Theism vs. Atheism

but not nearly so nice to look at....

I still think its the mini-skirt versus the wheel. (Humanities greatest invention.)

Agreed, this concept thing and all. But please consider what that means to one who is "religious". It is offensive to encapsulate god in this manner; though you follow up with a statement that explains it using a word no one can define.................spirituality. A word some religions can adopt and find comfort with yet they too have a difficult time grasping a hold of. Some but not all and probably not most.

[QUOTE KHETHIL] As I look at the various ways in which god has been defined - the litany of what ways in which we all define what it is, is not - I can only come to the conclusion that it may or may not be a person, phenomena, entity, natural process, way of looking at our relationship-in-being, a feeling, a shared intuitive understanding or any number of other definitions. This is from my understanding, the way I view the world, the history I've become acquainted with - conversations, explanations and studies I've taken to on various religious mind sets and more. [END QUOTE]

Khethil, I paid you one of the highest compliments I can imagine. I said you were closer to god than you could possibly realize. And I meant it. Believe this if you care to or not, it is you that aided me in designing the OP. You are not an offensive person and that is what I admire the most in you. Please if you will note in the above statement your use of the first person; ".....as I look at the various ways...."; "...I can only come to the conclusion......"; "..this is my understanding...."; "the way I view the world..."; "...I have become acquainted with...".

In the OP I could not express more how I associated intellect with the atheist. You are indeed a "knowing" person, there is no doubt about that and you express yourself with respect to others. That is so admirable and I thank you for that. It is the label you apply to yourself that, I feel, is offensive; ATHEIST I have never asked you this before, but why do you do that? You know it will be a slap in the face of those who have become accustom to the word "God" in their life. Atheist means all they, those believers, believe it is BS. You express yourself so well, you should not need a label for yourself. You do understand why those who believe, believe the way they do, why antagonize it? Had you not used that label, I think what you have to say could be understood in so many beneficial ways to bridge the gap between the atheist and the theist. I really do. Yet you continue to use it. I cannot understand this from one as gifted as you and the knowledge you hold.

Khethil, in all sincerity and please by all means do not be offended, it seems you are trying to prove something to yourself, but you keep getting in the way. You cannot deny how you feel and by all indications...won't.

Khethil, (again the "I" is predominate) this is a "WE" world we live in, not an "I" one. Communicating "I" to "I" is most difficult and causes argument simply because we all want to be right. That in and of itself disregards others and how they believe or think and thwarts communication and people stop hearing and become defensive and only concentrate on what that are going to say next to win the argument. Consideration is everything and argument solves nothing. Never has and never will. As in power, the "I" (ego) will gather onto all it can to corrupt the thinking and beliefs of another to win the battle. Is that considerate? NO, it is not. The blood of our history proves that, provided history has a truth to it that is indeed the truth. Once one proclaims to "be something" they will do all in there power to defend that position. It's like opinions, the same applies. They will recognize that which solidifies and strengthens that opinion, deafening them to what others might say. No communication whatsoever...............NONE. Granted many others are not as "intelligent" as you and have a difficult time expressing themselves; that does not mean there is no truth in anything they have to say. Winning requires there be a loser. Who wants to be that, huh? No one. Those, again, are labels to use to express ourselves when in truth all are winners if they only had the freedom and would not be crucified for expressing themselves and the truth as they know it from their own personal perceptions and experiences.

If we could all hear as much as we like to speak, god what a world that would turn out to be. Then we would take most care in the language we speak and the words we use and the manner we use them to encourage others to speak and then we all learn and once we do that, we all become "friends". No battles, all winners, no losers, just a people considerate of one another................who care for one another, who feed each other, and most of all LOVE one another......................the way it was designed to be................in the first place. Where ever that was.

[QUOTE KHETHIL] Now, as I apply that to me I see one thing very clearly: My brothers and sisters on this planet all define this concept of god differently - it's a term that requires clarification on the part of the believer for any rational conversation to take place. Of all the definitions and conceptualizations of god I've come across, there's not a one that I can take hold, grab onto and say Yes, I believe . Depending on which one we're talking about I can say, That sounds nice or Sure, I like that or Wow wouldn't that be neat but I've yet to see one I can believe in. [END QUOTE]

Again the "I" is predominate and as you examine the words you use that are highlighted, you exclaim what has been the mantra of atheist since the word was coined, whenever that was? K, no one can know all there is to know. The theist makes no claims to know all that, yet the atheist thinks they know more and can dispute that faith the theist has but cannot prove it. The theist submits to all that, the atheist submits to nothing.

