Blind Faith: Is it True Faith or Credulity?

[2timothy316]

Credulity: ability or willingness to believe something

In a sentence: The quack pushing the phony medicine was taking advantage of the credulity of people hoping for miracle cures.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credulity

Faith: strong belief or trust in someone or something

In a sentence: But while no one with a grain of sense trusted Miss Stephanie, Jem and I had considerable faith in Miss Maudie. She had never told on us, had never played cat-and-mouse with us, she was not at all interested in our private lives. She was our friend. - Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, 1960

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Isn't what passes for 'faith' today actually credulity? What does the Bible say about true faith?

True Faith:
1. Has a well-founded reliable basis for belief.
2. Produces real hope.
3. Is based on solid and dependable evidence.
4. Is based on accurate knowledge.
5. People are not born with it.
6. Faith begins with what we hear.
7. To believe what we hear without any evidence is credulity, not faith.
8. True faith motivates us to act from our heart.

Thoughts?

[ttruscott]

Good summation of Biblical faith except heart is too ambiguous in #8...

[2timothy316]

Good summation of Biblical faith except heart is too ambiguous in #8...

"For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation." Ro 10:10

The heart seems to be where the desire and motivation is rooted to act on what is righteous.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by 2timothy316]

Isn't what passes for 'faith' today actually credulity?

It all depends on how the individual is using the word. It's a really very slippery term. Very often, I have to stop a discussion or debate about "faith" because we just can't agree on a non moving definition. A lot of people do have one or two uses for the word.. often, in the same proposition. So, ambiguity, conflation and equivocation are always something to look out for. Many people using the term don't have a clue about more sophisticated aspects of language.

It very often gets me a while to have my debate opponents in here to even become aware that there might be a problem with how they use language. Telling someone that they aren't using their own language properly doesn't always lead to a nice conversation. Unfortunately. if we can't understand each other.. there can BE no debate or intelligent conversation.

Language matters.

So, I really applaud your attempt to clarify what the word "faith" means...
I'm not sure if everyone is going to be able to agree though...



( edited : My spell check made "something to look out for" into "sometime to look out for )

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 4 by Blastcat]

I agree. It really does depend on how someone is using a word and language does matter. What I am finding is that people's belief in what word means is also too credulity. Dogma is many times actually credulity. Such as I understand there can be true faith in what a scripture says. However, faith in someone's or their own interpretation of a scripture is actually credulity. It doesn't fit the criteria for Biblical faith. I'd believe a person's interpretation of a scripture if they could perform miracles like Paul, Peter, etc etc. That is true evidence that they are indeed backed by God. Yet so many today that say their interpretations are right simply because of the church they are in, because it's an old teaching, it's tradition, because some emperor commissioned a creed some 1800 years ago... they all claim God gave them the authority, but where is the evidence?

Those that educate themselves to know the difference between true faith and credulity will have a much better chance to find truth. But before all that one must be put away pride and be humble enough to accept what true faith is...that's the biggest hurdle that many are just not going to be able to jump. And it is a person's own mind that determines the height of that humbleness hurdle...

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]

[Replying to post 4 by Blastcat]

I agree. It really does depend on how someone is using a word and language does matter. What I am finding is that people's belief in what word means is also too credulity. Dogma is many times actually credulity. Such as I understand there can be true faith in what a scripture says. However, faith in someone's or their own interpretation of a scripture is actually credulity. It doesn't fit the criteria for Biblical faith. I'd believe a person's interpretation of a scripture if they could perform miracles like Paul, Peter, etc etc. That is true evidence that they are indeed backed by God. Yet so many today that say their interpretations are right simply because of the church they are in, because it's an old teaching, it's tradition, because some emperor commissioned a creed some 1800 years ago... they all claim God gave them the authority, but where is the evidence?

Those that educate themselves to know the difference between true faith and credulity will have a much better chance to find truth. But before all that one must be put away pride and be humble enough to accept what true faith is...that's the biggest hurdle that many are just not going to be able to jump. And it is a person's own mind that determines the height of that humbleness hurdle...

Well, you seem to define faith AS credulity.
So, therefore, faith is credulity?

That's like when a Christian defines "God" as "good".
And they say, that therefore, God is good.

The words "faith", like "God" are extremely difficult to define with any rigor.

I don't think that many Christians would agree with you that the word faith means "credulity", however. I know that a lot of atheists think that way... but we aren't debating atheists.. So, I would allow a believer to define his term the way that he wants and to work with that, instead of trying to impose MY own thoughts on what it "must mean".

I am reminded of when an apologist tells me what atheism means... Not useful at all.

And it would be illuminating to me if you would explain what it is you mean by "true faith". I don't know.

