|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:37 am
Okay, I may be getting a little over my head here, but here it goes:
From a conversation I had with a friend of mine, I've found that to have faith in something, you don't have to necessarily have to know it is true. He thinks that is the true nature of the word Faith. But, isn't that a bit wrong? To have complete faith in something, shouldn't know something first?
Example:
My Brother will past the test, I have "faith" in him.
-I know for a fact that my brother is nervous about the test.
-I know for a fact that my brother has studied.
-I know for a fact that my brother is a smart kid
-I know these things as facts, so I can have complete faith that he will past the test, even though is is nervous.
From my "Dummies" book: Knowledge=True Belief.
So if you don't know something to be true, you cannot have true belief in it. If I didn't know my brother studied or that he was smart; but I did know that he was worried about passing, I'd beleive that he *may* pass. But there's possiblity that he could fail, as well. At this point, I don't have faith in him.
So, is it safe to assume that people have "Blind Faith"
Knowledge = True Belief = True Faith
Ignorance = Blind Belief = Blind Faith
Or...is faith, just faith. Either you have it or you don't?
Ok, at this point, I think I've dug to deep into the meaning of things and confused myself. Anyone care to discuss?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:09 pm
If I were you, I would try to narrow it down to a more specific type of ignorance. Ignorance of applied reasoning to ALL areas of life can lead to... blind beleif, which is similar to blind faith. This might be a little more accurate.
My reasoning for this is that there are those who can be very skilled in a trade, or a science, but lack the ability to reason in 'all' areas of life. A car mechanic can still have a blind beleif in god, but still be a good car mechanic and have good reasoning when it comes to car repair. Someone ignorant of cars and their workings could just as easily have a blind beleif in that same mechanic, since they themselves have no knowledge of what the mechnic is doing.
Generaly what you're saying is correct however, and I'd have to agree you are right on the money. However, someone can have both blind beleif and truth faith, at the same time. Just in different areas. Hope my comments help smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:31 pm
Well....faith is not believe per se. That's only if U use it in a religious context. But faith is more like "follow something that gives U the neccesary reasons to think it's true"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:24 pm
Before I begin I would like to say that they way you've worked things out seems right, at least in my eyes.
I would like to point out though that at their very core faith and belief are both etirely different, and yet completely dependant upon each other. Faith in my eyes is willing something to be true based on a train of thought. Such as your example, you are willing your brother to do well on a test based on information you already know about your brother. At the same time you must believe that the information you have is ture, and that your brother will do well.
In a religious sense, the terms are meshed and used interchangably. Now this isn't always correct. I can believe something is true, and not have faith in it's opperations. Or I could have faith in an idea, and not believe any of the dogmatics involved. It gets complicated and very blurred very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:59 am
Faith, as you have concluded, has two sides to it. Blind faith, and "true" or factual faith. Blind faith occurs when one does not know for certain the truth, but believes that something is true anyway. The reason, in my opinion, that people go against the natural instinct to want to know everything is that it is overpowered by a second instinct. That instinct is to be comfortable and stable: known as the comfort zone.
Generally, people do not like to feel as if they are on a shaky boat. They want a stable rock, and wether that rock is in the middle of the ocean or not, they will try to make it as stable in their minds as possible. Therefore, people accept religion as truth, wether they have enough facts to believe it true or not. They make their own facts.
Now, factual faith is not the opposite of blind faith. Facts are what is known to be true. However, if a person convinces himself that the statement is true, it will seem a fact in their head. Therefore, blind faith is factual faith in that person's mind.
Observe:
1. I am colorblind. I am told by a reliable source that my hair is brown. I know for a fact that the source is reliable, so I know for a fact that my hair is brown. That is factual faith.