By submission, I mean a surrender to something higher than themselves or what god is proclaimed to be and the theist is humble to that; the atheist is not humble to anything not even themselves. In other words without a submission to "something higher" the atheist, it can be concluded" think they are god It would have to be that way for there are no other reasons that could dispute that in their mind. It would mandate itself. Yet, you, Khethil, have done that on numerous occasions, humbled yourself and admitted "...you could be wrong". And that is when I offered you the compliment that I did. I knew one day you would come around. Perhaps today is not that day and I do not presume it to be. But I am confident it will happen someday and I believe that.

Now just what is belief? If I don't believe you and what you believe; does that make you a liar? Of course not That is just how you believe, is all. Should I take offense to that? Of course not Why should I? I am not you. Only you can come to reason as to how you believe, You and only you. It is only offensive when you IMPOSE it on others and both atheist and theist do that. Not all but most and in some cases only a few do that. In any case it all has to be reckoned with for all to come to an accord and why I began this thread in the first place.

Now let me venture into the "I" realm for a moment. Who am I. I am me and there is no other like me. I am unique unlike any other I associate with, nor do I concern myself or effort to be they for no one can be anything other that who they are. No one, not even me. I strive to understand me and hearing others can aid in my doing that and in that I find similarities we share that are in common and use those communicate with to understand our difference to reach a resolve both can be comfortable with. I like that and it beings comfort to me. Is it selfish to do that? I think not; it is a sharing of the two to bring forth a betterment of the two, a synergy both can benefit from. So that is how it is with me. Was I always this way? Perhaps not. I don't know all that I was; I can't remember it all and I am thankful for that for I am sure there is that that would make me uncomfortable and my mind protects me there and I appreciate that more that I can imagine.

I live in the moment and focus all my attention there as fleeting as that moment is for no sooner does it arrive it becomes the past and is no more only when I venture there does it exist. The future? What is that, exactly? Doe it exist? How can we know what the future will bring? How can we possibly do that? No one can do that, yet I think it can be predicted, but only venturing into the past to find similarities is one able to do do that and that is much of the problem. Neither exists. One is gone and one has yet to come. When we ponder that it screws up the now and "I" personally will not let the future or the past interfere with that moment in the now. I have learned to find comfort in that. That slows me down and I don't get in hurry and focus more attention in that moment and observe things so many more do not observe. That is when I observe the oneness of it all most cannot see and it is my passion to try and explain what those observations are so others will be able to benefit or observe them too.

When we know too much, we get into trouble, confused and the mind has a difficult time sorting through it all. But it will effort to obey your commands and strive to do as you command it. When if left alone it would do that easily and provide you with all you need to live in that moment. It will do that constantly and consistently forever it you would trust it to do that and I do.

That universal mind, God, of which we all are a part, will even find utility in others to aid in that which is complimentary to it. I will not know all that, that will entail, though I have been fortunate to witness that also on so many occasions in those moments I focus on. Now that is difficult to explain and it takes a faith or a lack fear and worry and stress to understand that and when the mind is at peace I will aid in what you focus on to help you learn more that is complimentary to that you already know and that is how we grow.................together; each, you and I and all of us.

Now please forgive me for I did venture from the "I" as I used "we" and "you" and that is presumptuous. I can't help but do that for "I" do live in a "we" world and am always conscious of that. Perhaps all are not meant to observe all that I have. I don't know that. Perhaps my reason for being is to aid others in having faith in something they can't put their fingers on and to just trust in that. For I know something else does exist that most are not observant of that perhaps only "I" can observe.

[QUOTE KHETHIL] I believe we are connected in an inextricable way to the natural world around us; some folks believe this connection is god. I don't begrudge them, but to me it's not god , it's an interconnectness or relation.[END QUOTE]

Why do you say that? Why not call it god? What difference would it make to do that. None. No one knows all that god is or everything that god isn't, therefore no one can say what God is and what god isn't. Can they? Try and explaining a "cell phone" to Aristotle. Good luck There is so much we don't know, just like there was much Aristotle did not know in his time. Perhaps he thought he was a god too?


[QUOTE KHETHIL] Others believe god is a life-binding energy that all things share and this they call god. I don't begrudge these folks either, but to me it's not god", it's a life-binding energy that all things share. My favorite; however, is the god is all . I believe in all, but to me this isn't god, it's all . These aren't plays on semantics, it's how we individually see our world and how things in our universe relate. [END QUOTE]

This statement is where you are offensive to many who don't understand it. You lost them when you said. "....to me, it isn't God, it's all". Why do that? Again, what difference does it make, K? Let it be God and find utility in what you know and use that to help others understand that too. Like, taking what they believe as God and allowing others to reach a better understanding.


