Factors in religion such as blind faith aren’t okay because they don’t let some people to think for themselves. Now I’m not saying this is the case for every theist on earth, but it still effects many of them.
Blind faith sometimes prohibits people from finding out different answers to the meaning or origin of life, and it can make people more ignorant than logical. Also, there are many hateful and radical theist communities that have very traditional views on things, and being raised in such communities just makes blind faith worse
That’s why denominations of religions that practise things such as believes baptisms are better for a faith than being born into it and following it blindly. It allows for them to find different paths, and if they choose to stay then they can.
Side note: I’m not saying there aren’t any hateful Atheists, there are, and can be just as bad as religious ones
Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by jimwalton » Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:49 am
I agree that blind faith is not OK. That's why Christians don't subscribe to it or practice it. In the Bible, faith is evidentiary. I define Biblical faith as "making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable." In my opinion, belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence. When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That's faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.
Almost all of life works this way because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith, because 10,000 times you've turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn't open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you walk forward in faith.
We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. But every time we turn a car key, we do it because we believe it will start. The evidence is compelling, and it was a conscious choice. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.
You'll notice in the Bible that evidence precedes faith. There is no "close your eyes and jump off a cliff" and good luck to ya! God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe. He gave signs to take back to Pharaoh and the Israelite people, so they could see the signs before they were expected to believe. So also through the whole OT. In the NT, Jesus started off with turning water into wine, healing some people, casting out demons, and then he taught them about faith. And they couldn't possibly understand the resurrection until there was some evidence to go on. The whole Bible is God revealing himself to us all—and I mean actually, not through some exercise of faith.
When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. Jesus could have just ascended to heaven, the disciples figured out that he had prophesied it, and went around telling people He rose. But that's not what happened. He walked around and let them touch him, talk to him, eat with him, and THEN he said, "Believe that I have risen from the dead."
My faith in God is a conscious choice because I find the evidence compelling. It's an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for me to make that assumption. When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. Jesus could have just ascended to heaven, the disciples figured out that he had prophesied it, and went around telling people He rose. But that's not what happened. He walked around and let them touch him, talk to him, eat with him, and THEN he said, "Believe that I have risen from the dead." The same is true for my belief in the existence of God, my belief that the Bible is God's word, and my understanding of how life works.
I would contend that faith is never blind.
Almost all of life works this way because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith, because 10,000 times you've turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn't open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you walk forward in faith.
We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. But every time we turn a car key, we do it because we believe it will start. The evidence is compelling, and it was a conscious choice. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.
You'll notice in the Bible that evidence precedes faith. There is no "close your eyes and jump off a cliff" and good luck to ya! God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe. He gave signs to take back to Pharaoh and the Israelite people, so they could see the signs before they were expected to believe. So also through the whole OT. In the NT, Jesus started off with turning water into wine, healing some people, casting out demons, and then he taught them about faith. And they couldn't possibly understand the resurrection until there was some evidence to go on. The whole Bible is God revealing himself to us all—and I mean actually, not through some exercise of faith.
When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. Jesus could have just ascended to heaven, the disciples figured out that he had prophesied it, and went around telling people He rose. But that's not what happened. He walked around and let them touch him, talk to him, eat with him, and THEN he said, "Believe that I have risen from the dead."
- In Matthew 8.4 Jesus encourages the man he just healed to go show the evidence that it was true.
- John 14.11 (and also 17.8): Jesus encouraged people to verify the evidences
- Heb. 11.1: Faith is based on evidences
- Romans 1.20 (the passage you mentioned). There are evidences, and we shouldn't be afraid to investigate them.
My faith in God is a conscious choice because I find the evidence compelling. It's an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for me to make that assumption. When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. Jesus could have just ascended to heaven, the disciples figured out that he had prophesied it, and went around telling people He rose. But that's not what happened. He walked around and let them touch him, talk to him, eat with him, and THEN he said, "Believe that I have risen from the dead." The same is true for my belief in the existence of God, my belief that the Bible is God's word, and my understanding of how life works.
I would contend that faith is never blind.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by Drummer » Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:45 am
You use the word evidence a lot considering there isn't really any for your God.
- Drummer
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by jimwalton » Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:50 am
There is plenty of evidence for God: logical, scientific, natural, axiological, and experiential.
In reply, I would graciously request that you itemize the evidence you have that nature is a closed system, that metaphysical realities are impossible, that the atheistic (naturalistic) argument for what we see is stronger than the theistic one, and that logic and reason warrant against the existence of a God than in favor of him. Let's see your case.
- There's logical evidence for God from causality, and from purpose.
- There's natural evidence for God from order, regularity, predictability, beauty, personality, and purpose.
- There's scientific evidence for God from elements of fine tuning, many factors that point to an intelligent designer, and from purpose.
- There's axiological evidence for God from a universal notion of right and wrong.
- There's experiential evidence for God from billions upon billions of people who have experienced him.
