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.

[Iseerce]

Where is the actual distinction between "Faith" and "Blind Faith?"

If the former is not "blind," as in, there are reasons to go along with it, then the appeal is being made to the reasons, and not this "faith" component.

If having a steadfast faith, for example, is indeed important, specifically, a virtue, then isn't said virtue only undermined by, essentially, trying to soften the idea of Faith by adding supposedly good reasons? Yes, I certainly believe so, and this is why Faith doesn't seem to have any demonstrated purpose, outside of being both blind and unreasonable.

If you have reasons and evidence for a particular belief, you don't need to make appeals to faith.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 11 by Iseerce]

I am assuming you are replying to the OP, yes?

I think the OP made it clear. In America, at least, 'faith' has turned into a religious term, and has somehow become associated with 'belief for no apparent reason'.

I (following in the footsteps of older theologians not from America) question this use.

I translate faith as trust.

Nearly all our knowledge requires a degree of trust in something. Even a trust in reason. If I say that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, a skeptical empiricist can say, "Prove it based on empirical evidence". This would of course require comparison of a straight line with an infinite number of squiggly lines: which is impossible.

Yet this does not disconcert us. Though we lack an infinite number of examples, we have faith that our intuitive sense of reality does not lead us astray.

[Iseerce]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Yes, I was responding to the OP, and now you.

I asked a question, where is the distinction between faith, and "Blind" faith?
If faith is just reasonable confidence, or "Trust," then what does the term "faith" actually represent? What does it necessitate?

I have no faith, and working presuppositions, that we all must have, to operate within the apparently universal laws of logic, are demonstrable and continue to produce consistent and effect results.

What value does faith have, what does it produce?

I'm aware that "faith" may be misunderstood, or misused in a folky, Americanized way, but I don't see why that's relevant. The way it consistently seems to be employed, is, something to the effect of, the reason people give when they have no other reason to appeal to...as I mentioned above.

[William]

I think faith is something which introduces an individuate conscious self aware being to the vaster aspect of consciousness which can be 'summed up' as a creator/creative entity who is able to interact with the individual in a number of ways.
Faith opens the door to that possibility and in that, confirmation for the individual is gained.

Over time - as the relationship grows and the connection strengthens, the need for faith becomes somewhat redundant - at least as it pertains to the relationship.

In relation to religions, the creator/creative entity is seen differently through the dogma of those separate and sometimes conflicting organizations, and this signifies that the adherents are in communion with said entity on a less viable level because they have consigned a particular nature and position etc to that entity which is not entirely accurate.

The entity works with this because having a relationship with an individual is better than having no relationship with the individual. However, the down side of that can be a constant need to prop up the faith required in relation to the dogma attached to the idea of that particular religions take on the entity, and the inevitable requirement of the entity for the individual to see the entity as it is, rather than as their religion has portrayed it stymies even that aspect of the relationship.

Often the individual settles for his/her religions version, believing it to be true and trusted as the mouthpiece of the true nature of GOD and what relationship there was, thus transfers through the medium of such things as holy writ, preachers, pastors, priests gurus, sages, etc et al - one is having a relationship with these things rather than with the entity. One has placed their faith in these things rather than the entity. One is usually unaware that this is what is taking place and thinks that these things constitute actually having a relationship with the entity.

It is understandable enough in that context. Often faith is not strong enough to fully commune with an invisible entity which is real enough and able to prove itself to the individual without such props/mediums, but there are various obstacles which come from religious institutions which invoke fear of doing so. Usually these involve subjects to do with evil entities regarded as 'enemies of GOD', and what occurs is that the individual doesn't have enough faith in themselves to trust themselves and thus transfers the trust onto those other mediums, as directed by the religion they have faith in.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Blind faith is just no-faith, it neither belongs to the truthful Religion nor to the science. It is a position/no-position closer to ignorance or closer to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards

[Iseerce]

[Replying to paarsurrey1]

What do you mean by, blind faith is "no-faith?"

[marco]

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."

When Pope Leo x declared Henry "Defender of the Faith" it was understood that Henry had defended a set of Church beliefs, opposing those of Martin Luther. The Latin word fidere means to trust and that is effectively the essence of faith. Millions who subscribe to Christianity or Islam take things on trust, the majority trusting their parents rather than prelates. Losing faith is moving away from what we've been told as children. People find comfort under the umbrella of common belief and fellowship -at least the vast majority do - and most stay where they are.

Some people, Like Cardinal Newman or C.S Lewis, examine details and become convinced of Christianity's worth. It may well be that this very examination, this application of rationality marks their brand of faith out as different from that of the masses.

Is it reasonable to believe in the resurrection of decomposing corpses? At some future date science may do something with the dead but 2000 years ago in some Middle Eastern corner we can be confident that corpses did not get up and walk. If faith tells us otherwise then faith is at odds with reason. For most believers, that's not a problem. Mysteries after all are above human reason.

[marco]

If I say that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, a skeptical empiricist can say, "Prove it based on empirical evidence". This would of course require comparison of a straight line with an infinite number of squiggly lines: which is impossible.

We should tell the sceptical empiricist that we regard the statement as an axiom, requiring no proof, and we build our geometry on this truth. Finding countless examples that support our proposition is not the way one would proceed to prove things in mathematics.

But your comparison is fair enough. Believers take God and miracles as axiomatic; and when these are accepted camels can get through the eye of a needle quite comfortably. Any God will do, by the way, for faith to flourish. In real life, bulldozers not faith move mountains.

[Mithrae]

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."

That's a comfortable way to claim that non-believers have faith too, but as far as the biblical concept is concerned I think Theophile is much closer to the mark. You kind of touched on it also in responding to McCulloch's reference to Hebrews 11: The whole point of that chapter is obviously not about intellectual "assent to a proposition," it's about people who acted as God asked, people who needed a bigger boat, who moved to new lands, who were mocked, impoverished, persecuted and tortured. It's about actions, driven not by intellectual assent but by relational trust. In James 2 the author states that 'faith' which is not expressed through acts of charity and righteousness is meaningless or dead. In Ephesians 2 the author states that saving faith is not something humans can do on their own, but is the gift of God. The biblical authors - or some of them at least - quite possibly would not have believed that non-Christians can have that kind of faith, though as Theophile has suggested the husband/wife or parent/child relationships are often used as comparisons.

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.

[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