Blind Faith?

[Sinner]

immanuelkant

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

No, you haven't. You've just repeated the same assertion over and over again without answering why that assertion is valid.

immanuelkant

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.

The first sentence does not dictate the validity of the second.

Even if your assumption that faith cannot exist independantly of reason is correct, that doesn't mean that having more evidence makes the faith any better.

Just because the two are connected does not mean that they can be judged by the same criteria. My question is why you assume that they are.  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

immanuelkant

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

No, you haven't. You've just repeated the same assertion over and over again without answering why that assertion is valid.

immanuelkant

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.

The first sentence does not dictate the validity of the second.

Even if your assumption that faith cannot exist independantly of reason is correct, that doesn't mean that having more evidence makes the faith any better.

Just because the two are connected does not mean that they can be judged by the same criteria. My question is why you assume that they are.

Why do you assume they are not? I don't know how to answer a question like that. Some things just... are. Maybe if you explained to me why you think they aren't then I can better understand how to answer how they are. I just don't see how I could explain something so basic. It's like explaining what the color red looks like... it's just red.  

[Sinner]

immanuelkant

Why do you assume they are not?

Mostly because there's no reason to assume that they are.

But even beyond that, because faith is (by definition) not restricted by evidence. So clearly faith isn't a logical process and just can't be judged by those standards.

immanuelkant

Some things just... are.

Perhaps some things are, but that doesn't make it a valid explanation.  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

immanuelkant

Why do you assume they are not?

Mostly because there's no reason to assume that they are.

But even beyond that, because faith is (by definition) not restricted by evidence. So clearly faith isn't a logical process and just can't be judged by those standards.

This is why I redefined faith for you in the first place. You are thinking of faith in the wrong way. Faith is NOT totally unsupported by evidence. Faith is better defined as trust in something based on the character of the person(s) giving the knowledge. For instance, I have faith IN God. I trust God and his character and that he would not lead me astray because of my religious experience and my personal empirical data to support the fact that God works in my life and I have faith in what he tells me because of my experience.

Sinner

immanuelkant

Some things just... are.

Perhaps some things are, but that doesn't make it a valid explanation.

I believe if you had a correct understanding of what faith truly is then you would have understood how I tried to give you an answer. As I said before, "blind" faith would be your definition. But true faith is not what you are thinking and hence would not fall under your definition at all so it would be exempt from your idea that all faith is useless because it has no evidence.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

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?

As to the first example:

One cannot truely prove either the existance or the non-existance of God. Faith would be either assuming God exists or He doesn't. An Entirely logical response would be the lack of a solid observation ('God might exist, or He might not').

As for the second one:

One can clearly see that the sky is (to us) blue. Further research into this topic is that the sky actually isn't blue, nor is it any other colour (blue is just the fastest colour to reach our eyes), however, that is not very important. Anyways, to state that the sky is (to us) green with purple polka dots, as you have said, flies in the face of evidence.

Now, with the first one, a clear observance of facts is observed, and a hypothesis is built around those facts. Blind faith, on the other hand, defies both logic and facts.

in short, non-blind faith is simply more logical.  

[Sinner]

immanuelkant

This is why I redefined faith for you in the first place. You are thinking of faith in the wrong way. Faith is NOT totally unsupported by evidence. Faith is better defined as trust in something based on the character of the person(s) giving the knowledge.

No, that's a terrible definition for faith. Faith is already quite clearly and succinctly defined already. It doesn't need to be changed.

However, if you aren't talking about faith, then perhaps you shouldn't use the word "faith" to make your point.

Regardless of your new redefinition, I never said that faith is unsupported by evidence. I said that it is not restricted by evidence. Faith can exist with or without evidence, and people with more evidence are not always those with more faith.

Look, I used your first redefinition of faith since it was close to the actual definition. But don't twist it around again, you don't get to redefine words just because you say so.

Quote:

Faith would be either assuming God exists or He doesn't.