In reply, I would graciously request that you itemize the evidence you have that nature is a closed system, that metaphysical realities are impossible, that the atheistic (naturalistic) argument for what we see is stronger than the theistic one, and that logic and reason warrant against the existence of a God than in favor of him. Let's see your case.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by Orpheus » Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:21 am
> I agree that blind faith is not OK. That's why Christians don't subscribe to it or practice it
They do. Christians can raise their children to believe in God without telling them why, other than that “thats what we’re supposed to do”. It happens all the time, it happened to me and it’s happened to my friends and many others.
> Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That'so faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.
Yes, but evidence for a chair working as it was designed to is evidence based in logic and sense experience. Having faith in a figure that I cannot physically see with my own eyes, or a figure that can perform miracles that don’t reside in logic isn’t as sufficient as the evidence of a chair working. I have sat in a chair countless times, yes, but I have not seen God with my own eyes countless times or seen water turn into wine at all.
> That's faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.
The Bible isn’t a reasonable amount of evidence as it can easily be manipulated or even fantasised.
> My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings
The credibility of those writings are highly debated, even amongst Christians. The authority and origins of the Bible are not sufficient evidence for many, and the fact that it is for some is proof that those who believe it is enough evidence have some amount of blind faith.
> ”Believe that I have risen from the dead."
In what way is rising from the dead without the help of science or modern medicine logical or within reason? No one has done it since Jesus, who may not have even done it at all. The credibility of a book over 2,000 years old is ‘iffy’ at best.
> My faith in God is a conscious choice because I find the evidence compelling
I don’t intend to disrespect your own beliefs or your right to believe them, but in my opinion this shows that you have some amount of blind / biased faith. This sort of captures a bit of what I was trying to say by this post. That Blind Faith = Ignorance
And half of this post sounds like someone preaching to me the Gospel, not actually putting out a counter argument (once again, I mean no disrespect).
They do. Christians can raise their children to believe in God without telling them why, other than that “thats what we’re supposed to do”. It happens all the time, it happened to me and it’s happened to my friends and many others.
> Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That'so faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.
Yes, but evidence for a chair working as it was designed to is evidence based in logic and sense experience. Having faith in a figure that I cannot physically see with my own eyes, or a figure that can perform miracles that don’t reside in logic isn’t as sufficient as the evidence of a chair working. I have sat in a chair countless times, yes, but I have not seen God with my own eyes countless times or seen water turn into wine at all.
> That's faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.
The Bible isn’t a reasonable amount of evidence as it can easily be manipulated or even fantasised.
> My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings
The credibility of those writings are highly debated, even amongst Christians. The authority and origins of the Bible are not sufficient evidence for many, and the fact that it is for some is proof that those who believe it is enough evidence have some amount of blind faith.
> ”Believe that I have risen from the dead."
In what way is rising from the dead without the help of science or modern medicine logical or within reason? No one has done it since Jesus, who may not have even done it at all. The credibility of a book over 2,000 years old is ‘iffy’ at best.
> My faith in God is a conscious choice because I find the evidence compelling
I don’t intend to disrespect your own beliefs or your right to believe them, but in my opinion this shows that you have some amount of blind / biased faith. This sort of captures a bit of what I was trying to say by this post. That Blind Faith = Ignorance
And half of this post sounds like someone preaching to me the Gospel, not actually putting out a counter argument (once again, I mean no disrespect).
- Orpheus
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by jimwalton » Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:21 am
> They do. Christians can raise their children to believe in God without telling them why, other than that “thats what we’re supposed to do”. It happens all the time, it happened to me and it’s happened to my friends and many others.
OK, then you've lived in a Christian culture completely different than anything I've ever seen. I was never taught that. I was taught to think, and to look for evidence, and I do. And the Bible doesn't teach that faith is blind, as I showed.
> Yes, but evidence for a chair working as it was designed to is evidence based in logic and sense experience. Having faith in a figure that I cannot physically see with my own eyes, or a figure that can perform miracles that don’t reside in logic isn’t as sufficient as the evidence of a chair working. I have sat in a chair countless times, yes, but I have not seen God with my own eyes countless times or seen water turn into wine at all.
You seem to be making a Hegelian mistake that religious thought, evidence, and faith are distinct from rational thought and evidence. Because you haven't seen God doesn't mean that others haven't. Because you weren't there the day Jesus turned water into wine doesn't mean it didn't happen. Besides, something like that doesn't leave behind any material evidence, so it's not studiable later. My should ached yesterday, but I can't prove it; but because there's no material evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. Because you didn't see it with your own eyes doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't happen. If that were the case, you'd never read a newspaper, magazine, watch the news, or read the news on the Internet. You didn't see that stuff.
Miracles do reside in logic. There's nothing about a miracle that is impossible in science. Science is the description of how things operate in a given system assuming there is no external interference. Science can't begin to claim the system is known to be closed and that external interference is both nonexistent and impossible. Logic actually supports the possibility of miracles. And from what we know about quantum mechanics, miracles are even more possible in QM than in classical physics. Miracles pose no logical problem to our world unless you a priori rule them out by bias.
> The Bible isn’t a reasonable amount of evidence as it can easily be manipulated or even fantasised.
