Faith vs. Blind Faith

[liamconnor]

Here is a quote from another member

Faith is confidently believing something to be true, even though available evidence and reason do not support such a belief. This kind of faith is lauded in the story of the encounter between Thomas and the post-resurrection Jesus.

I propose that this is a definition of 'blind faith', or, in technical terms, fideism.


I offer the following as a more appropriate definition of faith:

"assent to a proposition which, based on the evidence at hand, we find so overwhelmingly probable so as to exclude psychological doubt, but not incontrovertible so as exclude logical dispute."

As example: if someone told me my brother was secretly plotting my death, all the available evidence suggests otherwise. Thus, psychogically, the proposition does not bother me. Indeed, if it did, it would say far more about my own psychology than my brother's. However, as I cannot prove there and then that my brother has never, or will never, plot my demise, logically the question remains open. And, unfortunately, the news tells us of such exceptions.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 19 by Mithrae]

The very fact that an alternative perspective of faith as an intellectual gap-filler has become so widespread is fairly compelling evidence that Christianity in general has not turned out as the biblical authors hoped and intended it to.

The smart response of an atheist would be that even if biblical faith is relational in nature (i.e., it is "relational trust" as you put it in your post), such faith still depends on some sort of intellectual assent that the party being trusted in actually exists.

I don't think this changes the point about what biblical faith is (I fully agree with you), but it does leave hanging one of the main issues atheists have with the bible or biblical God.

So while biblical faith is what you say, Christians still need to find a way to intellectually affirm God's existence.

I do think credible answers are possible (I am not bothered one bit by this question), but here is where we also need to radically shift registers as to what God is. Just as faith as "intellectual assent to a proposition" is a straw man that needs to be knocked down, so too is the notion of God as some sort of singular mega-entity out there consciously directing cosmic events.

The radical nature of biblical faith is that it doesn't trust in an entity such as this, but a powerless spirit that through hope and acts of love on our part can become all powerful and do all things.

As Paul says, and your points about action agree:

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

I know these are broad stroke statements and the devil is in the details, but such a God as this (one without any real power except the power we give it through love) is much easier to intellectually affirm.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 21 by theophile]

That's an interesting and reasonable perspective - though again, I'm not sure the biblical authors would agree with a God without any real power! The thought I was getting at (and which I believed when I was a Christian) was of a God who is present and active in believers' lives through the Holy Spirit, which seems to be what the New Testament portrays... and which therefore would be a clear truth to believers and wouldn't need any intellectual gap-filler any more than one's human loved ones do.

Of course many denominations keep the rhetoric of a "relationship" with God, convincing themselves that one-sided monologues and emotional music/gatherings are the same thing as 'feeling His presence.' Which is not to say that there mightn't be some people who have some kind of strong spiritual wossname, to be fair, but it seems obvious that it's not at all common. For my part I stopped being a Christian when I realized I couldn't kid myself of that any more, but I'd hesitate to call it a loss of faith: I'm not sure I ever had faith, except maybe for a few brief periods, neither in the relational sense (since there was no relationship) nor in the gap-filler sense (I was intellectually convinced, and to the extent biases permit have always changed my views as my knowledge and understanding of the have facts changed). I've often wished I could be a man of faith, some kind of conviction which would give clear meaning and purpose to life.

Look at me, opening up to y'all. That's what bourbon does to a man

[theophile]

[Replying to Mithrae]

That's an interesting and reasonable perspective - though again, I'm not sure the biblical authors would agree with a God without any real power!

The devil is in the details and we can go as detailed as you like! But I think we can look back to Genesis 1 and see the purest nature of God's power: it is the power of a Word that calls others to participate in it, i.e., "Let there be..."

A word has no real power in itself except that which we give it. I think John echoes this statement at the start of his gospel when he speaks of "the Word becoming flesh..."

i.e., it is only through others participating in that Word (through love) that stuff happens. e.g., it is the sea and the earth that bring forth life in Genesis, and in doing so participate in the Word and therefore God... (giving power to God...)

So I truly see God as all-powerful in the eschatological fulfillment of our human calling to love (in faith and hope). But God, in God-self (i.e., as Spirit or Word) is completely powerless.

I think this may coincide with what you are saying below regarding "a God who is present and active in believers' lives through the Holy Spirit."

In vino veritas.

[marco]

Christians still need to find a way to intellectually affirm God's existence.

They do this by producing Biblical quotations and much argument. Replacing God with Love, especially if that means humans loving humans, is a wonderful concept. By removing God's terrifying omnipotence and his capacity to produce torturers and bombers on Earth, working in his wondrous name, we can get on with our own lives and solve our own problems. When man turns his gaze from the skies and asks what he can do for his fellow man we have an approach to paradise.

