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.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Let's not redefine terms.

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/definit ... th-faq.htm

Definition of Faith
QUESTION: What is the definition of faith?

ANSWER:
The dictionary definition of faith is, “the theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.� For a Christian, this definition is not just words on a page it is a way of life. Faith is acceptance of what we cannot see but feel deep within our hearts. Faith is a belief that one-day we will stand before our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

The Theological Virtue For Christians, believing is not seeing. Our life is built on the knowledge that God came to earth, died on a cross, rose again on the third day, and then ascended back into heaven. Why do we believe, because the Bible tells us so. We were not there when Jesus was crucified, yet we believe. We were not there when Jesus rose again, yet we believe.

Too many people want physical proof. Even Thomas, one of Jesus’ twelve disciples, said he would not believe unless he saw Jesus. What was Jesus’ answer to him when he saw Jesus? “Because you have seen me you have believed, blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe� (John 20:29). This is the theological virtue known as faith, believing what we did not see because we know it in our hearts to be true.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith
Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:
   faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof:
   He had faith that the hypothesis would besubstantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings ofreligion:
   the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

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

* 1
a :  allegiance to duty or a person :  loyalty lost faith in the company's president
 (1) :  fidelity to one's promises (2) :  sincerity of intentions acted in good faith


* 2
a (1) :  belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) :  belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) :  firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) :  complete trust


* 3
:  something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially :  a system of religious




https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-of-faith.html
Question: "What is the definition of faith?"
Answer: Thankfully, the Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.� Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is “trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.�

[theophile]

[Replying to McCulloch]

Let's not redefine terms.

I'm pretty sure the authors of biblical texts did not subscribe to the dictionary definitions you are insisting on. So I would redirect this statement you make back to yourself.

The only way forward in a conversation such as this is to develop a concept of faith using biblical sources alone.

So when you ask: What is the definition of faith? That is where your answer should immediately go, i.e., to the bible, not to some modern dictionary.

If you do that, I think you'll find that faith is not simply a proof-less or evidence-less acceptance of a proposition. It can be this, sure, but it is also more than this.

The deeper biblical concept of faith is more akin to the faithfulness that ought to exist between a husband and wife, or between partners in this world. So while a good husband may at times trust what his wife says without evidence or proof, the faithfulness of a good husband is more than that. It is also not committing adultery. It is also being there when his wife needs him. It is being a rock in the world for his wife. It is sticking with her through thick and thin. Good times and bad... It is also, I would offer, questioning what she says when it smacks of being wrong. That is what a good partner does: they disillusion the other when necessary, challenging them even when it is hard or hurtful to do so, because it is in their best interest.

That is biblical faith, or at least closer to the mark. What God wants is human beings that are faithful in the sense of good partners. With God. With each other. With the rest of creation.

Reducing faith to blind acceptance is just ridiculous, and a straw man of what biblical faith truly is.

Furthermore, if we reassert faith as such, i.e., as that which solidifies the bonds of partnership, I would re-ask the question in the other thread whether such a faith is an impediment to finding truth.

In fact, it is the very condition of it. Finding truth requires just such a partnership where the partners both support and challenge each other. Where they listen but also question. Where they work together for mutual interest even when times are hard. (Isn't that what the entire enterprise known as science, essentially, is? ...)

[McCulloch]

Let's not redefine terms.

I'm pretty sure the authors of biblical texts did not subscribe to the dictionary definitions you are insisting on.

I am reasonably sure that the translators of the New Testament from Greek into English did a fairly good job.

The only way forward in a conversation such as this is to develop a concept of faith using biblical sources alone.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you. Presumably many words and concepts used in the New Testament exist and have been in use outside the Bible. However, go ahead and attempt to develop a concept of faith using biblical sources alone.

So when you ask: What is the definition of faith? That is where your answer should immediately go, i.e., to the bible, not to some modern dictionary.

If you do that, I think you'll find that faith is not simply a proof-less or evidence-less acceptance of a proposition. It can be this, sure, but it is also more than this.