For this you need to give proof, or at least some evidence to support your assertion. The miracles of the Bible often had multiple, and sometimes even hundreds and even thousands, of witnesses. But they have no durable artifactual residue. Just like Hannibal coming over the mountains on elephants. There's no proof except the credibility we place in certain authors.
And haven't you been involved in scientific studies? Haven't you heard about many many cases of the data being manipulated? I sure have. That's not to discredit science, but if that's your reasoning, then it's pretty loose reasoning.
> The credibility of those writings are highly debated, even amongst Christians.
Debate is healthy. It happens in every discipline: science, history, journalism, jurisprudence, economics, and biblical studies. Debate doesn't denigrate. When you study the actual evidence for the things the Bible claims, the evidence is quite strong.
> The authority and origins of the Bible are not sufficient evidence for many, and the fact that it is for some is proof that those who believe it is enough evidence have some amount of blind faith.
The origins and authority of the Bible is sufficient for the type of discipline it is. I've studied this deeply and would be glad to discuss it further with you.
> In what way is rising from the dead without the help of science or modern medicine logical or within reason?
The resurrection is not presented as a scientific or logical occurrence. On the contrary, it's presented as a miracle. It's logical and reasonable as one examines all the evidence to consider alternative explanations, and that Jesus's physical resurrection is actually the most logical explanation of the event.
> No one has done it since Jesus, who may not have even done it at all.
Yeah, that's the point. God is the only one who could do such a thing. Humanity is incapable of it, and it is unknown in human experience and power.
> but in my opinion this shows that you have some amount of blind / biased faith. This sort of captures a bit of what I was trying to say by this post. That Blind Faith = Ignorance
Your opinion, which I would regard as somewhat prejudicial and bias, is that I have some amount of blind faith. But unless you're going to accept that belief of yours blindly, you need to provide evidence that I am acting ignorantly. Otherwise, not intending to be disrespectful to you, you are just voicing an unfounded and biased opinion based in ignorance. You don't know me, and we've had very little conversation. How can you conclude, unless it's just bias on your part, that I believe blindly and that is tantamount to ignorance? It seems to me you've stuck your foot in your own poop pile.
> And half of this post sounds like someone preaching to me the Gospel, not actually putting out a counter argument (once again, I mean no disrespect).
I was giving evidence. You say Christians engage in blind faith. I gave you examples from real life (chairs, doors, etc.) that faith is common in daily activity. I gave you examples from the Bible that biblical faith is never blind but always based on evidence. I gave you examples from my own pursuit of knowledge and truth and I go for evidence, not blind belief. So on what basis do you say I didn't put out an argument and are just "preaching the Gospel"?
On the contrary, it is you who seems to be making conclusions with no foundation (and therefore blind belief), grounded in bias, and expression of prejudicial thought. (Again, I mean no disrespect, either. If we're doing to discuss this, we have to discuss it.)
There's plenty here to discuss (probably more than the limitations of the forum allows): the possibility of miracles, the credibility of the biblical writings, the evidence behind the biblical writings, evidences for the resurrection, evidences for theism, and my inferring the most reasonable conclusion based on evidences. There is nothing in anything I said that is blind faith; it's all based on evidences and reason.
Let's talk, though we may have to be selective.
OK, then you've lived in a Christian culture completely different than anything I've ever seen. I was never taught that. I was taught to think, and to look for evidence, and I do. And the Bible doesn't teach that faith is blind, as I showed.
> Yes, but evidence for a chair working as it was designed to is evidence based in logic and sense experience. Having faith in a figure that I cannot physically see with my own eyes, or a figure that can perform miracles that don’t reside in logic isn’t as sufficient as the evidence of a chair working. I have sat in a chair countless times, yes, but I have not seen God with my own eyes countless times or seen water turn into wine at all.
You seem to be making a Hegelian mistake that religious thought, evidence, and faith are distinct from rational thought and evidence. Because you haven't seen God doesn't mean that others haven't. Because you weren't there the day Jesus turned water into wine doesn't mean it didn't happen. Besides, something like that doesn't leave behind any material evidence, so it's not studiable later. My should ached yesterday, but I can't prove it; but because there's no material evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. Because you didn't see it with your own eyes doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't happen. If that were the case, you'd never read a newspaper, magazine, watch the news, or read the news on the Internet. You didn't see that stuff.
Miracles do reside in logic. There's nothing about a miracle that is impossible in science. Science is the description of how things operate in a given system assuming there is no external interference. Science can't begin to claim the system is known to be closed and that external interference is both nonexistent and impossible. Logic actually supports the possibility of miracles. And from what we know about quantum mechanics, miracles are even more possible in QM than in classical physics. Miracles pose no logical problem to our world unless you a priori rule them out by bias.
> The Bible isn’t a reasonable amount of evidence as it can easily be manipulated or even fantasised.
For this you need to give proof, or at least some evidence to support your assertion. The miracles of the Bible often had multiple, and sometimes even hundreds and even thousands, of witnesses. But they have no durable artifactual residue. Just like Hannibal coming over the mountains on elephants. There's no proof except the credibility we place in certain authors.