2. Again, I am colorblind. I am told by another colorblind person that my hair is black. I do not know that the person is colorblind, so I assume he is a reliable source. I take it as fact that he is reliable. Therefore, I take it as fact that my hair is black. That is blind faith, however I think it is factual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:25 pm
Ubaste From a conversation I had with a friend of mine, I've found that to have faith in something, you don't have to necessarily have to know it is true. He thinks that is the true nature of the word Faith. But, isn't that a bit wrong? To have complete faith in something, shouldn't know something first? There are 2 definitions of faith; "Trust", and "Belief in something which is not proven/evidenced". "Blind faith" just specifies that the second definition is being used. To have complete trust in something, you should know. Lesidia 1. I am colorblind. I am told by a reliable source that my hair is brown. 2. Again, I am colorblind. I am told by another colorblind person that my hair is black. Even if you're colorblind, you should be able to tell the difference between black and brown. One is darker than the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:50 pm
Mechanism Ubaste From a conversation I had with a friend of mine, I've found that to have faith in something, you don't have to necessarily have to know it is true. He thinks that is the true nature of the word Faith. But, isn't that a bit wrong? To have complete faith in something, shouldn't know something first? There are 2 definitions of faith; "Trust", and "Belief in something which is not proven/evidenced". "Blind faith" just specifies that the second definition is being used. To have complete trust in something, you should know. Lesidia 1. I am colorblind. I am told by a reliable source that my hair is brown. 2. Again, I am colorblind. I am told by another colorblind person that my hair is black. Even if you're colorblind, you should be able to tell the difference between black and brown. One is darker than the other. As far as the colorblind thing, I believe she was just trying to make a point, you're taking her example a bit too literally. She could just as easily have said "blind" and make the same point. Anywho, I agree with your definitions of faith. About the examples, I think to have "true faith" you must blend trust and believe in something that which is not proven, I believe that "true faith" doesn't neccessarily have to be factual. However "blind faith" is simply someones opinion about your faith, since noone that has faith in something thinks they have blind faith. At least thats my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:25 am
Faith is an irrational, passionate belief in the illogical. If you build your belief based on knowledge, it isn't irrational, thus isn't "Faith". Faith is leaping into the unknown. As I mentioned in another religious thread in this guild, faith is blindfolding yourself based upon a deep-routed trust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:43 am
breaking of dawn Faith is an irrational, passionate belief in the illogical. If you build your belief based on knowledge, it isn't irrational, thus isn't "Faith". Faith is leaping into the unknown. As I mentioned in another religious thread in this guild, faith is blindfolding yourself based upon a deep-routed trust. I feel this explanation of 'faith' is deeply colored by a more empirically-minded point of view. xd Faith is belief in something that does not have empirical evidence. Such does NOT make it irrational or illogical. People have a rationale for virtually everything they do, faith included. Likewise, there is always a sort of logic to how they go about faith. I agree with the sentance 'faith is leaping into the unknown' with respect to empirical observation and the scientfic method. But numerous religions and philosophies have studied areas of faith for centuries, so it is hardly unknown territory. Faith does not blindfold unless you let it. Thus, we have TWO terms, 'faith' and 'blind faith.' Not all faith is blind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:06 pm
Faith is, in and of itself, belief without proof.
If you need proof to see something, you don't have faith.
For instance, I have faith that 1+1=2. I don't need a proof showing that.
Although that was kind of a crappy example, as I have proven that 1+1=1. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:13 am
Cougar Draven Faith is, in and of itself, belief without proof. No it isn't. It's belief without EMPIRICAL PROOF. There's a big difference. Huge difference. BLIND faith is belief without proof. FAITH is beleif WITH proof, although it is probably not EMPIRICAL (aka not attained through the scientific method).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:23 am
According to Nietzsche (in The Antichrist) faith is "closing one's eyes upon one's self once for all, to avoid suffering the sight of incurable falsehood." He, however, only talks about faith in the religious concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:00 pm
Starlock Cougar Draven Faith is, in and of itself, belief without proof. No it isn't. It's belief without EMPIRICAL PROOF. There's a big difference. Huge difference. BLIND faith is belief without proof. FAITH is beleif WITH proof, although it is probably not EMPIRICAL (aka not attained through the scientific od). I'm of the opinion, personally, that all faith is blind, since to have faith in something without concrete proof, you're letting at least one thing blind you. I don't have faith in anything, except God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:41 am
Cougar Draven Starlock Cougar Draven Faith is, in and of itself, belief without proof. No it isn't. It's belief without EMPIRICAL PROOF. There's a big difference. Huge difference. BLIND faith is belief without proof. FAITH is beleif WITH proof, although it is probably not EMPIRICAL (aka not attained through the scientific od). I'm of the opinion, personally, that all faith is blind, since to have faith in something without concrete proof, you're letting at least one thing blind you. I don't have faith in anything, except God. And I say to that, to believe that simply because it is proven by human science it must be true, you're letting science blind you. (grins) A whole lot of bad science is done because people are so blindly convinced it's right and often science is as self-righteous as religion ever has been. Good science is about always remaining open-minded even when something is supposedly 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:07 pm
I really don't know what I could say to cover things as a whole... but I could speak for myself about a belief that I do know others would seriously question... or even state isn't possibly true (or possible to be true... whichever).
Not going into details on it, I can say that it's not completely blind faith, since there is "evidence" that it could be true. Yet... I also reason that things could be false for me, and that the evidence supporting it could be caused by something else.
What I mean to say is that my set of beliefs isn't found from nothing... but the things that it has been formed by could be false. Thus... it would be easy for someone to just say it's a false belief, yet I find it hard to believe it's completely false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