If faith is credulity, true faith might be "true credulity"... and now, I'm confused.
I would need you to clarify just how you want to use the terms "blind faith", "faith" and "true faith".

You seem to be discussing three kinds of faith.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]

[Replying to post 4 by Blastcat]

I agree. It really does depend on how someone is using a word and language does matter. What I am finding is that people's belief in what word means is also too credulity. Dogma is many times actually credulity. Such as I understand there can be true faith in what a scripture says. However, faith in someone's or their own interpretation of a scripture is actually credulity. It doesn't fit the criteria for Biblical faith. I'd believe a person's interpretation of a scripture if they could perform miracles like Paul, Peter, etc etc. That is true evidence that they are indeed backed by God. Yet so many today that say their interpretations are right simply because of the church they are in, because it's an old teaching, it's tradition, because some emperor commissioned a creed some 1800 years ago... they all claim God gave them the authority, but where is the evidence?

Those that educate themselves to know the difference between true faith and credulity will have a much better chance to find truth. But before all that one must be put away pride and be humble enough to accept what true faith is...that's the biggest hurdle that many are just not going to be able to jump. And it is a person's own mind that determines the height of that humbleness hurdle...

Well, you seem to define faith AS credulity.
So, therefore, faith is credulity?

True faith has some good evidence with it. Credulity is based just on what someone is told only. One doesn't just declare faith.

That's like when a Christian defines "God" as "good".
And they say, that therefore, God is good.

If a person just says that and just believes without seeking evidence, then that is credulity. It is what passes for faith today.

However, if a person looks and finds evidence of God's goodness then they have built some faith. Even the Bible uses the world 'build' in reference to faith. Jude 20 says, "But you, beloved ones, build yourselves up on your most holy faith, and pray with holy spirit." So even those that wrote the Bible understood that faith must be built. This can only be done with evidence.

The words "faith", like "God" are extremely difficult to define with any rigor.

Couldn't this statement be an example of credulity? Who said it was difficult to define? What evidence is there of that? I personally have found evidence that these things are not difficult to define using the laws of physics, nature, personal experience, our own human behavior and the Bible.

I don't think that many Christians would agree with you that the word faith means "credulity", however. I know that a lot of atheists think that way... but we aren't debating atheists.. So, I would allow a believer to define his term the way that he wants and to work with that, instead of trying to impose MY own thoughts on what it "must mean".

If you do then that allows the person to change anything to mean anything with no backing. It will lead to frustration on both parties. Frustrating you because the other person is changing the meaning of something. Frustrating them because you will not simply believe what they say as true. Is this how many discussions play out?

I am reminded of when an apologist tells me what atheism means... Not useful at all.

Yes good example. I personally do believe in God yet when I ask some 'believers' why they believe in God, many answer, 'because I'm supposed to.' That is not faith. That is credulity.

And it would be illuminating to me if you would explain what it is you mean by "true faith". I don't know.

As you said and quite right, many don't know the word credulity even exist and the word faith has swallowed the meaning of credulity too. Thus by putting 'true' in front of the word faith I'm making note there is another type of faith. To make people pause, as you did, to know what I'm talking about is different.

If faith is credulity, true faith might be "true credulity"... and now, I'm confused.
I would need you to clarify just how you want to use the terms "blind faith", "faith" and "true faith".

You seem to be discussing three kinds of faith.

Not really three kinds of faith. I am exposing that the term faith that many people think is 'faith' there was once another word for it, credulity. That we are losing deep explanations due to a lack of education. English words are getting fused together with definitions that shouldn't be fused together. I used to be uneducated in that same way. I used to think people that had 'faith' were those that followed something with no need of proof. I know now that is not the faith the Bible speaks of and that is the kind of faith I want and would like to share.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 7 by 2timothy316]

!

[center]Nailing down those goal posts so they don't move around too much[/center]

Well, you seem to define faith AS credulity.
So, therefore, faith is credulity?

True faith has some good evidence with it. Credulity is based just on what someone is told only.

"True faith has some good evidence with it."

Could you define true faith a little bit more.. precisely?
Is "true faith" DEPENDENT on good evidence?.. and is it really just a confidence about the good evidence because the evidence is good? I can have trust or faith about good evidence BECAUSE IT'S so darn good. ( and by the way, we might not be using the term "good evidence" the same way, either. So, it might be important to define that term, too. )

I believe things ( have faith in, trust in, am convinced about, name it what you will ) that I have good evidence for. What do YOU mean?

( notice my display of frustration at not getting a straight answer with the bold all cap )

"True faith HAS some good evidence"... could you be a little more precise?

Generally speaking, when I have what I consider to be good evidence for a proposition, I don't need faith to acquire that evidence. My "faith" here would be conditional to the evidence. Or as Hume put it "proportioned to the evidence". And I would imagine that we are using the word "faith" exactly the same way as we would use the word "trust". If I think I have good data.. I usually trust it. Hence, the popular use of parachutes.