And haven't you been involved in scientific studies? Haven't you heard about many many cases of the data being manipulated? I sure have. That's not to discredit science, but if that's your reasoning, then it's pretty loose reasoning.
> The credibility of those writings are highly debated, even amongst Christians.
Debate is healthy. It happens in every discipline: science, history, journalism, jurisprudence, economics, and biblical studies. Debate doesn't denigrate. When you study the actual evidence for the things the Bible claims, the evidence is quite strong.
> The authority and origins of the Bible are not sufficient evidence for many, and the fact that it is for some is proof that those who believe it is enough evidence have some amount of blind faith.
The origins and authority of the Bible is sufficient for the type of discipline it is. I've studied this deeply and would be glad to discuss it further with you.
> In what way is rising from the dead without the help of science or modern medicine logical or within reason?
The resurrection is not presented as a scientific or logical occurrence. On the contrary, it's presented as a miracle. It's logical and reasonable as one examines all the evidence to consider alternative explanations, and that Jesus's physical resurrection is actually the most logical explanation of the event.
> No one has done it since Jesus, who may not have even done it at all.
Yeah, that's the point. God is the only one who could do such a thing. Humanity is incapable of it, and it is unknown in human experience and power.
> but in my opinion this shows that you have some amount of blind / biased faith. This sort of captures a bit of what I was trying to say by this post. That Blind Faith = Ignorance
Your opinion, which I would regard as somewhat prejudicial and bias, is that I have some amount of blind faith. But unless you're going to accept that belief of yours blindly, you need to provide evidence that I am acting ignorantly. Otherwise, not intending to be disrespectful to you, you are just voicing an unfounded and biased opinion based in ignorance. You don't know me, and we've had very little conversation. How can you conclude, unless it's just bias on your part, that I believe blindly and that is tantamount to ignorance? It seems to me you've stuck your foot in your own poop pile.
> And half of this post sounds like someone preaching to me the Gospel, not actually putting out a counter argument (once again, I mean no disrespect).
I was giving evidence. You say Christians engage in blind faith. I gave you examples from real life (chairs, doors, etc.) that faith is common in daily activity. I gave you examples from the Bible that biblical faith is never blind but always based on evidence. I gave you examples from my own pursuit of knowledge and truth and I go for evidence, not blind belief. So on what basis do you say I didn't put out an argument and are just "preaching the Gospel"?
On the contrary, it is you who seems to be making conclusions with no foundation (and therefore blind belief), grounded in bias, and expression of prejudicial thought. (Again, I mean no disrespect, either. If we're doing to discuss this, we have to discuss it.)
There's plenty here to discuss (probably more than the limitations of the forum allows): the possibility of miracles, the credibility of the biblical writings, the evidence behind the biblical writings, evidences for the resurrection, evidences for theism, and my inferring the most reasonable conclusion based on evidences. There is nothing in anything I said that is blind faith; it's all based on evidences and reason.
Let's talk, though we may have to be selective.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by Large Litter » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:20 pm
> I define Biblical faith as "making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable."
Christian [self-identification]
If your belief is a result of Biblical Faith (from the definition above, and not from the definition given in the Bible itself (i.e., Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Faith is based upon an appeal to emotion and non-evidential claims.) then, what is this evidence of which you speak? what is your standard of evidence/level of reliability and confidence threshold for "reasonable" support for a trueness claim of fact? and how does this evidence meet this threshold?
> In my opinion, belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence.
A choice? Gravity is (simplified) an attractive force. Literally all credible evidence supports this trueness/fact. Please show how belief in gravity as an attractive force is (merely) a choice.
> When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time.
A good example of Faith/Trust based upon inductive reasoning. Not to be conflated nor equivocated to Theistic Religious Faith/Trust based upon an appeal to emotion (or a low level of reliability and confidence threshold that does not support critical inductive reasoning). To conflate the two types of F/faith is a strawman.
> You'll notice in the Bible that evidence precedes faith. There is no "close your eyes and jump off a cliff" and good luck to ya! God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe.
The creation stories in Genesis are both based upon God as a creator God - without presenting evidence. This 'fact' is either presuppositionalistic or based on faith.
Also, the God YHWH/Jesus is great for mixed messages. Requirements for belief without evidence (which is, somehow, called a 'virtue') and the actual presentation of evidence (within the narratives) abound within the canon scripture. An illustrative example, the story of Doubting Thomas. John 20:24-29
> I would contend that biblical faith, Christian faith, is never blind.
While I disagree/have issues with parts of your comment, I agree with this - with the qualification that the definition (which OP did not provide) for blind faith is:
Theistic Religion Faith, including Christian Faith, is almost always based upon some level of understanding, perception, or discrimination. Even if only based upon an appeal to emotion.
The only argument that I can make for 'blind Faith' is for those that express belief based upon no understanding or consideration of the claim for which express belief. An example would be those that have such a low level of cognitive ability or knowledge to assess the meaning of the claim the express belief in - ex., a young child that believes in God because mommie and/or daddy said so. Unfortunately, this blind fact often serves as the basis for a conditioned response which is then later boosted into a considered belief which rests upon a foundation of blind-Faith based confirmation bias.
