Is faith blind?

This medium is based on words... so their meaning is vital, do any reading on natural language philosophy and you'll see just how important the how's and why's of what we write is so important.

I've pointed out that 'faith' is a mere summary word, used in place of providing any reasoning when making an assertion.

It's not that you do, or don't have reasoning for any particular assertion. It is just that such reasoning remains hidden, and has been substituted for the word 'faith'.

So I guess faith in any assertion may be misplaced, or, may be sound, according to the experience of the person making the assertion. But other people with different experiences (facts) may reach a different conclusion.

But without revealing the reasoning behind each and every use of the word 'faith', how can one say whether it's blind or not.

Faith can never be achieved in total isolation, you can't just tell me to 'try trusting in something without proof...' there is always context, there will always be information available that is contingent on my decision to trust, or not to trust. One would not even be able to understand what a 'something' was, if it came with no information. The very fact it's a 'something' means it comes with a boatload of information.
What exactly do you mean by summary? What is a "Particular assertion"? What definition of "total isolation" are you using? How do you define "information"? Are you beginning to see what it feels like? Everybody else seems to know what I am talking about!
 
Faith can never be achieved in total isolation, you can't just tell me to 'try trusting in something without proof...' there is always context, there will always be information available that is contingent on my decision to trust, or not to trust. One would not even be able to understand what a 'something' was, if it came with no information. The very fact it's a 'something' means it comes with a boatload of information, and its 'somethingness' changes according to its context (things that surround it in spacetime).
This is exactly what I am saying.
 
What exactly do you mean by summary? What is a "Particular assertion"? What definition of "total isolation" are you using? How do you define "information"? Are you beginning to see what it feels like? Everybody else seems to know what I am talking about!

1) possibly adding lots of things up to a single thing.
2) your argument
3) probably... without any context
4) information is tricky.
 
You may as well substitute the word 'faith' for "I'm not going to explain my reasoning for [insert assertion]"
Explain what "faith" has to do with not explaining your reasoning then after we have locked horns a while, maybe we can eat apple pie and ice cream together.:)
 
Explain what "faith" has to do with not explaining your reasoning then after we have locked horns a while, maybe we can eat apple pie and ice cream together.:)

I did that earlier, because it's substuted in place of ones reasoning. I suppose it's little different to a vote for or against some statement. It tells us nothing about the reasoning or soundness behind ones way of voting.
 
I did that earlier, because it's substuted in place of ones reasoning.
I think I am getting the hang of this. I believe that this is a common misconception. Faith might not require proof but it does require evidence and reasoning. We always start with information as you said before so I don't think faith replaces reasoning - I think it is a necessary small leap from evidence and reasoning that we need in order to function. Because there is very little proof of so many things, we all need a little faith - ie. trust just to do normal day to day things. I don't believe that anybody just believes something without first taking something as evidence for it. I'm afraid I can't explain any better so in this thread, and only in this thread I have to give up conversing with you. Hope you are not offended.:)
 
I think I am getting the hang of this. I believe that this is a common misconception. Faith might not require proof but it does require evidence and reasoning. We always start with information as you said before so I don't think faith replaces reasoning - I think it is a necessary small leap from evidence and reasoning that we need in order to function. Because there is very little proof of so many things, we all need a little faith - ie. trust just to do normal day to day things. I don't believe that anybody just believes something without first taking something as evidence for it. I'm afraid I can't explain any better so in this thread, and only in this thread I have to give up conversing with you. Hope you are not offended.:)

I suspect I'm talking about 'faith' the blunt meaning of it's use in language... and you're talking about some later derivative meaning of faith, that is probably spiritual in nature ... and is thought of more as a 'thing' a state of 'being' in the world perhaps . I'm guessing you're muddling one up with the other. But I'm afraid you can't.
 
I suspect I'm talking about 'faith' the blunt meaning of it's use in language... and you're talking about some later derivative meaning of faith, that is probably spiritual in nature ... and is thought of more as a 'thing' a state of 'being' in the world perhaps . I'm guessing you're muddling one up with the other. But I'm afraid you can't.
No, I gave my definition earlier in reply to Obiwan's post. I believe most people think of it the same way. Bye bye! You are now on ignore!
 
No, I gave my definition earlier in reply to Obiwan's post. I believe most people think of it the same way. Bye bye! You are now on ignore!