[QUOTE KHETHIL] Your definition/conceptualization ( a concept for that which transcends the competency of human language ) is fine, I don't begrudge you but it doesn't mean much to me. Might there be a that which transcends the competency of human language? Sure It doesn't describe much - so little, in fact, that on this statement alone I couldn't tell you what we were talking about. Again, I don't begrudge nor would I berate this assertion of belief; I respect it I simply don't understand nor share it; also, again, this is highly individualized. [END QUOTE]

Khethil, you use the statement "I don't begrudge others for how the believe"; and that is a courteous way of communicating yet you are not convinced. What is it that will convince you? The parting of the Red river? It is said that happened once, only it was a sea and not a river. Now some will believe that literally for they know no better. It could be a metaphor for a sea or river of blood? Many will continue to await for such miracles to happen and that is the sad part. Not so metaphorically that river of blood still flows. Of course that miracle only is continued and perpetuated by one and only one tenet as it may have other indications of what others of different faiths believe and can be explained in such a way that will offer proof that even those who are awaiting such 'great miracles' can accept. That is what I am trying to do.


[QUOTE DIDYMOS] ... [God] It is a manner of speaking to express spirituality. [END QUOTE]

DT, what is spirituality? Mood? Persona? Aura? Projection? How do we define it? It think it is all of those things and can be transferred. I mentioned once, being in sales, I wrote a short essay on a method of communication entitled the AAAA prerequisites of effective communication; Attitude, Admiration, Attention, Acceptance. In communication this does not just apply to a procedure that must be adhered to for someone to sell something to someone, but it can be applied in life as well. When one "has spirit", it shows; especially if it is legitimate and not "an act". Yet there are many who will fall for those who "act so well". That is sad.

When we greet another and we are not offensive in any way and express that in all the ways we are communicating it will be admired, yet those whom you are coming into contact with for the first time will not know why it is they admire one so? Such as can be expressed as "Who is this person and why is he so "appealing". That is enough to attract anyone's attention, especially if they are not so admirable in the eyes of those they meet. They will hear what it is you have to offer for, they too, would like to apply that in their life as well. They too would like to be of such "spirit". In that "hearing" if you are truly sincere and have "their best interest" at heart, they will hear you and will accept what you have to offer and apply it in their own life. Of course as this applies to selling today, it was all contingent on whether the one I was communicating with could afford what it is I was offering. In life and the reality we currently find ourselves in there are costs involved also; and that is the crux of all that blood that has ever been spilled due to the "acts" of those who presume to be so knowing and spiritual. Again Sad.

[QUOTE KHETHIL] To you it is. Again, that's fine and I respect that. To me, a manner of speaking to express spirituality isn't god , it's a manner of speaking to express spirituality. You want to call this god; yee haw I won't complain, because I understand it's an individual orientation. Fine for you - I simply don't share it. [END QUOTE]

Again, why not? After considering what I have to offer, what possible harm could it do? Please be so kind and offer that to me. :bigsmile:

William

I have and do it all the time. You should, or try to at any rate, realize breaking through the EGO, is not easy and I knew from the very start what a task it would be. As far as evidence it seems that is crucial for most who choose not to believe there is "something else" involved in who "we/they are". Let me say this Pagan-anyone who chooses (and it is a choice) not to, does so for very specific reasons. For one to truly feel a presence of "something else" that is a part of their life most assuredly involves evidence that is not empirical. Ever gaze into another's eyes and just knew they were being less than sincere with you? Try and have that stand up in a court of what we call "law"? Good luck!



Ok, how about it. Let's see what we can determine; but first let's examine briefly the words you just used. Experiential is what one experienced. If it is rational, it will be concluded as such only if another has experienced that also. Many of faith have experienced things others have not. So what is it that determines what is and what is not rational? Is it a matter of programming or could it be just natural for some to experience things others cannot? Rationalization is a process in which some "make" something fit" so they can understand it and give it meaning. For instance, what is it that makes one afraid? Is it something they have experienced in reality or is it something another imposed on them that makes them afraid of something that has never been experienced in reality? Just the "thought" of it being there is enough to do that.