Christian [self-identification]
If your belief is a result of Biblical Faith (from the definition above, and not from the definition given in the Bible itself (i.e., Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Faith is based upon an appeal to emotion and non-evidential claims.) then, what is this evidence of which you speak? what is your standard of evidence/level of reliability and confidence threshold for "reasonable" support for a trueness claim of fact? and how does this evidence meet this threshold?
> In my opinion, belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence.
A choice? Gravity is (simplified) an attractive force. Literally all credible evidence supports this trueness/fact. Please show how belief in gravity as an attractive force is (merely) a choice.
> When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time.
A good example of Faith/Trust based upon inductive reasoning. Not to be conflated nor equivocated to Theistic Religious Faith/Trust based upon an appeal to emotion (or a low level of reliability and confidence threshold that does not support critical inductive reasoning). To conflate the two types of F/faith is a strawman.
> You'll notice in the Bible that evidence precedes faith. There is no "close your eyes and jump off a cliff" and good luck to ya! God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe.
The creation stories in Genesis are both based upon God as a creator God - without presenting evidence. This 'fact' is either presuppositionalistic or based on faith.
Also, the God YHWH/Jesus is great for mixed messages. Requirements for belief without evidence (which is, somehow, called a 'virtue') and the actual presentation of evidence (within the narratives) abound within the canon scripture. An illustrative example, the story of Doubting Thomas. John 20:24-29
> I would contend that biblical faith, Christian faith, is never blind.
While I disagree/have issues with parts of your comment, I agree with this - with the qualification that the definition (which OP did not provide) for blind faith is:
Blind faith is “belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination.”
Theistic Religion Faith, including Christian Faith, is almost always based upon some level of understanding, perception, or discrimination. Even if only based upon an appeal to emotion.
The only argument that I can make for 'blind Faith' is for those that express belief based upon no understanding or consideration of the claim for which express belief. An example would be those that have such a low level of cognitive ability or knowledge to assess the meaning of the claim the express belief in - ex., a young child that believes in God because mommie and/or daddy said so. Unfortunately, this blind fact often serves as the basis for a conditioned response which is then later boosted into a considered belief which rests upon a foundation of blind-Faith based confirmation bias.
- Large Litter
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by jimwalton » Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:05 pm
> Christian [self-identification]
There are several ways the Bible defines faith. If we're going to talk about what the Bible means by faith, we have to go with biblical definitions:
The way I'm using it is in the last sense listed above, a thoroughly biblical perspective on faith.
> If your belief is a result of Biblical Faith (from the definition above, and not from the definition given in the Bible itself (i.e., Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
It's fascinating how you try to manipulate the text by highlighting the parts you perceive to show that faith is blind, but your exegesis is flawed.
"Faith is being sure of what we hope for." "Being sure of" is the term ὑπόστασις. It means "certainty about the reality of, the substantial nature of something, the reality (in contrast to what merely seems to be; knowing confidence." The term was common in business documents as to the basis or guarantee of transactions. This "assurance" was the real substance undergirding present and future action.
So what the author is saying is that our faith is a kind of knowledge grounded in the reality of something, based on what is actually there in contrast to what merely seems to be.
He says we can know ("be sure of") what we hope for. "Hope" in the Bible is our confidence and certainty about things we know to be real, even though we haven't experienced them yet (much like sitting in a chair or opening a door). Our "hope" is what we know: things that happened in the past (Jesus's death and resurrection), things happening in the present (our experiences of spiritual reality), and things in the future (what we can't possibly have seen yet). "Hope" is what we know to be true; it is knowledge, pure and simple. Because we have evidence (like sitting in a chair), we know about the future (the chair will hold us).
The second half of the verse: "the evidence of things not seen." What is it about the word "evidence" that your eyes completely missed as you highlighted "not seen"? The Greek word is ἔλεγχος, and means "proof; conviction about what there is evidence for; certainty." We can have certainty about what can't be seen at the present because of the evidence at hand.
That's what Hebrews 11.1 is saying. There's nothing blind about biblical faith. It's based in knowledge and evidence.
> Then you say, "Faith is based upon an appeal to emotion and non-evidential claims.) then, what is this evidence of which you speak?"
There is nothing about biblical faith based in emotion and non-evidential claims. I have given more than adequate rebuttal to that idea.
> what is your standard of evidence/level of reliability and confidence threshold for "reasonable" support for a trueness claim of fact? and how does this evidence meet this threshold?
Historicity, corroboration, experience, artifactual support, logic, and science.
> A choice? Gravity is (simplified) an attractive force. Literally all credible evidence supports this trueness/fact. Please show how belief in gravity as an attractive force is (merely) a choice.
Belief in gravity is not a choice. We don't "believe" in gravity. Gravity as a proved force is in a different category, as is light, velocity, energy, and mass.
> Not to be conflated nor equivocated to Theistic Religious Faith/Trust based upon an appeal to emotion
Again, there is nothing about theistic religious faith based on an appeal to emotion. Though emotions are involved in the expression of faith, they have nothing to do with the ground of it.
> The creation stories in Genesis are both based upon God as a creator God - without presenting evidence.