Good data: person lives, trust was well founded.
Person dies.. maybe something wrong with that data. Trust unfounded.

Do we have "faith" that a parachute will open up on a given day?.. Depends if we are using the word "Faith" to mean "Trust".

That's like when a Christian defines "God" as "good".
And they say, that therefore, God is good.

If a person just says that and just believes with seeking no evidence, then that is credulity. It what passes for faith today.

Passes for faith today.

Are you talking about everybody, or just about some people? Is everybody credulous? Do you have evidence that your statement reflects the whole of humanity?

Or, did you simply forget to qualify your statement?

And by the way, it's all very nice that you can criticize these "others" on how they use their terms, but it would be even more nice if you could actually spend a little time to define your terms in a way that I could comprehend.

I don't have that comprehension yet.. I would have to guess.

However, if a person looks and find evidence of God's goodness then they have built some faith. Jude 20 says, "But you, beloved ones, build yourselves up on your most holy faith, and pray with holy spirit." So even those that wrote the Bible understood that faith must be built. This can only be done with evidence.

How do we get evidence of the Biblical god?
How is the Bible, for example, "good evidence" for the Biblical god?

The words "faith", like "God" are extremely difficult to define with any rigor.

Couldn't this statement be an example of credulity?

I'm not at all sure what you mean by that question, sorry.

I don't usually have trouble BELIEVING my own opinions.. so, yeah, I'm credulous about me having that opinion, I suppose.

Who said it was difficult to define?

I just did.
I didn't just make that up about the terms being hard to define.. I've been at this for YEARS and still have not found many definitions that actually work, except Spinoza's idea. I got that by Einstein. Smart guy that one. Turns out he was pretty darn smart about "God" too.

I'm actually noticing that you are having a rather difficult "time" defining these terms. If they are so easy to define.. where are these easy definitions?

What evidence is there of that? I personally have found evidence that these things are not difficult to define using the laws of physics, nature, personal experience, our own human behavior and the Bible.

I have had a lot of experience discussion what "faith" means with all kinds of people.
Perhaps I could have added "It is my experience that ...". Sorry for the misstep.

So, it appears that we have two different kinds of experiences.
Now what?

How can we reach an agreement about them?

I don't think that many Christians would agree with you that the word faith means "credulity", however. I know that a lot of atheists think that way... but we aren't debating atheists.. So, I would allow a believer to define his term the way that he wants and to work with that, instead of trying to impose MY own thoughts on what it "must mean".

If you do then that allows the person to change anything to mean anything with no backing.

I ask them to define their terms, as I have done with you, and then I ask them not to change them willy-nilly, but to stick to them until we know if they need to be amended or not. And I usually ask them for evidence. Evidence is good enough backing for me.

Unjustified claims are not good enough backing.
You will notice that I do two things in these debates an awful lot:

I ask people what they mean, and I ask them for evidence of what they mean.
If I have both... then well.. I can accept what they mean is true.
Right now, discussing this with you, I have yet to understand what you mean precisely, and have not much in the way of evidence.

It will lead to frustration on both parties. Frustrating you because the other person is changing the meaning of something. Frustrating them because you will not simply believe what they say as true. Is this how many discussions play out?

Yes, often.
A lot of people do seem to have trouble keeping their goal posts from moving.
It would be worse if we didn't try to nail them down, in the first place.

I am reminded of when an apologist tells me what atheism means... Not useful at all.

Yes good example. I personally do believe in God yet when I ask some 'believers' why they believe in God, many answer, 'because I'm supposed to.' That is not faith. That is credulity.

I thought you meant that faith was credulity to some degree... I guess I am still not too clear as to how you define "faith".

When I get confused, I sometimes lack focus.
I'm having the problem I usually have with Christians or theists in general.. hard to figure out what they mean... and then they accuse me of focusing too much on semantics... and I have no choice but to focus on the meanings of the worlds people use. This is a philosophical discussion.

And these are all ABOUT meanings.
If the meanings aren't nailed down.. what's the use?

And it would be illuminating to me if you would explain what it is you mean by "true faith". I don't know.

As you said and quite right, many don't know the word credulity even exist and the word faith has swallowed the meaning of credulity too. Thus by putting 'true' in front of the word faith I'm making note there is another type of faith. To make people pause, as you did, to know what I'm talking about is different.

WOW.. you must meet some pretty inarticulate Christians if they don't even know that the word "credulity" exists. Do they need to learn the proper Bible interpretation or the English language and epistemology?

Maybe all they need is to learn how to use a dictionary.

