Reply
Sun 25 Mar, 2007 10:41 am
Blind faith can be false, and can be destructive. Worse is that it persists, that if it is false and/or destructive, that people continue to do these bad things. The ability to change is very important, in that it allows improvement upon previous beliefs, and replacement with better beliefs. This is important because humans are falliable, and humans do err.
Welcome to A2K Extropy. I imagine everyone agrees with you. Nobody thinks their own faith is blind. Did you have a question about what you posted?
Come down off your throne and leave your body alone.
Somebody must change.
You are the reason I've been waiting so long.
Somebody holds the key.
But I'm near the end and I just ain't got the time
And I'm wasted and I can't find my way home.
Come down on your own and leave your body alone.
Somebody must change.
You are the reason I've been waiting all these years.
Somebody holds the key.
(Blind Faith, Stevie Winwood and Eric Clapton, Can't Find My Way Home, 1969)
When I was younger I lived on blind faith. As I've gotten older, much less so. Blind faith requires a certain energy level, being carefree.
Oh, and welcome.
I'd propose that Faith is null of all senses, not just sight. To the faithful, our words are equally rejected.
blind and deaf.
Faith doens't speak for itself either. It requires the voice of others.
and mute to the list and Faith is just dumb.
(I seriously hope the a2k croud gets that reference.)
What Greyfan and Eorl said.
Eorl, I did not, but why is that relevant? Every time I use something that I think, I am not questioning it every time. Only when there is doubt cast upon my beliefs do I consider it. Otherwise, I would waste time all day wondering if my chair really exists or not, or whether 1+1=2 instead of 3. Just because I am not questioning a belief right now does not mean that the case is closed. (On the other hand, blind faith means that the case is closed.)
Faith, in the context in which we are discussing it, means accepting something as true without, or even contrary to, the available evidence. In fact, plenty of Christians actually take pride in demonstrating the strength of their faith in the light of all the evidence to the contrary.
To assume a chair is "solid" is not a matter of faith in the same way. All the evidence of science, history and personal experience tell us that the chair is, for practical purposes, solid, and it is logical to assume that it will be the same tomorrow.
Plenty of people have tried to justify their extreme leaps of religious faith by supposing that every thought requires a similar illogical extreme process. It's a furphy (ain't true).
I think you'd like to have your cake and eat it too. You think some degree of religious faith is OK, but faith you don't share, you call "blind faith". Am I right?
Your first clause of the second-to-last sentence inaccurate.
For the said reasons, no degree of religious faith is good. On the other hand, religion is okay. It is just religious faith that is not okay. The people who think that religion can be founded upon reason may or may not be accurate, but it is the fact that dogmatism is lacking that is enough to say that it is not a bad thing, because they are able to admit mistakes if any are made.
'Religion' without faith is meaningless. There are, of course, plenty of people who go to church without actually believing (or practcing) any of the things their church tells them (and instructs them to practice). In these cases religion becomes a social venue, no more. I agree, Extropy, that there is no harm in this. But I find it a little silly and, certainly, hypocritical.
Eorl wrote:Faith, in the context in which we are discussing it, means accepting something as true without, or even contrary to, the available evidence. In fact, plenty of Christians actually take pride in demonstrating the strength of their faith in the light of all the evidence to the contrary. . . .
What you have defined is credulity. Faith is something altogether different.
neologist wrote:Eorl wrote:Faith, in the context in which we are discussing it, means accepting something as true without, or even contrary to, the available evidence. In fact, plenty of Christians actually take pride in demonstrating the strength of their faith in the light of all the evidence to the contrary. . . .
What you have defined is credulity. Faith is something altogether different.
Could you elaborate on that a bit, neo? How, exactly, is faith different from mere credulity?
Merry Andrew wrote:Eorl wrote:Greyfan wrote:All faith is blind.
Yep...by definition.
What Greyfan and Eorl said.
I suppose if you make up the definition yourself, then that could be.
But if you use a standard dictionary, you'll notice that 'all faith' is not defined the same way.
'Belief' , which is listed as a synonym of 'faith', is defined several ways including:
from
http://www.merriam.com/dictionary/faith
Quote:conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Quote:
conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
More proof that Religions faith is blind. Religions do not base their faith on evidence.
You've put yourself in the corner. You've argued to many times that God does not need to leave evidence. So what is you faith based on?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace