Blind Faith?

[torrinne]

What exactly is blind faith? Can you really say that the chirstian faith is "blind" when the whole point of faith (from my point of view) is having your eyes opened to something that is beyond you and me (in other words, god)? If your eyes have been opened, how are you blind? Please, can anyone explain this to me?  

[ioioouiouiouio]

blind faith is folly. If you blindly follow something, how do you know it is right?  

[Grayed]

"Blind faith" is usually used to describe following a person or idea without questioning it at all.  

[immanuelkant]

Christians don't have "blind faith". There are Christian scientists who constantly support the Bible with their findings that disprove evolution and gap theories and other such things that people use to disprove the Bible. There are also many reputable sources of Biblical text from both original copies and copies of the originals from only 10-50 years after they were written and in some cases only 5 years after the events took place. Not to mention the fact that your personal salvation experience and your religious conviction by the Holy Spirit, and your experience of God in your life is not "blind faith", but a trust of the God that you know and faith based on His character and not your own.  

[Sinner]

immanuelkant

Christians don't have "blind faith". There are Christian scientists who constantly support the Bible with their findings that disprove evolution and gap theories and other such things that people use to disprove the Bible. There are also many reputable sources of Biblical text from both original copies and copies of the originals from only 10-50 years after they were written and in some cases only 5 years after the events took place. Not to mention the fact that your personal salvation experience and your religious conviction by the Holy Spirit, and your experience of God in your life is not "blind faith", but a trust of the God that you know and faith based on His character and not your own.

It's quite rare that I use "emoticons" on message boards, but fortunately, Gaia has provided me with one that can cover an entire range of reactions and responses to this post in a simple convenient bit of [removed] rolleyes

Back on topic, I don't quite understand the significance of the term "blind faith", particularly with regards to statements like this:

Cometh The Inquisitor

blind faith is folly. If you blindly follow something, how do you know it is right?

What is the difference between "blind" faith and "non-blind" faith in this regard? How does one justify the use of faith, but not the use of blind faith?  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

It's quite rare that I use "emoticons" on message boards, but fortunately, Gaia has provided me with one that can cover an entire range of reactions and responses to this post in a simple convenient bit of [removed] rolleyes

Care to elaborate a little more? I don't see how this is not on topic. She asked

torrinne

Can you really say that the chirstian faith is "blind" when the whole point of faith (from my point of view) is having your eyes opened to something that is beyond you and me (in other words, god)?

It'd be nice if you didn't just dismiss that question and assumed you were right.

"Blind" faith assumes that you have no evidence to support your cause. It means that you are acting on pure assumption with no experience to back those assumptions up. Christian "true" faith is based on the Bible, the personal experience we have from God, and the character of the God we know through our experience and how that lines up with the truth of the Bible. We have faith that rests in God and his unchanging character, not in ourselves and how well we keep our faith. That is the difference.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

What is the difference between "blind" faith and "non-blind" faith in this regard? How does one justify the use of faith, but not the use of blind faith?

Blind faith is something that one enters entirely without questioning the person or thing that faith has been placed in. 'Non'-Blind faith requires a level of questioning as well as a portion of it still unexplained (thus leaving it faith as opposed to knowledge)

Of course, I recognize that all faith is, to some extent or another, 'blind', in that all is not explained, however, what we refer to as 'blind faith' is totally blind, as opposed to partially blind faith (wich, I might add, is something everyone has).  

[immanuelkant]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Sinner

What is the difference between "blind" faith and "non-blind" faith in this regard? How does one justify the use of faith, but not the use of blind faith?

Blind faith is something that one enters entirely without questioning the person or thing that faith has been placed in. 'Non'-Blind faith requires a level of questioning as well as a portion of it still unexplained (thus leaving it faith as opposed to knowledge)

Of course, I recognize that all faith is, to some extent or another, 'blind', in that all is not explained, however, what we refer to as 'blind faith' is totally blind, as opposed to partially blind faith (wich, I might add, is something everyone has).

I would agree with you completely. You can never know anything with absolute certainty to the point of not having at least a little faith in that fact. Even atheists have faith in their belief system (I would think they need more faith than Christians).

My point was that Christians don't have (or at least don't need to and shouldn't have) a totally blind faith. Would you agree, Cometh?  

[ioioouiouiouio]

immanuelkant

My point was that Christians don't have (or at least don't need to and shouldn't have) a totally blind faith. Would you agree, Cometh?

Most definatly. I believe that, without constant questioning of our faith, both by ourselves and by others, our righteousness is in grave danger. Even Paul would go around correcting those who had made mistakes, and, with blind faith, you can never realize when you actually have made a mistake.  

[Sinner]

immanuelkant

Sinner

It's quite rare that I use "emoticons" on message boards, but fortunately, Gaia has provided me with one that can cover an entire range of reactions and responses to this post in a simple convenient bit of [removed] rolleyes

Care to elaborate a little more?

Certainly.

rolleyes rofl xd

Cometh The Inquisitor

Blind faith is something that one enters entirely without questioning the person or thing that faith has been placed in. 'Non'-Blind faith requires a level of questioning as well as a portion of it still unexplained (thus leaving it faith as opposed to knowledge)

Of course, I recognize that all faith is, to some extent or another, 'blind', in that all is not explained, however, what we refer to as 'blind faith' is totally blind, as opposed to partially blind faith (wich, I might add, is something everyone has).