Did you notice that you didn't actually explain just what it is you meant by "true faith"?
I'm noticing that "faith" isn't the same as "true faith". But I have yet to know what you mean by either term.

If faith is credulity, true faith might be "true credulity"... and now, I'm confused.
I would need you to clarify just how you want to use the terms "blind faith", "faith" and "true faith".
You seem to be discussing three kinds of faith.

Not really three kinds of faith. I am exposing that the term faith that many people think is 'faith' there was once another word for it, credulity.

The word "credulous" still exists.

That we are losing deep explanations due to a lack of education.

Well, I have to agree with you there. There are parts of the world where the state of public education is ABYSMAL. You have just made a case for a good education, and I support you. I don't know how that would get us close to YOUR kind of "Jesus" though.

English words are getting fused together with definitions that shouldn't be fused together. I used to think people that faith was just something people followed with no need of proof. I know now that is not the faith the Bible speaks of and that is the kind of faith I want and would like to share.

OK... I'm trying to follow this.
I don't know what kind of "faith" that you would like to share.

Let me try to reflect it back to you and see how much of it I understood, and in parenthesis.. if I agree with the statement. ) Please correct me if I misrepresented your actual position.

1. Language changes over time. ( I agree. )
2. Some definitions of faith are better than other ones. ( I'm not too sure about that. It's at least debatable. )
3. The Bible advocates using evidence to base our faith on. ( I can't agree with that statement without further justification, as I have Biblical evidence to the contrary. )

4. I have yet to understand just what it is you mean by your core terms ""blind faith", "faith" and "true faith".

So, how am I doing?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 8 by Blastcat]

It seems the trees are blocking your view of the forest.
Real faith is like knowing the Sun will 'rise' tomorrow. We have nothing to guarantee the Sun will rise tomorrow except past evidence that it will. That evidence is that the Earth as been spinning for millions of years.

True faith is the same way. There is evidence for faith in something. If a person says, "I was born to believe in God." that's not faith because that's not evidence.

Here are 3 videos about people that explain their faith of a Creator based on evidence. They are only 2 mins a piece but they should clear up what true faith is built on. None of the following people simply declared they had faith. They logically concluded from evidence they found that there must be a Creator.

A Pediatrician
https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODIntExp/p ... 08_1_VIDEO

A Roboticist
https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODIntExp/pub-pcr_2_VIDEO

A Physician
https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODIntExp/pub-pcr_1_VIDEO

Each had a starting point of their faith that motivated their heart to search for more evidence. Which brings us back to #8 True faith motivates us to act from our heart.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 9 by 2timothy316]

It seems the trees are blocking your view of the forest.

well, I wouldn't at all like that state of affairs.. help me out, will ya?

Do you think that I should generalize more?
What is this "global picture" you want me to look at... ?

Real faith is like knowing the Sun will 'rise' tomorrow.

So, is faith knowing the future?
I don't actually know the future. Do you?
I don't actually know if the sun will rise tomorrow.

Maybe today is the end of the world... Global disaster.
Unpredicted, and unpredictable... just "boom".

We have nothing to guarantee the Sun will rise tomorrow except past evidence that it will. That evidence is that the Earth as been spinning for millions of years.

Do you think that the past guarantees the future?

True faith is the same way. There is evidence for faith in something. If a person says, "I was born to believe in God." that's not faith because that's not evidence.

So, now faith is not seeing the future.. it's looking at the evidence.
Do you want me to stand away from the trees so I can look at the forest?

What is the evidence you are talking about?

Here are 3 videos about people that explain their faith of a Creator based on evidence. They are only 2 mins a piece but they should clear up what true faith is built on. None of the following people simply declared they had faith. They logically concluded from evidence they found that there must be a Creator.

I've listened to a LOT of apologetic testimonies.

Could you explain what their reasoning is that will lead us to that conclusion?
I'd like to know what you think their arguments are?

How about you just take one.
The pediatrician.


A Pediatrician
https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODIntExp/p ... 08_1_VIDEO

1. He is a pediatrician who doesn't believe in evolution.
2. He says that his own selfishness led him to believe in evolution.. thank god for JW.
3. He read a creationist book... And that was all the evidence that he needed. Evolution out, creationism in.
4. Some of his colleges called him a "heretic"..
5. That book began his belief that creationism was an alternative to the theory of evolution.
6. The birth process is amazing, so it must have taken a lot for someone to design something like that.
7. This encourages him to believe that a creator exists.
8. So, he can only conclude that it's worthwhile spending some time getting to know the person who designed it.

That's his argument as I see it...
What do you make of that?

Each had a starting point of their faith that motivated their heart to search for more evidence. Which brings us back to #8 True faith motivates us to act from our heart.

Well, I don't have "true faith" ,and I can easily "act from my heart". So I don't know what you mean.