It's important to challenge these sorts of claims... I can't have people telling me that the reason I get out of bed, or use a car (without accident), is because I have faith, as if it were some sort of 'thing' in of itself, without which I would not get out of bed, or drive a car. Rather than what it really is, which is a word that is used in place of explaining ones reasoning.

And it's been a useful discussion for me, as its brought some clarity to a word (and it's usage), indeed a whole class of words, that I really didn't understand too well before now
 
Last edited:
John Lennox who is a Christian writer and lecturer on Christianity holds the view that Christian faith is based on evidence.

And he would be right. "Faith" in the modern sense of assenting to unprovable or tenuous propositions is not what the biblical writings are describing. The Greek word pistis that is translated as "faith" has the connotations of personal trust, fidelity, and allegiance. In other words, it is more about the character of an interpersonal dynamic than the qualities of an abstract cognitive leap.
 
And he would be right. "Faith" in the modern sense of assenting to unprovable or tenuous propositions is not what the biblical writings are describing. The Greek word pistis that is translated as "faith" has the connotations of personal trust, fidelity, and allegiance. In other words, it is more about the character of an interpersonal dynamic than the qualities of an abstract cognitive leap.
I wonder if a lot of misunderstanding is caused by the English phrase "Believe in" It seems to mean two things - ether believing in the existence of something or trusting something. When Jesus said "believe in me" he was talking to people who were there with him so it is hardly likely he meant "believe I exist" and yet many seem to interpret it that way.
 
It's important to challenge these sorts of claims... I can't have people telling me that the reason I get out of bed, or use a car (without accident), is because I have faith, as if it were some sort of 'thing' in of itself, without which I would not get out of bed, or drive a car. Rather than what it really is, which is a word that is used in place of explaining ones reasoning.

And it's been a useful discussion for me, as its brought some clarity to a word (and it's usage), indeed a whole class of words, that I really didn't understand too well before now
I think you've been excommunicated max.
 
I came across a Skeptiko thread in which somebody spoke of "Faith without evidence." I didn't want to reply there because it was a little off topic but I thought I would start a discussion here about it.

I don't believe that it is humanly possible to believe something without a shred of evidence. Faith does not leap from thin air. Even though it is not entirely logical in itself, it is a small leap from evidence and reasoning and anything less is not faith but pretention. Everybody has faith in something. If you don't have faith, why do you get out of bed in the morning?:)

My apologies for the thread title - it was supposed to read "IS faith blind" - not "IF" but I don't know if I can change it.

I don't think anyone has faith without a shred of evidence.

I think that (ideally) we use induction to form patterns/models of reality and deduction to extrapolate beyond observation. With these data points, we then construct a narrative to establish meaning.

The closest thing to "faith without evidence" is when we do this process in reverse and are told a narrative and feel the meaning as resonating with an intuited deeper truth. Very often post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias is then used to find datapoints that support this narrative.

From an epistemological standpoint, yes we operate "on faith" every day because induction is inherently limited by our experience and our reason operates on a simplified model of reality. So no "facts" can be known with absolute certainty since one never knows when a black swan will appear. Without faith to bridge the gap of uncertainty we are left abandoned on a shrinking island of solipsism.

Since facts can never be known with 100% certainty, it could be that experienced feeling is more true than any explicit facts. In which case the meaning and archetypes found in all mythologies and captivating narratives could be considered hyper-true or more true than facts.
 
I don't think anyone has faith without a shred of evidence.

I think that (ideally) we use induction to form patterns/models of reality and deduction to extrapolate beyond observation. With these data points, we then construct a narrative to establish meaning.

The closest thing to "faith without evidence" is when we do this process in reverse and are told a narrative and feel the meaning as resonating with an intuited deeper truth. Very often post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias is then used to find datapoints that support this narrative.

From an epistemological standpoint, yes we operate "on faith" every day because induction is inherently limited by our experience and our reason operates on a simplified model of reality. So no "facts" can be known with absolute certainty since one never knows when a black swan will appear. Without faith to bridge the gap of uncertainty we are left abandoned on a shrinking island of solipsism.

Since facts can never be known with 100% certainty, it could be that experienced feeling is more true than any explicit facts. In which case the meaning and archetypes found in all mythologies and captivating narratives could be considered hyper-true or more true than facts.
Nice post.;;/? I've often felt that we are more feeling than intellect. We use intellect and rightly so but sometimes we analyze too much and miss the point.
 
Back
Top