The deeper biblical concept of faith is more akin to the faithfulness that ought to exist between a husband and wife, or between partners in this world. So while a good husband may at times trust what his wife says without evidence or proof, the faithfulness of a good husband is more than that. It is also not committing adultery. It is also being there when his wife needs him. It is being a rock in the world for his wife. It is sticking with her through thick and thin. Good times and bad... It is also, I would offer, questioning what she says when it smacks of being wrong. That is what a good partner does: they disillusion the other when necessary, challenging them even when it is hard or hurtful to do so, because it is in their best interest.

That is biblical faith, or at least closer to the mark. What God wants is human beings that are faithful in the sense of good partners. With God. With each other. With the rest of creation.

Reducing faith to blind acceptance is just ridiculous, and a straw man of what biblical faith truly is.

Furthermore, if we reassert faith as such, i.e., as that which solidifies the bonds of partnership, I would re-ask the question in the other thread whether such a faith is an impediment to finding truth.

In fact, it is the very condition of it. Finding truth requires just such a partnership where the partners both support and challenge each other. Where they listen but also question. Where they work together for mutual interest even when times are hard. (Isn't that what the entire enterprise known as science, essentially, is? ...)

I think that something is missing. I wonder what it might be? Theophile is endeavouring to define the concept of faith using only biblical sources. Hmmm. What is missing? I know! Not a single biblical reference. I think that there is a biblical word for holding someone else to a standard that you are unwilling to hold yourself to. I think it is a Greek derived word starting with 'h'.

Perhaps it should be noted that the first source that I cited to define faith is a Christian site which includes a statement of faith. "The Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God - a supernaturally integrated set of 66 books, written by 40 authors, over nearly 2,000 years." Unlike Theophile, they used biblical references to define faith.
The final source cited is also Christian. From their statement of faith: We believe the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired, infallible, and authoritative Word of God (Matthew 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). In faith we hold the Bible to be inerrant in the original writings, God-breathed, and the complete and final authority for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). While still using the individual writing styles of the human authors, the Holy Spirit perfectly guided them to ensure they wrote precisely what He wanted written, without error or omission (2 Peter 1:21).. Just in case anyone missed it, here is their biblically supported definition: Thankfully, the Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.� Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is “trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.�

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]

Let's not redefine terms.

If a definition does not cover my own situation, I either have to correct the definition, or find a different word. If you have a better word for my definition above, I am open to suggestions. But Frankly, I am more impressed by my own reasoning than by your quoting: no Christian that I have ever met thinks he has zero evidence for believing: that his believe in the resurrection is exactly tantamount to a child's belief in Santa Clause.

“Because you have seen me you have believed, blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe� (John 20:29).

Your paraphrase, I presume, would run "Blessed are those who believe without being given a single argument in its favor"?

I do not interpret it this way. But we can play the quote war all day long:

15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; (1Pe 3:15 NAS)

We see that Reasoning (apologia) and Hope sit quite comfortably.

noun
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.

I just got back from the doctor. I placed implicit trust in her ability. Was this trust grounded on nothing? Or was it reasonable to have faith in her ability?

belief that is not based on proof:

note this is not "belief that is without evidence". My own definition acknowledges that 'faith' is not beyond logical dispute--however, it is not blind faith. It is grounded on evidence.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1 NAS)

The examples given are of men who placed faith in God's future faithfulness. In most of the cases there was direct communication between the two. That would comprise the evidence part of the equation.

[McCulloch]

no Christian that I have ever met thinks he has zero evidence for believing: that his believe in the resurrection is exactly tantamount to a child's belief in Santa Clause.

Did I ever say zero evidence? No. I think that I said that the available evidence does not support confident belief.

15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

We see that Reasoning (apologia) and Hope sit quite comfortably.

Peter does indeed assume this. His writings, however, are entirely missing anything like apologetics.

I just got back from the doctor. I placed implicit trust in her ability. Was this trust grounded on nothing? Or was it reasonable to have faith in her ability?