I think you are using reflection in the context that can also be established when one "muses, wonders, ponders" and in that regard, just what is that? What is it that causes us to to reflect? What generates those thoughts? We are attempting to give "something" reason so we can survive with it so we no longer have to think about it and can focus on "other things" that do not make us afraid?

Sophistication? Humph!!!!!! Just what the hell is that word? Personally, I detest that word and all it's definitions and implications for there are none that satisfy me at all....................NONE. It has been "my experience" anyone who wishes to be "sophisticated" and applies that appearance to impress me has always offended me, without exception..



I agree. Neither do theists in such a way that can be rationalized empirically. It is a personal feeling. Try and explain "feeling" in such a way all will agree to? First, I do not group these two labels together. For I feel many of faith are indeed agnostic, but their beliefs as they believe them will suffice until a better understanding comes along. In other words "open" to new thoughts and ideas. The atheists, much like some devout theists, refuse to be open to any idea of any kind of universal intelligence of any sort other than what they, themselves believe. The mute efforting to communicate with the deaf is a good way of putting it. One can't hear what the other is "telling" and in the manner in which this telling is taking place, for they have not selected the right words from there memory so that communication indeed difficult; if that even makes sense. You tell me! Ha! Even the words we use generate thoughts that cause ones mind to wonder that hinder that communication.



Pagan, what is a "thought"? Can you provide empirical evidence as to just what a thought is? Can anyone? Please if one can I would like to see it, touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it! Where did that thought come from? What is memory? Where is that memory, exactly? How big is it and how is it that it contains what is stored there, and for what reason? There are many things we just take for granted that exist, we can't prove exists; but they are there, nevertheless. We even have labels/names for them such as mind/memory/intuition/instinct and so forth.




Pagan I have experienced both and for myself alone, I find more reason in the former much more than the latter and focus on that as much as I can to give reason to "that" than striving to understand all that "empirical evidence" that is rendered; though I do consider it nonetheless. It is needed to achieve balance and aids in my perception of all my senses provide me.



No kidding!! You said a mouthful then, my friend. Sophisticated people rely on ignorance to offer such stuff and do it consistently. Of course most is just handed down from one to the other, that's all and the ignorant are force to just accept it as fact. Sad in all respects. If all could only speak and remember all they have empirically experienced, we all could find the reason for many things. That is just not the way it is, now, is it?



True. Communication is the key and what the thread was meant to establish; a better way to communicate between the two that can be understood by both. I think we are accomplishing that and I thank you for communicating what you have

. For a moment allow me to go into my "I" perspective and relate what I have personally noted. I have witnessed many "things/occurrences/phenomena that cannot be understood empirically and when in a one on one process in communicating with another in which all the manners in which we communicate are present, I can and do communicate with another effectively. There is so much that is present in those one on one meetings that is not available for us here. One day we will be able to do that in real time using more of those manners that allow others to hear what others are saying. Let us hope nothing hinders that forward progress.



Yes, I know. I have on numerous occasions tried to contact Dawkins, but to no avail. He will not reply for what ever reason that may be; I do not know. It is indeed difficult to communicate with such a "sophisticated" person as he is. I will just leave it at that. For now. I will also say I have tried to contact others of such status and they are seemingly "out of pocket", so to speak. I find that all to convenient, for them, that is. It seems there is no "two way" communication; only sycophants allowed.



Oh, my God, yes; in all respects. That is exactly what I am trying to do and it is indeed difficult. It is so very difficult to communicate the Oneness of it all to any who cannot for what they have experienced, hear that in this linear plane we are now communicating in using just words. There is so very much more involved than that. Thank you for offering that.



Personally, I have not read dawkins, only snippets. Why? I do not know. Perhaps it is his assumption he offers in the title of his book "The God Delusion" is what so offends me. To think he could know so much to offer such a statement I find appalling. Such egotism and sophistication I find intolerable. I will possibly conclude some of what he says is appropriate and has merit to a degree but his aggrandizement of himself I find more than I can stomach. Not so much in his words but those assumed objectives ($) he aspires to receive. Such as you yourself offered and I agree "A sense of shared love and peace between us as evidence of the divine. A sense of wonder at ourselves and the world in the divine sense also". I don't see that in dawkins whatsoever.



Sincerely, Pagan, I don't think there are any. It has been my experience my friend any of such sophistication cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with them in any respect. They are used to the accolade that comes from the ignorant and bask in that limelight. Heart and love, need no such applause; a smile will do and does for me all the time and that is all I need to comfort me as I do egotistically say to myself "well done". If that is a fault, then I welcome it and always will.