Well, no, faith would be believing that God exists/doesn't. Assumptions are different than belief. But anyways...

Quote:

in short, non-blind faith is simply more logical.

Right. I'm pretty sure that was already covered. But that doesn't answer my question.

Why does that make it better? Faith isn't a logical thing. So why would a more/less logical faith be better/worse than another faith? To use a random comparison, that's like saying that a green bouncy ball is better than a blue one just because it's green. There doesn't seem to be any connection between the variable and the standard by which quality is determined.  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

immanuelkant

This is why I redefined faith for you in the first place. You are thinking of faith in the wrong way. Faith is NOT totally unsupported by evidence. Faith is better defined as trust in something based on the character of the person(s) giving the knowledge.

No, that's a terrible definition for faith. Faith is already quite clearly and succinctly defined already. It doesn't need to be changed.

It's not changed. It's already been defined that way.

Dictionary.com

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith, Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Indeed that includes your definition of faith not resting on evidence and not limited to it, but it also includes mine. I have not twisted the definition at all, you just aren't recognizing anyone's but your own.

Sinner

Quote:

in short, non-blind faith is simply more logical.

Right. I'm pretty sure that was already covered. But that doesn't answer my question.

Why does that make it better? Faith isn't a logical thing. So why would a more/less logical faith be better/worse than another faith? To use a random comparison, that's like saying that a green bouncy ball is better than a blue one just because it's green. There doesn't seem to be any connection between the variable and the standard by which quality is determined.

Actually, it's not like saying that at all. It's more like saying it's better to believe that a man made the chair I'm sitting in because it's more logical based on the evidence than that a block of cheese made the chair I'm sitting in. It is better to be more logical becuase our world needs solid facts to survive. We can't go around believing whatever we wanted because that would lead to disatrous conclusions. But that's not faith anyway, that's just logical belief. Faith would say that I have faith the chair won't fall because I know the person who made the chair is trustworthy and did a good job. That is faith. That faith would be better than blind faith the contrary, unsupported by evidence, that says the block of cheese will continue to hold the chair up, when indeed... it will not.

If I had a similar idea about flying, and believed the block of cheese to allow me to fly, instead of having faith in a plain or other tested vehicle, then it would be disatrous for myself. I'd jump off a cliff and boom, no more faith. Blind faith is a dangerous faith for the individual and the people they reach.  

[Sinner]

immanuelkant

Indeed that includes your definition of faith not resting on evidence and not limited to it, but it also includes mine. I have not twisted the definition at all, you just aren't recognizing anyone's but your own.

Except that simple "trustworthiness" and "loyalty" are clearly not the definitions we were working from earlier, since they have nothing to do with the arguments that were being presented. The issues of logic and evidence were being discussed, which clearly tells us which definition was being worked from.

But the biggest problem with your changing of definitions is that while you're using the "trustworthiness" definition, you're ignoring the issue of logic that's at the heart of this discussion. If you want to combine them, then that's fine.

immanuelkant

Actually, it's not like saying that at all. It's more like saying it's better to believe that a man made the chair I'm sitting in because it's more logical based on the evidence than that a block of cheese made the chair I'm sitting in. It is better to be more logical becuase our world needs solid facts to survive.

Agreed. However, that's an argument against faith in general, not against "blind" faith. Blind faith is simply worse in this regard than "other" faith. So if we're going to accept faith as valid, why not blind faith as well?

Look, you're ignoring a key point here. Faith is independant from logic. So while obviously being more logical is better, faith is not a logical process and the rules of logic do not apply. If they did, faith in religion itself would be discarded.  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

immanuelkant

Indeed that includes your definition of faith not resting on evidence and not limited to it, but it also includes mine. I have not twisted the definition at all, you just aren't recognizing anyone's but your own.

Except that simple "trustworthiness" and "loyalty" are clearly not the definitions we were working from earlier, since they have nothing to do with the arguments that were being presented. The issues of logic and evidence were being discussed, which clearly tells us which definition was being worked from.

