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.

[marco]

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.

You've said this already. One man's superstition is another man's solid faith. You apparently uphold Islam but not the New Testament. I accept neither. Since I cannot see any possible rational approach for believing Muhammad conversed in a cave with something divine or Jesus rising from the dead, I term belief in such things blind faith. Were this not so you would be able to offer proof or convincing evidence that would make me exclaim: My goodness. You are right.

Revelation is a subjective thing, much like superstition. Horoscopes pretend to be revelation. And the Book of Revelation pretends to be revelation.

I respect that you have your faith and it provides life guidelines. If it makes you happy, then all is well. My sainted mother enjoys the same total confidence in her God.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 31 by marco]

Since I cannot see any possible rational approach for believing Muhammad conversed in a cave with something divine or Jesus rising from the dead,

Let's deal with the second.

1) Are you saying that 'if there a God' even so, based on the most transcendental definition of this term, still, it could not raise a corpse from the dead? I have a difficult time believing this based on human experience: things die and come back to life all the time. That a power beyond the universe could not apply the same reversal to a corpse is a metaphysical stance which bears the burden.

But my guess is, you are not arguing from such a metaphysical point of view.

So then,

2) Perhaps you are arguing that there is no reason to believe in a God who could bring a corpse back to life. But for this to be a rational position, you will need to have disproved all claims to the contrary. As far as I can see, not a single sufficient historical explanation for the rise of Christianity has been offered. Just a bunch of half-baked 'maybes'. That people think here think any 'maybe' will do is simply testimony to the lack of familiarity with historical methodology.

IMHO, as they say.

[liamconnor]

I have been a bit hypocritical; I have encouraged some posts in a direction that departed from the thread.


At any rate, I regard blind faith as one grounded on zero reason. For instance, if I were approached by a stranger and he said, "Jesus Christ was raised from the grave, believe, for the sake of your soul" and I assented, this would be blind faith.

I do not think such exists, or at least very seldom. Perhaps Islam con


But if a man said, "Jesus Christ was raised from the dead...." and I responded, "Why should I believe this?" then I have moved the conversation from the realm of blind faith into something else. Eventually that something else is revealed as reasonable faith. There is nothing 'religious' here about 'faith', for we exercise 'faith' every day of our lives.


As soon as a person in defense of Christianity brings up the point "that the empty tomb has women discovering it empty...and studies of the time show that women were not respected as witnesses...and then asks, why would the authors of the gospels place women as........"

Well, then Reason is operating. you can say the arguments are poor; but they are still arguments. Based on Reason.

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

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.

No, it's the right word. The goal is quite clearly human beings taking care of human beings (being our "brother's keeper" kind of thing), as well as the rest of creation. Again, the supreme calling of human beings is to have dominion, take responsibility, and fill the world with life of every kind. It is quite explicit.

But we are approaching this with different assumptions. You refuse to let go of this notion of an all-powerful, all-controlling super-being of a god that turns everything into a moral atrocity and robs humankind of this serious position. Great! Keep beating your drum to turn people away from such a god! It is a ridiculous one that needs to be put down. We need to recognize the extreme humanism of the bible and the only way to do that is to destroy this foolish notion.

But again, if you take a more literary approach to the text, maybe you'll see things a little differently. The fact that Lot's wife turns to salt is more properly the fate of those who look back on the evil of Sodom. It is not so much the action of an evil god-being as you contend but the logical consequence of following that path to its ultimate end. The philosophical point made through this piece of mythic literature is that there is nothing but death in the ways of Sodom, and to look back and long for or want to preserve anything of it will lead only to death. (Or more precisely, as salt signifies, a barren ground from which no life can come, which again is contrary to our purpose in this world.)

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.

Have you read literature before? Are you seriously suggesting that legitimate philosophy cannot be conveyed through the fictional or fantastic? What kind of argument is this except against an extreme literal reading of the bible, which nobody here tried to make in the first place?

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

I have no idea who you are arguing against but good job knocking down your straw man targets. You're absolutely right: dragons don't happen where we live.

[marco]

1) Are you saying that 'if there a God' even so, based on the most transcendental definition of this term, still, it could not raise a corpse from the dead?

I'm certainly not saying that. You are changing the situation from an incredible claim to the question of whether God can do this or that. The claim is that a man was raised from the dead after he'd been buried for a few days. Similarly, it is claimed that Lazarus was a stinking corpse and was raised. If I believed in magic, I might concede this is magically possible. But I am presented with a claim that I can rationally reject; I simply don't believe the claimants. They are mistaken or they are liars.