Your confidence in your doctor's medical prowess is based on greater evidence than your confidence in the truthfulness of the writers of the New Testament.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 6 by McCulloch]

Your confidence in your doctor's medical prowess is based on greater evidence than your confidence in the truthfulness of the writers of the New Testament.

Not sure if I agree; I did zero research on my doctor. I had faith in the 'system'. However, had I subjected her to rigorous inquiry, I probably would have had more evidence than I do of any of my historical beliefs.

But my religious beliefs rest on strong evidence: assuming that the authors of the N.T. were lying, or idiots, is irrational.

[theophile]

[Replying to McCulloch]

I am reasonably sure that the translators of the New Testament from Greek into English did a fairly good job.

The bible is a story. It doesn't expound concepts like a dictionary so much as it explores them through narrative. So the problem is that faith (or lack of faith) needs to be discerned through the relationships of the characters in the bible and their interactions with each other, e.g., between Israel and God, between other characters and God, between human beings and creation. Faith is in the relationship.

It is only when things like reason and science come to the fore that faith becomes non-relational and more of an... epistemological concept. i.e., instead of existing in our relationships with each other, faith only exists in our relationship to statements or propositions, e.g., "God exists," "the earth was created 6000 years ago."

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you. Presumably many words and concepts used in the New Testament exist and have been in use outside the Bible.

But what does a modern dictionary definition have to do with what you say? Those words and their meaning are thousands of years old! Are the dictionaries that you consulted from back then? No, they are not. Hence, not exactly a good reference.

Much better that you consult an academic that studies the meaning of words in ancient Hebrew or Greek or whatever other language. The meaning of words changes over time.

I think that something is missing. I wonder what it might be? Theophile is endeavouring to define the concept of faith using only biblical sources. Hmmm. What is missing? I know! Not a single biblical reference. I think that there is a biblical word for holding someone else to a standard that you are unwilling to hold yourself to. I think it is a Greek derived word starting with 'h'.

You'll notice that Theophile said: "If you do that, I think you'll find..." I think I set expectations that I wasn't about to do a biblical analysis. My only goal was to point you in an alternative (and I think more fruitful) direction.

But look, you're sidestepping the point: your modern dictionary reference is useless.

Perhaps it should be noted that the first source that I cited to define faith is a Christian site which includes a statement of faith. "The Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God - a supernaturally integrated set of 66 books, written by 40 authors, over nearly 2,000 years." Unlike Theophile, they used biblical references to define faith.

A Christian site: that's laughable. At least use the Catholic Church or something that has some history and weight behind it. Or academic sources.

Thankfully, the Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.� Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is “trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.�

And just what, exactly, is the "in" that faith "trusts in"? Is it, to my point, our relationships? i.e., the point being that we should trust in God, trust in each other? As in, marriage, partnership, etc? (A theme, you'll note, that goes back strong to the beginning of Genesis?)

Or is it, as you want to stress, trust in a notion? e.g., that God exists? That the bible is inerrant? That the world was created 6000 years ago? ...

You are taking a much more narrow view that neglects a whole biblical tradition where God is constantly upset with Israel, not because Israel fails to affirm rational belief in such things as this, but because Israel is an adulteress, and constantly commits idolatry.

There is a current as deep as the marriage theme that is as clear as day and runs throughout the bible. One example among many is Jeremiah 3:8:

"I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries."

See? A broader and more biblical notion of faith (where faith is about our relationships with God and each other) that covers your narrow view and results in a far more robust concept.

Do you want more biblical evidence or are these broad strokes enough to at least poke some holes in your narrow view and point you in a more fruitful direction?

[Kenisaw]

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.

So based on your definition, we can assume that you have overwhelmingly probable evidence for your god creature? Awesome, bring it forth for all to see and verify.

After you do that, maybe you can explain to me where doubt exists that doesn't come from the human mind...

[JehovahsWitness]

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 would agree, I don't know what "fideism" is but I would say that the quote reflects the biblical warnings against "blind faith" or "credulity".