But the biggest problem with your changing of definitions is that while you're using the "trustworthiness" definition, you're ignoring the issue of logic that's at the heart of this discussion. If you want to combine them, then that's fine.

I never changed my definition. I've been working from the same one since the beginning of this discussion. You've just been ignoring it for your own.

immanuelkant

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

Actually, it's not like saying that at all. It's more like saying it's better to believe that a man made the chair I'm sitting in because it's more logical based on the evidence than that a block of cheese made the chair I'm sitting in. It is better to be more logical becuase our world needs solid facts to survive.

Agreed. However, that's an argument against faith in general, not against "blind" faith. Blind faith is simply worse in this regard than "other" faith. So if we're going to accept faith as valid, why not blind faith as well?

Look, you're ignoring a key point here. Faith is independant from logic. So while obviously being more logical is better, faith is not a logical process and the rules of logic do not apply. If they did, faith in religion itself would be discarded.

No the point I'm trying to make is that faith works together with logic. You want them to be sepearate, but they are not. As I said before, blind faith is seperate from logic, but true faith (which is the definition given by dictionary.com) works together with logic and is supported by logic. Blind faith is worse that true faith because it IS seperate from logic, but the faith I have in the chair not breaking is not seperate from the logical facts that it was made well and I know the person who made it. I accept the propositions on faith provided with sufficient evidence to make the leap. Faith is taking the logic further, it is not seperate from it.

If all we had was logic to determine our steps, I'd never leave the house. Logic tells me that I could die any day, and that there is a very good chance I could be shot, mugged, hit by a car, blown up by a bomb, stabbed, electrocuted, or otherwise injured or murdered and that those instances have a higher likelihood for the entire human race than not. But I have faith that the world doesn't work that way because it's never happened to me before and I have the prior experiences of my life to support that. You can't have true faith without logic, but you can have blind faith without logic. Therein lies the difference and why true faith trumps blind faith.  

[Sinner]

immanuelkant

I never changed my definition. I've been working from the same one since the beginning of this discussion. You've just been ignoring it for your own.

Because as I just explained, you're ignoring the important part of faith here. Even though your definition is valid, it's also wildly insufficient. You're completely leaving out about "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

immanuelkant

If all we had was logic to determine our steps, I'd never leave the house. Logic tells me that I could die any day, and that there is a very good chance I could be shot, mugged, hit by a car, blown up by a bomb, stabbed, electrocuted, or otherwise injured or murdered and that those instances have a higher likelihood for the entire human race than not.

No, that's incredibly stupid. Logic would tell you that although these are all possible and even likely, it's still worth the risk.

If you're going to keep asserting that faith and logic work together, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it. Saying it over and over again isn't getting you anywhere. In addition, it seems to be in flagrant contradiction to the second definition of faith that you quoted from dictionary.com.  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

immanuelkant

I never changed my definition. I've been working from the same one since the beginning of this discussion. You've just been ignoring it for your own.

Because as I just explained, you're ignoring the important part of faith here. Even though your definition is valid, it's also wildly insufficient. You're completely leaving out about "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

immanuelkant

If all we had was logic to determine our steps, I'd never leave the house. Logic tells me that I could die any day, and that there is a very good chance I could be shot, mugged, hit by a car, blown up by a bomb, stabbed, electrocuted, or otherwise injured or murdered and that those instances have a higher likelihood for the entire human race than not.

No, that's incredibly stupid. Logic would tell you that although these are all possible and even likely, it's still worth the risk.

If you're going to keep asserting that faith and logic work together, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it. Saying it over and over again isn't getting you anywhere. In addition, it seems to be in flagrant contradiction to the second definition of faith that you quoted from dictionary.com.

Not at all. Resting on evidence and using evidence as an aid are two completely different things.

And I HAVE tried to give you proofs for my point, you just keep ignoring them and throwing them out. I've given you perfectly valid situations where faith works together with evidence to become stronger and you keep asserting to me that they are incorrect without explaining yourself. So I'm going to turn it back on you. I've given you my proofs, now answer them and tell me why you keep asserting that I'm wrong. Quit being so belligerent and answer my questions.  