Your avatar speaks of that, yet it did require a bit of bravado on your part to choose such a word considering the ritualistic nature and understanding that is associated with it. Ha! I can just imagine the look on the faces of others if you are asked "What is your 'religion'", and you reply "PAGAN". Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you have experience those are, ha! It would be interesting to hear what those are. Not only from the "sophisticated" you have encountered, but the religious as well.



Yes, in themselves only and give little regard to "other". That accolade they receive prevents it and they will do all they can to keep the applause coming for the emptiness without it is more than they can bear. The statement you make, ".....if only the non theistic perspective could be honestly and openly dropped for a while, then there are experiences that will be convincingly spiritual and convert the non believer" was ingenious and what do you think will ever allow them to do that? The throne is a nice place to sit, but if no one "bows" to he who sits on it, what fun is that? LOL. I have witnessed this at so many levels it truly is not funny. Not in the least and communicating otherwise is difficult.



Agreed. Intellect is a wonderful thing. How one uses that in which he has known his senses have allowed is what is important. Others are involved in all that and no one can have complete autonomy in that regard, though there are those who think they do. Sad.

Thank you Pagan for your offering. Please comment further if you wish to enhance or deny anything I have offered. I encourage it. :bigsmile:

William

Hi william


thank you for your detailed reply. I will try and do it justice while keeping in mind your desire to better communication between 'atheists' and 'theists'.


Firstly, although we both share a belief in the spiritual world in the sense of higher realms and divine forms of our being (I am trying to be as wide ranging as I can in my use of language) there is a problem that can naturally arise. Certainty that in some way or other such a living dimension is true. Now I believe that science cannot explain it all and is utterly inadequate in its language when it comes to living with each other. (In fact dawkins has admitted that! In a brief moment of his Darwin series he said that 'social darwinism' was abhorrent and this bothered him because the theory of evolution was so scientifically important.) But, I recognise as I have stated before that all of my beliefs and interpretations can be seen as delusion from a mechanistic view of the world. This means to me that I may be wrong. But it seems to me that you do not entertain such a notion. You are certain that in some form or other the 'divine' oneness is available to all of us. (This is not a criticism on my part.) The problem of such certainty is indeed in the language used. It comes across. Now for me that's no problem, but for others it gets their backs up. It can also sound like Ego, the very thing you believe has to be transcended in order to appreciate the full wonder and meaning of our lives. eg.





Now I can get where you are coming from there dude, but I also cant help laugh and wince at how others will take offence, and interpret you as the deaf one, closed to the possibility that all you believe is subjective delusion. Now I know what you mean when you say I am in this thing called reality


haha William. Yeh you should see the effect it has upon Jehovah's Witnesses! Ever seen someone walk away from you backwards, with fear in their eyes and shakey voices saying "Oh I see. Uh. How interesting.Well its a nice day. Thankyou for your time. Thankyou. Thankyou. Goodbye" lol They don't knock on my door anymore........... mind you the stag skulls and antlers hanging in the rose bushes give a clue.


I was up in cambden london last week on a 3 day birthday bash. Met some really nice guys in the pub. One being the notorious father of a notorious british celebrity and his nephew a conceptual artist. Honest you would have thought that me and my country mates were from another planet lol "Pagan! Wots that?? " They sounded like they had come across bestiality for the first time. :shocked:



tell it as you see it dude

A consideration from the perspective of non-dualism.

As regards 'evidence' for a divine reality: when it comes to the sciences, whether physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, or any other objective matter, there is the object of knowlege, and here is the knowing subject. This is the context in which it is meaningful to speak of 'objectivity' and 'evidence'.

When it comes to the nature of reality, to Being-as-such, or life itself, we are not other to it, and it cannot be the object of knowledge. We are not outside of, or apart from, reality-as-a-whole; rather we differentiate aspects of it into 'subjective' and 'objective' poles.

In Indian philosophy, the aim of the various schools of Yoga is to transcend this division between subject and object through cessation of discriminative consciousness, through meditative absorption or samadhi.

It doesn't really solve the question of whether God 'exists' or not, but it does show you a different way to consider the matter by providing a realm of experience which is not normally considered by the externally-focused 'worlding'.

Of course, I now realise this may not mean much on face value, which is why it is often addressed indirectly and through means such as allegory and fable. But those familiar with Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda will recognise the idea. I think that is where I first encountered it.