Creation story is also in a different category, even in scientific circles. Studying cosmological origins cannot involve controls, reproducibility, and confirmability that are the pillars of the scientific method. We can't do experiments pertaining to origins. Logic, math, and what we perceive in nature (regularity, consistency, and predictability) are extrapolated to theorize about the universe's beginnings. Are such things truly part of science and part of knowledge? Only in one sense, but not like our studies of the natural sciences at all.
Darwinism, for instance, is a theory about natural history, not natural law, and as a result its standards of explanation (and validation) are significantly different from those of much of science, and certainly the gold standard of physics. The evolutionary theory of the origin of the species, by virtue of its topic, natural history, is obliged to straddle between history and science. To qualify as science, the real differences between evolutionary standards of explanation and the standards of the physical sciences are discounted.
> Also, the God YHWH/Jesus is great for mixed messages.
Not mixed messages at all. One must merely take the time to do the work. Jesus, as I mentioned (Mt. 8.4; Jn. 14.11 & 17.8), advocated pursuit of evidence to form one's beliefs. You bring up the story of Doubting Thomas in Jn. 20.24-29. You missed the point of the story and of Jesus's words. Thomas demanded evidence (vv. 24-25), and Jesus complied (v. 27). His words in v. 27 are important: Now that you have the evidence, stop doubting and believe.
But then you want to pick on v. 29 (ignoring the rest, it seems, as you did with Heb. 11.1): "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed." That doesn't mean there's a dearth of evidence, or that faith is believing without evidence or contrary to evidence. Rather, there are some who don't get to experience the evidence directly. And there are different kinds of evidence (artifactual, testimonial, circumstantial). Jesus knew that very soon he would be leaving the earth and people would have to make a decision based on the evidence of the testimony of reliable witnesses, the historical evidence of the resurrection, and the experiential evidence of changed lives. But it's true they would not get to see. Not everyone gets to see, but visible evidence isn't the only kind of evidence. Even visible evidence can have its drawbacks, in case a particular event was a hallucination or a dream. That doesn't mean faith is blind. The people who believed in the resurrection of Jesus after he ascended were still making a decision based on evidence.
> An example would be those that have such a low level of cognitive ability or knowledge to assess the meaning of the claim the express belief in - ex., a young child that believes in God because mommie and/or daddy said so.
Yes, possibly for a young child, his or her belief is blind, but not necessarily without evidence. In a sense, he or she has the "authoritative" testimony of Mom & Dad as evidence for his or her belief. His reliance on their word isn't a whole lot different than a student's reliance on the words of his teacher or a viewer's reliance on the words of the journalist. We choose which authorities to trust and base our beliefs on that trust—primarily (in adult life) because we have enough evidence to convince us that these sources of information are trustworthy.
There are several ways the Bible defines faith. If we're going to talk about what the Bible means by faith, we have to go with biblical definitions:
- Faith is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." This is the commonplace use of the word apart from any religious significance, such as when a person has faith in a chair to support his weight or has faith in his employee to do a job well.
- Faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." This is the definition unbelievers often use to ridicule believers, insisting that they, unlike religious people, trust only in that which is demonstrable. This is not the biblical definition of faith, and this definition of faith appears nowhere in the Bible.
- Faith is "belief in, trust in, and loyalty to God." This is an explicitly religious definition, in many ways similar to the theological definition of faith as involving knowledge, assent, and trust. Faith here is pictured as going beyond belief in certain facts to include commitment to and dependence on God.
- Faith is "a system of religious beliefs." This is what is meant when one speaks of "the Protestant faith" or "the Jewish faith." What is largely in view here is a set of doctrines. The Bible uses the word in this way in passages such as Jude 3.
- Faith is the knowledge of which we can be certain of things that are unseeable (this is the definition I am using).
The way I'm using it is in the last sense listed above, a thoroughly biblical perspective on faith.
> If your belief is a result of Biblical Faith (from the definition above, and not from the definition given in the Bible itself (i.e., Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
It's fascinating how you try to manipulate the text by highlighting the parts you perceive to show that faith is blind, but your exegesis is flawed.
"Faith is being sure of what we hope for." "Being sure of" is the term ὑπόστασις. It means "certainty about the reality of, the substantial nature of something, the reality (in contrast to what merely seems to be; knowing confidence." The term was common in business documents as to the basis or guarantee of transactions. This "assurance" was the real substance undergirding present and future action.
So what the author is saying is that our faith is a kind of knowledge grounded in the reality of something, based on what is actually there in contrast to what merely seems to be.
He says we can know ("be sure of") what we hope for. "Hope" in the Bible is our confidence and certainty about things we know to be real, even though we haven't experienced them yet (much like sitting in a chair or opening a door). Our "hope" is what we know: things that happened in the past (Jesus's death and resurrection), things happening in the present (our experiences of spiritual reality), and things in the future (what we can't possibly have seen yet). "Hope" is what we know to be true; it is knowledge, pure and simple. Because we have evidence (like sitting in a chair), we know about the future (the chair will hold us).