[Sinner]

immanuelkant

Not at all. Resting on evidence and using evidence as an aid are two completely different things.

Right, but that's not what I said. I said that your definition left that part out.

immanuelkant

And I HAVE tried to give you proofs for my point, you just keep ignoring them and throwing them out.

Because you haven't been giving proof. You've been giving theoretical situations that show how your description of faith works, but don't give any evidence to suggest that your description is correct. You said that you've given me situations where faith works together with evidence, but you haven't given any evidence to suggest that you're actually correct in your assessments.

Saying that these examples are "proofs" doesn't make them so. They are examples of your definitions in action, not proof that they are valid.  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

immanuelkant

Not at all. Resting on evidence and using evidence as an aid are two completely different things.

Right, but that's not what I said. I said that your definition left that part out.

Left what part out? The part where I said that faith and evidence work together which would be using evidence as an aid or the part where I said that the dictionary defintion doesn't have anything to do with your definition where they are completely separate? Resting on evidence is not what you said. Rest does not mean rely on, which is what you are trying to say.

Sinner

immanuelkant

And I HAVE tried to give you proofs for my point, you just keep ignoring them and throwing them out.

Because you haven't been giving proof. You've been giving theoretical situations that show how your description of faith works, but don't give any evidence to suggest that your description is correct. You said that you've given me situations where faith works together with evidence, but you haven't given any evidence to suggest that you're actually correct in your assessments.

Saying that these examples are "proofs" doesn't make them so. They are examples of your definitions in action, not proof that they are valid.

And again, you ignored my question. We could go back and forth on this. Show me how they are not valid, and show me how they don't prove my case. I see it clearly.  

[Sinner]

immanuelkant

Left what part out?

The part about faith being belief that doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence. Your definition doesn't address that at all.

immanuelkant

And again, you ignored my question. We could go back and forth on this. Show me how they are not valid, and show me how they don't prove my case. I see it clearly.

Show you how they don't prove your case? I just did. They do not prove your point because you're just making claims about the nature of faith without backing them up at all. Just saying that faith acts in a certain way doesn't make it so.

Let me put it more simply. With the exception of your dictionary quotation, not a single sentence in any of your posts has gone to actually back up what you've been claiming. Just describing faith over and over again doesn't make your descriptions correct.  

[immanuelkant]

Sinner

immanuelkant

Left what part out?

The part about faith being belief that doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence. Your definition doesn't address that at all.

immanuelkant

And again, you ignored my question. We could go back and forth on this. Show me how they are not valid, and show me how they don't prove my case. I see it clearly.

Show you how they don't prove your case? I just did. They do not prove your point because you're just making claims about the nature of faith without backing them up at all. Just saying that faith acts in a certain way doesn't make it so.

Let me put it more simply. With the exception of your dictionary quotation, not a single sentence in any of your posts has gone to actually back up what you've been claiming. Just describing faith over and over again doesn't make your descriptions correct.

And denying the ACTUAL definition doesn't make yours correct either. RESTING on logical evidence doesn't mean it can't USE logical evidence. It means that evidence and logic are not the only thing that support faith and not the only part of faith. It's not the basis of faith. I have adressed that, and you just ignore it.

All I have to do is come up with a situation where my definition of faith works, a real life situation, and the fact that it is backed up by the dictionary defintion also supports that. If it is possible for faith to work that way in a possible world, then THAT IS A PROOF. Unless you are going to call many modern philosophers wrong, including Alvin Plantinga, then I suggest you support your claims with such a proof instead of insisting on the fact that you are always correct.

Faith CAN use evidence. The dictionary supports that. My examples support that. My own faith supports that.

You definition IS WRONG. The dictionary supports that and my examples support that it is at least possible.

I'm not merely asserting my opinion. YOU are.