2) Perhaps you are arguing that there is no reason to believe in a God who could bring a corpse back to life. But for this to be a rational position, you will need to have disproved all claims to the contrary. As far as I can see, not a single sufficient historical explanation for the rise of Christianity has been offered. Just a bunch of half-baked 'maybes'. That people think here think any 'maybe' will do is simply testimony to the lack of familiarity with historical methodology.

I don't see how the rise of Christianity indicates the presence of God. Does the phenomenal rise of Islam show the veracity of Allah?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

Does the phenomenal rise of Islam show the veracity of Allah?

Why shouldn't phenomenal rise of Islam show the veracity of God/Allah/YHVH/Ahura-Mazda, please?

Regards

[marco]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

Does the phenomenal rise of Islam show the veracity of Allah?

Why shouldn't phenomenal rise of Islam show the veracity of God/Allah/YHVH/Ahura-Mazda, please?

Regards

Numbers are not an indication of truth. If you have a simple person and multiply his number by a million you do not acquire intelligence, just more simplicity. Islam rose because of force. In many areas of Islam those who want to escape would be regarded as traitors and perhaps sentenced to death. In many areas of Islam blasphemy is punishable by death. Do you detect intelligence here - or brute force?

As you correctly point out Allah is just a mishmash of previous gods: Yahweh, Ahura-Mazda, Baal, Zeus... Among other things he comments on skirmishes involving Arab tribesmen. Plausible? Tell me.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

Does the phenomenal rise of Islam show the veracity of Allah?

Why shouldn't phenomenal rise of Islam show the veracity of God/Allah/YHVH/Ahura-Mazda, please?

Regards

Numbers are not an indication of truth. If you have a simple person and multiply his number by a million you do not acquire intelligence, just more simplicity. Islam rose because of force. In many areas of Islam those who want to escape would be regarded as traitors and perhaps sentenced to death. In many areas of Islam blasphemy is punishable by death. Do you detect intelligence here - or brute force?

As you correctly point out Allah is just a mishmash of previous gods: Yahweh, Ahura-Mazda, Baal, Zeus... Among other things he comments on skirmishes involving Arab tribesmen. Plausible? Tell me.

Islam rose because of force.

Sorry, it is a wrong notion. Islam rose as the Meccans- nonbelievers, applied brute force to quell the most reasonable, most rational, most equitable and most peaceful religion ever propounded:
[22:40] Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 2&verse=39

The first thirteen years of the prophet-hood of Muhammad in Mecca is witness to it beyond doubt that the followers of the new religion Islam were persecuted, boycotted, looted, their housed burnt, they were attacked,threatened and killed. Didn't they have the Human Rights, please ?

Regards

[marco]

The first thirteen years of the prophet-hood of Muhammad in Mecca is witness to it beyond doubt that the followers of the new religion Islam were persecuted, boycotted, looted, their housed burnt, they were attacked,threatened and killed. Didn't they have the Human Rights, please ?

Strange that in the fights between Native Americans and the white settlers God didn't worry too much about human rights. When defenceless Christians were torn to pieces in Roman arenas, there was no God. And the children in the Holocaust cried for help in vain. But Allah managed to help some Arabs in their desert skirmishes.

It's nice that people have a deep faith and the Ahmadi brand of Islam is one of the loveliest. Sadly, Marco takes the view that if God is just he should have helped more people than Arab traders of the 7th century. The credit for that success is entirely due to Muhammad. Sadly, of course, Muslims are killing Muslims today - so much for the religion of peace. Best wishes.

[paarsurrey1]

The first thirteen years of the prophet-hood of Muhammad in Mecca is witness to it beyond doubt that the followers of the new religion Islam were persecuted, boycotted, looted, their housed burnt, they were attacked,threatened and killed. Didn't they have the Human Rights, please ?

Strange that in the fights between Native Americans and the white settlers God didn't worry too much about human rights. When defenceless Christians were torn to pieces in Roman arenas, there was no God. And the children in the Holocaust cried for help in vain. But Allah managed to help some Arabs in their desert skirmishes.

It's nice that people have a deep faith and the Ahmadi brand of Islam is one of the loveliest. Sadly, Marco takes the view that if God is just he should have helped more people than Arab traders of the 7th century. The credit for that success is entirely due to Muhammad. Sadly, of course, Muslims are killing Muslims today - so much for the religion of peace. Best wishes.

Strange that in the fights between Native Americans and the white settlers

I don't think the cruelty done to the natives in America* after when Columbus reached there has anything to do with Islam/Quran/Muhammad.
Perhaps Islam reached America, "Christopher Columbus mentions the existence of a mosque atop a hill on the coast of Cuba*.� without force.

I appreciate one's appreciation of Ahmadiyya Islam.
Regards

OOOOOOOOO
*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... et-in-line