I love how that realization repeats itself, that the subject-object dichotomy is our creation. William James tacked it. Hegel tackled it. Schopenhauer hinted at it, and named his dog Atman. Ken Wilbur writes well on it, whatever his faults. To me, this is good territory for philosophy to explore. I think philosophy should tackle the conceptual work that science isn't fit to. After all, science tends to neglect the subjective element. I realize that quantum physics is forcing a certain degree of change in this matter, but I'm no expert.

Anyone like Herman Hesse? I've read a fair amount of his work. At the moment I would have to choose Steppenwolf as a favorite.

I read Siddhartha, Narziss and Goldmund, and Steppenwolf in the 70's. He is an unsung hero nowadays. I love him. We shouldn't forget he won the Literature nobel.

I find the most fundamental theistic notion to be the sense that the universe is rationally intelligible implying intelligence in its design and purpose in its existence.

I find that the fundamental atheistic notion is that the universe is fundamentally without purpose and that the presence of life and mind are the result of purposeless, blind, indifferent forces.

Atheism is often grounded in an underlying metaphysic of physicalism (materialism) and often in various forms of mechanistic determinism. Empiricism is usually favored over rationalism. Atheism is the result of other deeper metaphysical assumptions and philosophical speculations about "being", "existence", "reality" etc.

Atheism frequently takes refuge in science and claims to be the "scientific" point of view. Science can be conducted and appreciated without the adoption of materialism as a metaphysical assumption. In fact many accomplished scientists maintain a "theistic" worldview although they may not be conventionally orthodox. It is the adoption of physicalism as a metaphysical assumption that leads to atheism not science.

Theists, on the other hand, are quite a mixed bag and have widely different and varying assumptions about the nature or attributes of "god" and the manner in which god acts in the universe or in human history. The biggest problem between theism and science is the proposal of "supernaturalism" or of "miracles" in the sense of god suspending, violating or contravening the laws of nature. More modern or sophisticated theisms frequently assert that god acts through nature, evolution, history and natural law. Theism almost by its nature rejects materialism, physicalism, mechanism, reductionism and determinism. Theists tend to favor rationalism over empiricism.

Theism and atheism are of course mutually incompatible worldviews, although both can respect the others point of view. Not infrequently the values and ethics supported by theists and atheists are quite similar and based on various versions of empathy, compassion and the golden rule. I hold, that shared values are more important than shared metaphysics. Metaphysical assumptions are often fundamental to ones most basic world view and when those assumptions are challenged people often react emotively.

Theism is not religion. Atheism is not science. There is room for dialogue between theists who do not assert "supernaturalism" and atheists who do not assert "materialism or scientism". In fact it is not science or religion that is the real problem and difference, it is the deeper metaphysical assumptions about reality and existence which more fundamentally separate the two sides. Both sides are engaging in metaphysical assumption and philosophical speculations, beyond the facts, beyond the science, beyond what is or what can be "known".

What I find is that "theists" especially of the educated and sophisticated type freely admit their belief in god is a matter of faith not of knowledge. Atheists frequently assert their atheism is grounded in science and reason and fail to regard their belief in materialism and scientism as a form of "faith". The method of science never claims to provide a complete (as opposed to a partial and incomplete) explanation for the world. In fact science, experience and reason alone never provide an adequate basis for an integrated or complete worldview. The construction of working worldviews always involves "faith" in some other metaphysical assumption or philosophical speculation about the nature of the universe and the nature of man. In this sense atheists and theists alike have "faith" though not in the same assumptions.
Both sides fail to acknowledge the speculative and assumptive nature of their respective "faiths".

It is quite clear (and philosophy should be helpful in this) that our "knowledge" about the ultimate nature of reality "the thing in itself" is always of a limited, partial and incomplete manner and that our views are best held in "humility" and "tentatively". The assumption that there is more to "reality" than what our senses and our science shows us is not less valid than the assumption that "science and the senses reveal" everything to us.
That is not to say that science and senses should be ignored in constructing a worldview for a worldview that does not account for science will lack correspondence and coherence whereas a world view that is limited to them may lack a sense of deeper, purpose, meaning and significance.

I agree. For many, the word "science" is a golden calf. That being said, I have an immense respect for science. But I don't like when people think the word "science" is a password that gets them by philosophy or psychology.

The scientific conception of Nature is a descendant of Theism. That's my opinion. Monotheism (a God who makes demands) to Deism (a God who sets it up and falls asleep) to Nature where God is merely the "lawful" structure said Nature.

But this Nature is too shallow a conception of God for me. I prefer a conception of God that takes man's consciousness and ecstasy more into account. Leave science be, I say, and let philosophy and art address the issue.