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

They do this by producing Biblical quotations and much argument. Replacing God with Love, especially if that means humans loving humans, is a wonderful concept. By removing God's terrifying omnipotence and his capacity to produce torturers and bombers on Earth, working in his wondrous name, we can get on with our own lives and solve our own problems. When man turns his gaze from the skies and asks what he can do for his fellow man we have an approach to paradise.

And I would argue that's just what the biblical God (or Word) calls for. It is the Son of Man we see coming on the clouds when we look up to the skies... Not some otherworldly savior.

[marco]

And I would argue that's just what the biblical God (or Word) calls for. It is the Son of Man we see coming on the clouds when we look up to the skies... Not some otherworldly saviour.

Are you artificially incorporating Biblical text into a kind of humanism? The Son of Man sitting on clouds is indeed an otherworldly vision and seems to have no place in our efforts to offer a drink to the thirsty and food to the hungry. He is as irrelevant as Robin Hood.

[William]

Post 21-26 are exactly why I say that the bible was created to distract human beings from the activities of the elitists controlling them through all manner of device.

Expectation of a savior coming down from the sky to save humanity from the evil that controls them serves as a distraction, as surely as focusing on the latest apps on a cell phone does.

Or working within systems which can gain wealth for us to 'live the dream' or placing our trust in the soothsaying glib of TV preachers,... the list goes on and on.

All the distractions appear to have in common is that they are not encouraging us to engage in kindness, empathy and understanding at any where near the required amount necessary to tip the scales.

"Heaven can wait", but there is so much focus on it that Earth is nothing more than some largely unimportant interim purgatory in which the living can exclaim 'there but for the grace of GOD, go I" or the atheist equivalent.

Ultimately - it is what it is and out of all who will have the best chance at surviving the fruits of such lifestyle choices, the elitists top the list.

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

Are you artificially incorporating Biblical text into a kind of humanism? The Son of Man sitting on clouds is indeed an otherworldly vision and seems to have no place in our efforts to offer a drink to the thirsty and food to the hungry. He is as irrelevant as Robin Hood.

Artificially? As opposed to naturally? I think I am naturally suggesting that the bible is a humanistic text. The greatest of all time in my limited knowledge and opinion! Just go back to Genesis 1. God's vision there is of humankind ruling over creation (and taking on great responsibility in doing so).

Now compare that to the vision of the Son of Man coming on the clouds: the vision is once again of a man. The point being that it is human beings who need to do the saving.

John's vision in Revelation is of the very fulfillment of God's calling in Genesis 1 that we image God and take up our rule. In other words, treat the coming of the Son of Man in Revelation as day 6 of creation, when at last a human being (in the image of God) has come... Preparing the way for the peace and rest of the Sabbath...

But hey, you're a literary guy, right? So surely you can appreciate that this is all about teaching us how to act here and now, i.e., that we ought to be each other's keepers to your point. Giving food and drink and caring for other needs. (That is what it means to be the greatest, isn't it? To serve even the least among us? At least that's what Jesus says.)

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 16 by Iseerce]

I don't find "blind-faith" recommended by Moses/Buddha/Krishna/Zoroaster/Jesus/Socrates/Muhammad or by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908.
So with blind-faith one cannot follow or walk on the right path .
Regards

Further to add:
Faith is based on reason and or Word of Revelation. Blind-faith is neither based on reason nor on Word of Revelation nor on science, it is just based on superstition.
Jesus is said to say:
Luke 6:39
39Jesus also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?
http://biblehub.com/luke/6-39.htm
Quran says:
[12:109] Say, ‘This is my way: I call unto Allah on sure knowledge*, I and those who follow me. And Holy is Allah; and I am not of those who associate gods with God.’
www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapt ... &verse=108
*the Arabic word is "baṣīratin"

Regards

[marco]

I think I am naturally suggesting that the bible is a humanistic text. The greatest of all time in my limited knowledge and opinion!

I don't think "humanistic" is the word you're looking for to describe Genesis. Humanistic would mean looking after humans, keeping them safe from being turned into pillars of salt, or having cities smashed to pieces around them.

Now compare that to the vision of the Son of Man coming on the clouds: the vision is once again of a man. The point being that it is human beings who need to do the saving.

Again you've chosen badly to illustrate your point. It is certainly not the function of a human to sail on clouds. A man sitting on a cloud would fall through it and gravity being what it is he'd accelerate to his death.

John's vision in Revelation is of the very fulfillment of God's calling in Genesis

Say no more. I regard Revelation as impervious to any assault by a human brain. Where I live dragons don't happen. Go well.