or approximate truth) of theories understood in terms of some version of the correspondence theory of truth, some prefer deflationary accounts of truth. Though most realists marry their position to the successful reference of theoretical terms, including those for unobservable entities, processes, properties, and relations, some deny that this is a requirement. Amidst these differences, however, a general recipe for realism is widely shared: our best scientific theories give true or approximately true descriptions of observable and unobservable aspects of a mind-independent world. Ref Ref

Here are representative statements of scientific realism:

The best current scientific theories are at least approximately true.

The central terms of the best current theories are genuinely referential.

The approximate truth of a scientific theory is sufficient explanation of its predictive success.

The (approximate) truth of a scientific theory is the only possible explanation of its predictive success.

A scientific theory may be approximately true even inferentially unsuccessful.

The history of at least the mature sciences shows progressive approximation to a true account of the physical world.

The theoretical claims of scientific theories are to be read literally, and so read are definitively true or false.

Scientific theories make genuine, existential claims.

The predictive success of a theory is evidence for the referential success of its central terms.

Science aims at a literally true account of the physical world, and its success is to be reckoned by its progress toward achieving this aim. Ref

Most importantly what do contemporary professional philosophers believe in the external world so value non-skeptical realism 81.6%; scientific realism 75.1%; atheism 72.8%; A priori knowledge: yes 71.1%; Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; Mind: physicalism 56.5%; moral realism 56.4%; Truth: correspondence 50.8%; Metaphilosophy: naturalism 49.8%; Epistemic justification: externalism 42.7%; Aesthetic value: objective 41.0%; Knowledge claims: contextualism 40.1%; Knowledge: empiricism 35.0%; rationalism 27.8%.

The philosophical views of 1,972 contemporary professional philosophers, 77.2% specified “male,” 17.4% specified “female,” and 5.3% did not specify a gender and that included 62 departments in the US, 18 in the UK, 7 in Europe outside the UK, 7 in Canada, and 5 in Australasia were:

Main answers

The following list summarizes the results for the target faculty group, collapsing answers

that “accept” and “lean toward” a given view and collapsing all “other” answers.

  1. A priori knowledge: yes 71.1%; no 18.4%; other 10.5%.
  2. Abstract objects: Platonism 39.3%; nominalism 37.7%; other 23.0%.
  3. Aesthetic value: objective 41.0%; subjective 34.5%; other 24.5%.
  4. Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes 64.9%; no 27.1%; other 8.1%.
  5. Epistemic justification: externalism 42.7%; internalism 26.4%; other 30.8%.
  6. External world: non-skeptical realism 81.6%; skepticism 4.8%; idealism 4.3%; other 9.2%.
  7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.
  8. God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.
  9. Knowledge claims: contextualism 40.1%; invariantism 31.1%; relativism 2.9%; other 25.9%.
  10. Knowledge: empiricism 35.0%; rationalism 27.8%; other 37.2%.
  11. Laws of nature: non-Humean 57.1%; Humean 24.7%; other 18.2%.
  12. Logic: classical 51.6%; non-classical 15.4%; other 33.1%.
  13. Mental content: externalism 51.1%; internalism 20.0%; other 28.9%.
  14. Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%.
  15. Metaphilosophy: naturalism 49.8%; non-naturalism 25.9%; other 24.3%.
  16. Mind: physicalism 56.5%; non-physicalism 27.1%; other 16.4%.
  17. Moral judgment: cognitivism 65.7%; non-cognitivism 17.0%; other 17.3%.
  18. Moral motivation: internalism 34.9%; externalism 29.8%; other 35.3%.
  19. Newcomb’s problem: two boxes 31.4%; one box 21.3%; other 47.4%.
  20. Normative ethics: deontology 25.9%; consequentialism 23.6%; virtue ethics 18.2%; other 32.3%.
  21. Perceptual experience: representationalism 31.5%; qualia theory 12.2%; disjunctivism 11.0%; sense-datum theory 3.1%; other 42.2%.
  22. Personal identity: psychological view 33.6%; biological view 16.9%; further-fact view 12.2%; other 37.3%.
  23. Politics: egalitarianism 34.8%; communitarianism 14.3%; libertarianism 9.9%; other 41.0%.
  24. Proper names: Millian 34.5%; Fregean 28.7%; other 36.8%.
  25. Science: scientific realism 75.1%; scientific anti-realism 11.6%; other 13.3%.
  26. Teletransporter: survival 36.2%; death 31.1%; other 32.7%.
  27. Time: B-theory 26.3%; A-theory 15.5%; other 58.2%.
  28. Trolley problem: switch 68.2%; don’t switch 7.6%; other 24.2%.
  29. Truth: correspondence 50.8%; deflationary 24.8%; epistemic 6.9%; other 17.5%. Ref

An End to Faith