The second half of the verse: "the evidence of things not seen." What is it about the word "evidence" that your eyes completely missed as you highlighted "not seen"? The Greek word is ἔλεγχος, and means "proof; conviction about what there is evidence for; certainty." We can have certainty about what can't be seen at the present because of the evidence at hand.
That's what Hebrews 11.1 is saying. There's nothing blind about biblical faith. It's based in knowledge and evidence.
> Then you say, "Faith is based upon an appeal to emotion and non-evidential claims.) then, what is this evidence of which you speak?"
There is nothing about biblical faith based in emotion and non-evidential claims. I have given more than adequate rebuttal to that idea.
> what is your standard of evidence/level of reliability and confidence threshold for "reasonable" support for a trueness claim of fact? and how does this evidence meet this threshold?
Historicity, corroboration, experience, artifactual support, logic, and science.
> A choice? Gravity is (simplified) an attractive force. Literally all credible evidence supports this trueness/fact. Please show how belief in gravity as an attractive force is (merely) a choice.
Belief in gravity is not a choice. We don't "believe" in gravity. Gravity as a proved force is in a different category, as is light, velocity, energy, and mass.
> Not to be conflated nor equivocated to Theistic Religious Faith/Trust based upon an appeal to emotion
Again, there is nothing about theistic religious faith based on an appeal to emotion. Though emotions are involved in the expression of faith, they have nothing to do with the ground of it.
> The creation stories in Genesis are both based upon God as a creator God - without presenting evidence.
Creation story is also in a different category, even in scientific circles. Studying cosmological origins cannot involve controls, reproducibility, and confirmability that are the pillars of the scientific method. We can't do experiments pertaining to origins. Logic, math, and what we perceive in nature (regularity, consistency, and predictability) are extrapolated to theorize about the universe's beginnings. Are such things truly part of science and part of knowledge? Only in one sense, but not like our studies of the natural sciences at all.
Darwinism, for instance, is a theory about natural history, not natural law, and as a result its standards of explanation (and validation) are significantly different from those of much of science, and certainly the gold standard of physics. The evolutionary theory of the origin of the species, by virtue of its topic, natural history, is obliged to straddle between history and science. To qualify as science, the real differences between evolutionary standards of explanation and the standards of the physical sciences are discounted.
> Also, the God YHWH/Jesus is great for mixed messages.
Not mixed messages at all. One must merely take the time to do the work. Jesus, as I mentioned (Mt. 8.4; Jn. 14.11 & 17.8), advocated pursuit of evidence to form one's beliefs. You bring up the story of Doubting Thomas in Jn. 20.24-29. You missed the point of the story and of Jesus's words. Thomas demanded evidence (vv. 24-25), and Jesus complied (v. 27). His words in v. 27 are important: Now that you have the evidence, stop doubting and believe.
But then you want to pick on v. 29 (ignoring the rest, it seems, as you did with Heb. 11.1): "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed." That doesn't mean there's a dearth of evidence, or that faith is believing without evidence or contrary to evidence. Rather, there are some who don't get to experience the evidence directly. And there are different kinds of evidence (artifactual, testimonial, circumstantial). Jesus knew that very soon he would be leaving the earth and people would have to make a decision based on the evidence of the testimony of reliable witnesses, the historical evidence of the resurrection, and the experiential evidence of changed lives. But it's true they would not get to see. Not everyone gets to see, but visible evidence isn't the only kind of evidence. Even visible evidence can have its drawbacks, in case a particular event was a hallucination or a dream. That doesn't mean faith is blind. The people who believed in the resurrection of Jesus after he ascended were still making a decision based on evidence.
> An example would be those that have such a low level of cognitive ability or knowledge to assess the meaning of the claim the express belief in - ex., a young child that believes in God because mommie and/or daddy said so.
Yes, possibly for a young child, his or her belief is blind, but not necessarily without evidence. In a sense, he or she has the "authoritative" testimony of Mom & Dad as evidence for his or her belief. His reliance on their word isn't a whole lot different than a student's reliance on the words of his teacher or a viewer's reliance on the words of the journalist. We choose which authorities to trust and base our beliefs on that trust—primarily (in adult life) because we have enough evidence to convince us that these sources of information are trustworthy.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by Drummer » Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:14 pm
I never said nature was a closed system. I don't know where we came from nor do I know if there was a creator or not. I highly doubt it though. And billions of billions of people have not exerienced gods, They have been indoctrinated into thinking whichever god is worshipped in the locality is real. Nothing you provided would stand up in a court so wh would you expect me to take it as evidence? I feel like (insert god here) is real so that's enough evidence is a bizarre belief to hold. Fine tuning points to evolution not a creator. If something was creating things why would they make them imperfect and let them evolve instead of making them perfect in the first place? Also how does anything you have said point to any single god??
- Drummer
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by jimwalton » Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:29 pm
> I never said nature was a closed system.
I know you didn't. It was an example. All I was asking for was evidence for whatever it is you do believe.
> I don't know where we came from nor do I know if there was a creator or not. I highly doubt it though.
I understand that. But what do you believe, and what is the evidence for it?