Yes, I wasn't questioning the difference in definition, I was wondering what the difference was in significance. How is "non-blind" faith any better than "blind" faith? Faith doesn't follow a logical process anyways (by definition) so just being less rational about it doesn't mean anything, does it?

Let's get some examples here. It's safe to say the belief "God exists!" is based on faith that isn't necessarily blind, I presume. Whereas an example of blind faith would be more along the lines of "God says the sky is green with purple polka dots!" because that flies in the face of the observeable evidence, right?

With those examples, why is the second article of faith inferior, less valid, or otherwise worse than the first one?  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

immanuelkant

Sinner

It's quite rare that I use "emoticons" on message boards, but fortunately, Gaia has provided me with one that can cover an entire range of reactions and responses to this post in a simple convenient bit of [removed] rolleyes

Care to elaborate a little more?

Certainly.

rolleyes rofl xd

Cometh The Inquisitor

Blind faith is something that one enters entirely without questioning the person or thing that faith has been placed in. 'Non'-Blind faith requires a level of questioning as well as a portion of it still unexplained (thus leaving it faith as opposed to knowledge)

Of course, I recognize that all faith is, to some extent or another, 'blind', in that all is not explained, however, what we refer to as 'blind faith' is totally blind, as opposed to partially blind faith (wich, I might add, is something everyone has).

Yes, I wasn't questioning the difference in definition, I was wondering what the difference was in significance. How is "non-blind" faith any better than "blind" faith? Faith doesn't follow a logical process anyways (by definition) so just being less rational about it doesn't mean anything, does it?

Let's get some examples here. It's safe to say the belief "God exists!" is based on faith that isn't necessarily blind, I presume. Whereas an example of blind faith would be more along the lines of "God says the sky is green with purple polka dots!" because that flies in the face of the observeable evidence, right?

With those examples, why is the second article of faith inferior, less valid, or otherwise worse than the first one?

Well for one thing, that kind of blind faith is blind to the evidence, and thus is faith because it goes against what everything else says about reality. Lets call that "ignorant" faith, for now. This ignorant faith remains faith not because the person believes and trusts in a person that has told them about this fact, but because he's so stubborn he doesn't want to give up the fact that he's right.

Blind faith doesn't necessarily have any evidence to disprove the facts behind it. I could have faith that we are all brains in a vat controlled by giant rats and no one could possibly disprove that belief by empirical evidence or by rationality because if we infact were brains in a vat, we would not know we were brains in a vat. That type of faith is neither ignorant nor is it supported by evidence (other than the lack of evidence against it). That faith would just be neutral. The more evidence a fact as against it, the more blind the faith becomes to follow that fact. And likewise, the more evidence to support the fact, the more logical it becomes and thus the less faith it takes to believe the fact.

Does that make sense, or were you looking for something else?
surprised eek pirate talk2hand ninja  

[Sinner]

That's still not answering the question. As I already said, I'm not looking for redefinitions of blind faith. (Not to mention that your definition seems to be a bit different than Cometh's, so I'd have to rephrase things slightly to apply to your definition.) But I'm not asking what blind faith is. There are plenty of definitions for blind faith. What I'm asking is how blind faith (or ignorant faith, or ridiculous faith, or intelligent faith, or purple faith, or whatever other faiths out there) can be considered inferior to other forms of faith.

Basically, I'm not asking what blind faith is, I'm asking why you (or anyone, for that matter) would hold one form of faith above another.  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

That's still not answering the question. As I already said, I'm not looking for redefinitions of blind faith. (Not to mention that your definition seems to be a bit different than Cometh's, so I'd have to rephrase things slightly to apply to your definition.) But I'm not asking what blind faith is. There are plenty of definitions for blind faith. What I'm asking is how blind faith (or ignorant faith, or ridiculous faith, or intelligent faith, or purple faith, or whatever other faiths out there) can be considered inferior to other forms of faith.

Basically, I'm not asking what blind faith is, I'm asking why you (or anyone, for that matter) would hold one form of faith above another.

"The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume

Smart words, and they come from an atheist. The faith should be based on the evidence. Faith without any evidence is folly. Even the Bible agrees that wisdom is needed.

Proverbs 13:16

Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly.

With blind faith you can't give your faith to others and you have no reasons for it. I don't see how you would want to be a fool and have no basis for your faith. I thought by defining what blind faith actually was that you'd understand a little better, but I guess I had to spell it out for you. Faith wihout evidence is folly. The Bible exorts us to have wisdom and not be a fool. Hence, we seek wisdom and not faith lacking evidence.  

[Sinner]

Now do you mind just answering my question?

You keep asserting that "faith without evidence is folly" and similar things, but why? Faith is inherently illogical, so why do mainstays of logical reasoning like evidence even come into play? Why does it matter?  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

Now do you mind just answering my question?

You keep asserting that "faith without evidence is folly" and similar things, but why? Faith is inherently illogical, so why do mainstays of logical reasoning like evidence even come into play? Why does it matter?

... Are you really that blind? I have answered your question many times now.

Everything requires faith, even reason. You can't have any belief without a little faith. You can't know anything without some degree of possibility that it is incorrect. Hence, if you have more evidence to support your faith, you have a greater faith. If you have no evidence to support your faith you have a stupid and useless faith. Blind faith has no evidence whatsoever, therefore it is useless. If all faith is useless as you claim, then we should all go about doubting everything haphazardly and not believe anything because we can't have any degree of faith at all.

You can't have total reasoning or total faith. You need both. I thought it was obvious.