> And billions of billions of people have not exerienced gods
Um, I'm not sure this is true. Theism of some sort and worship are rather universal human practices. Almost every culture from every era of history have some sort of religious expression.
> Nothing you provided would stand up in a court so wh would you expect me to take it as evidence?
Courtroom evidence and philosophical/theological evidence are two different things. Would Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical or Kant's categorical imperative "stand up in court"? That's not the idea. "Courtroom evidence" has nothing to do with such things.
> so wh would you expect me to take it as evidence?
Because I'm assuming you're a person of logic and reason. If we are going to examine the evidence to infer the most reasonable conclusion, the evidences for theism far outweigh the evidences against it. But I have asked for the evidence (not against theism, but) for what you *do* believe, whatever it happens to be.
> I feel like (insert god here) is real so that's enough evidence is a bizarre belief to hold.
I agree. That's why I never go close to this "argument," because there's no substance to it and no evidence behind it.
> Fine tuning points to evolution not a creator.
Not upon examination. There are so many aspects of the universe that are "tuned" to very small and necessarily small parameters that to have come about by accident is virtually untenable. The basic idea is that such fine-tuning is not at all surprising or improbable if theism is true: God would presumably want there to be life, and even intelligent life with which (whom) to communicate and share love. Of course this life could take many different forms (indeed, perhaps it has taken many forms). But it doesn’t seem at all improbable that God would want to create life, both human life and life of other sorts, and if he wanted to created human life in a universe at all like ours, he would have been obliged to fine-tune the constants. On the other hand, if there is no God, and these constants have their values by chance (that is, those values are not the result of anyone’s choice or intention) it is exceedingly improbable that they would be fine-tuned for life as we know it. The weight of evidence supports theism: given theism, fine-tuning is not at all improbable; given atheism, it is; therefore theism is to be preferred to atheism.
> If something was creating things why would they make them imperfect and let them evolve instead of making them perfect in the first place?
Because process and cause-and-effect are valuable and appropriate strategies for the development of anything. Everything happens by processes. This is no problem with theism. In the theistic worldview, evolution is still happening. God is still "creating" the world. The Bible teaches that God will bring it to its proper conclusion.
> Also how does anything you have said point to any single god??
We haven't addressed this yet, though we can if you want. The subject at hand is "blind faith isn't okay." The closer discussion at hand is the evidence for theism over naturalism or atheism. But I'd love to see your evidence for what you do believe.
The question of a single god, or the Christian God in particular, is a different discussion.
I know you didn't. It was an example. All I was asking for was evidence for whatever it is you do believe.
> I don't know where we came from nor do I know if there was a creator or not. I highly doubt it though.
I understand that. But what do you believe, and what is the evidence for it?
> And billions of billions of people have not exerienced gods
Um, I'm not sure this is true. Theism of some sort and worship are rather universal human practices. Almost every culture from every era of history have some sort of religious expression.
> Nothing you provided would stand up in a court so wh would you expect me to take it as evidence?
Courtroom evidence and philosophical/theological evidence are two different things. Would Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical or Kant's categorical imperative "stand up in court"? That's not the idea. "Courtroom evidence" has nothing to do with such things.
> so wh would you expect me to take it as evidence?
Because I'm assuming you're a person of logic and reason. If we are going to examine the evidence to infer the most reasonable conclusion, the evidences for theism far outweigh the evidences against it. But I have asked for the evidence (not against theism, but) for what you *do* believe, whatever it happens to be.
> I feel like (insert god here) is real so that's enough evidence is a bizarre belief to hold.
I agree. That's why I never go close to this "argument," because there's no substance to it and no evidence behind it.
> Fine tuning points to evolution not a creator.
Not upon examination. There are so many aspects of the universe that are "tuned" to very small and necessarily small parameters that to have come about by accident is virtually untenable. The basic idea is that such fine-tuning is not at all surprising or improbable if theism is true: God would presumably want there to be life, and even intelligent life with which (whom) to communicate and share love. Of course this life could take many different forms (indeed, perhaps it has taken many forms). But it doesn’t seem at all improbable that God would want to create life, both human life and life of other sorts, and if he wanted to created human life in a universe at all like ours, he would have been obliged to fine-tune the constants. On the other hand, if there is no God, and these constants have their values by chance (that is, those values are not the result of anyone’s choice or intention) it is exceedingly improbable that they would be fine-tuned for life as we know it. The weight of evidence supports theism: given theism, fine-tuning is not at all improbable; given atheism, it is; therefore theism is to be preferred to atheism.
> If something was creating things why would they make them imperfect and let them evolve instead of making them perfect in the first place?
Because process and cause-and-effect are valuable and appropriate strategies for the development of anything. Everything happens by processes. This is no problem with theism. In the theistic worldview, evolution is still happening. God is still "creating" the world. The Bible teaches that God will bring it to its proper conclusion.
> Also how does anything you have said point to any single god??
We haven't addressed this yet, though we can if you want. The subject at hand is "blind faith isn't okay." The closer discussion at hand is the evidence for theism over naturalism or atheism. But I'd love to see your evidence for what you do believe.
The question of a single god, or the Christian God in particular, is a different discussion.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests