Is "blind faith" a myth?

[Laika]

I have a question, mainly for the theistic and religious members of the forum. Atheists often have a widely held assumption that faith is blind and use this to discredit religious belief as incompatable with knowledge (particularly when obtained by rationalist or scientific methods).

However, I am interested to know if this is infact a convenient myth. Very often atheists will flat out ignore deism and natural theology as rational sources for knowledge of gods existence in debates. Instead they create a (historically) artificial divide between religion and reason because they hold it is impossible for these to be relevant to discussions of religious "faith" as a result of the way they have defined the term.

In the case of literalist readings of scripture such as the bible or the Quran, it is thought of as a "blind" act of faith to accept these texts as the word of God. Is this unfair and do you have a sufficient basis to claim for yourself rational grounds to accept these texts as the work of a deity? I am not so much interested in whether it fits conventional definitions or methods of acquiring knowledge, but rather than you regard it as knowledge as a basis for your own beliefs. ( if you can think of an equivalent outside of Judaism, Christianity and Islam you are welcome to share).

more specifically, would you consider revelation or mysticism as paths to knowledge or would you regard them as non-rational basis for blind faith?
What I really want to know is if you apply a different standard or definition of knowledge as a rational basis for your beliefs than the ones which are used to criticise them.

Long answers are welcome btw, as this will probably help cross the theist-atheist divide and understand each other.

 

[Deidre]

To me, 'blind faith' could be defined as not needing objective evidence for one's belief. That on some level, there is enough evidence that a believer requires, or has experienced, but that might not satisfy say, an atheist. And for a believer, that is okay.

 

[Quintessence]

There's also the widely-held assumption that religions are about faith, which is a very strange and rather indefensible notion the moment one more closely looks at the activities, functions, and nature of any religious group (even Protestant Christians, for whom we owe this idea of religion being faith-based to).

On the whole, while I wouldn't say it is a "myth" (I dislike using that term as a synonym falsehood because it perpetuates misunderstanding of what mythology is) as much as an overly-simplistic way of understanding the "faith" phenomena that some religions have. I'd call it a strawperson - a mischaracterization of what is a complex thing, often created so one can easily dismiss the opposing ideas or practices with minimal effort. It seems that "blind faith" is a label imposed on monotheists by outsiders as a way of explaining away their position instead of actually listening and trying to understand. I haven't seen any monotheist say "I have blind faith in God," have you?

 

[Spideymon77]

I wouldn't say that religious people have blind faith because there are plenty of reasons someone would believe in a God without requiring completely blind faith.
Let's take for example there's this girl that I like. Say that she hugs me more often then she hugs other guy friends. Saying that she likes me doesn't consider to be blind faith because, even though that might be the only bit of evidence I have that she likes me, there's still something to consider there.
Now, let's say there was this girl that constantly cheated on me. She never talked to me (only texted), her friends hated me, and she was considering hooking up with some guy. Me thinking that things will get better, we'll be happy together, and/or I'll win her love is blind faith.

I don't think blind faith is a myth although I don't think religious people have it because, even if I met a religious person with an I.Q. of 1, they'll still probably give a reason why they believe in God.

 

[Laika]

There's also the widely-held assumption that religions are about faith, which is a very strange and rather indefensible notion the moment one more closely looks at the activities, functions, and nature of any religious group (even Protestant Christians, for whom we owe this idea of religion being faith-based to).

On the whole, while I wouldn't say it is a "myth" (I dislike using that term as a synonym falsehood because it perpetuates misunderstanding of what mythology is) as much as an overly-simplistic way of understanding the "faith" phenomena that some religions have. I'd call it a strawperson - a mischaracterization of what is a complex thing, often created so one can easily dismiss the opposing ideas or practices with minimal effort. It seems that "blind faith" is a label imposed on monotheists by outsiders as a way of explaining away their position instead of actually listening and trying to understand. I haven't seen any monotheist say "I have blind faith in God," have you?

I have never heard anyone use the term "blind faith" to describe their own beliefs. I only know of it being used as a form of ridicule or criticism against believers.

What you said about religions not being built on faith is very interesting (as that goes even further than I anticipated and will give mea a lot to think about). And I take your point about the use of the term myth.

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I think religion just can't rely on beliefs very much. Beliefs are just too personal for such a strategy to work.

 

[Skwim]

Curious, what is the difference between faith and blind faith, if any?


.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Saving faith is not blind faith. Saving faith is a leap toward the light, not a shot in the dark
"Taste and see the Lord is good" Psalm 34
"This is the judgement, they loved the darkness rather than the light" John 3

see
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/is-faith-blind/

 

[syo]

Blind faith isn't a myth. But I think it's rare.

Curious, what is the difference between faith and blind faith, if any?.

How I understand it.
Faith is when you have no evidence but indications in believing or rejecting something.
Blind faith is when you have nothing.

 

[JesusBeliever]

I have a question, mainly for the theistic and religious members of the forum. Atheists often have a widely held assumption that faith is blind and use this to discredit religious belief as incompatable with knowledge (particularly when obtained by rationalist or scientific methods).

However, I am interested to know if this is infact a convenient myth. Very often atheists will flat out ignore deism and natural theology as rational sources for knowledge of gods existence in debates. Instead they create a (historically) artificial divide between religion and reason because they hold it is impossible for these to be relevant to discussions of religious "faith" as a result of the way they have defined the term.

In the case of literalist readings of scripture such as the bible or the Quran, it is thought of as a "blind" act of faith to accept these texts as the word of God. Is this unfair and do you have a sufficient basis to claim for yourself rational grounds to accept these texts as the work of a deity? I am not so much interested in whether it fits conventional definitions or methods of acquiring knowledge, but rather than you regard it as knowledge as a basis for your own beliefs. ( if you can think of an equivalent outside of Judaism, Christianity and Islam you are welcome to share).

more specifically, would you consider revelation or mysticism as paths to knowledge or would you regard them as non-rational basis for blind faith?
What I really want to know is if you apply a different standard or definition of knowledge as a rational basis for your beliefs than the ones which are used to criticise them.

Long answers are welcome btw, as this will probably help cross the theist-atheist divide and understand each other.

Hi there,
I recently heard a definition of science that changed my whole perspective on science and religious experience. I don't know how accurate this is so please feel free to correct it if it's wrong, but a guy explained that Science is Objective, in that it only accepts things as fact that can be tested or replicated by other people. And that religious beliefs are not accepted because they are Subjective experiences. So putting it in simple language that I could easily understand, what I heard this guy saying is that if you've had an experience that other people can't verify and replicate it is not Scientific. Which I could accept if people then didn't take the next leap and say that this means your subjective experience didn't happen because no one can verify or replicate it.

Not sure if this is what you wanted, but it's what came to mind when reading your post so thought I'd share it.

 

[Laika]

Hi there,
I recently heard a definition of science that changed my whole perspective on science and religious experience. I don't know how accurate this is so please feel free to correct it if it's wrong, but a guy explained that Science is Objective, in that it only accepts things as fact that can be tested or replicated by other people. And that religious beliefs are not accepted because they are Subjective experiences. So putting it in simple language that I could easily understand, what I heard this guy saying is that if you've had an experience that other people can't verify and replicate it is not Scientific. Which I could accept if people then didn't take the next leap and say that this means your subjective experience didn't happen because no one can verify or replicate it.

Not sure if this is what you wanted, but it's what came to mind when reading your post so thought I'd share it.

Your response is a little unexpected, but I see your point. The exact scope to which science can be applied is debated but nowadays if someone cliamed to have a scientific answer to the question of gods existence it would be regarded as "scientism" or "scientific materialism" which is thought of as a dogma because its underlying assumptions cannot be tested or proven in a recognised sense. It would not be accepted amongst the scientific community or amongst academics for this reason.

The problem I am finding is that we take these definitions of what is knowledge so much for granted that we loose sight of how people are able to justify opposing views. The definition of science as a method for establishing what is knowledge has changed considerably, along with beliefs about its legitimate scope. When people talk about "blind faith", it strikes me as something that they would say must be by definition impossible to be true whilst people actually do hold certain beliefs as true. I wanted to see if the reason for that was because one group believed knowledge could be defined in one way, and another group defined it in another- so they just can't see each other's point of view or are "blind" to each other's reasoning.

 

[JesusBeliever]

Your response is a little unexpected, but I see your point. The exact scope to which science can be applied is debated but nowadays if someone cliamed to have a scientific answer to the question of gods existence it would be regarded as "scientism" or "scientific materialism" which is thought of as a dogma because its underlying assumptions cannot be tested or proven in a recognised sense. It would not be accepted amongst the scientific community or amongst academics for this reason.

The problem I am finding is that we take these definitions of what is knowledge so much for granted that we loose sight of how people are able to justify opposing views. The definition of science as a method for establishing what is knowledge has changed considerably, along with beliefs about its legitimate scope. When people talk about "blind faith", it strikes me as something that they would say must be by definition impossible to be true whilst people actually do hold certain beliefs as true. I wanted to see if the reason for that was because one group believed knowledge could be defined in one way, and another group defined it in another- so they just can't see each other's point of view or are "blind" to each other's reasoning.

I do think the answer lies in subjective experiences and the leap I mentioned previously. To any person who has not had my subjective experiences they might assume I must have blind faith but to me it's faith in things I've personally witnessed or experienced. All I can do for the person who has not had them (and more importantly wants them as well) is to give as much detail about how my subjective experience came about. I think they refer to this as your testimony.

It's only just occurred to me now, doesn't this also fit the definition of science that I mentioned above? For example, if I say I asked Jesus to heal me and I was healed, and so other people decide to test it and ask Jesus for healing too and receive it, wouldn't that be regarded as scientific because they were able to verify and replicate my experience? Just a thought.

Consider also, that what is regarded as "Scientific" we ordinary folk accept by faith because a group of Scientists say that they verified and replicated it in a lab. Aren't we accepting their testimonies with blind faith seeing that we're not able to test it for ourselves? Just another thought.

 

[leibowde84]

I have a question, mainly for the theistic and religious members of the forum. Atheists often have a widely held assumption that faith is blind and use this to discredit religious belief as incompatable with knowledge (particularly when obtained by rationalist or scientific methods).

However, I am interested to know if this is infact a convenient myth. Very often atheists will flat out ignore deism and natural theology as rational sources for knowledge of gods existence in debates. Instead they create a (historically) artificial divide between religion and reason because they hold it is impossible for these to be relevant to discussions of religious "faith" as a result of the way they have defined the term.

In the case of literalist readings of scripture such as the bible or the Quran, it is thought of as a "blind" act of faith to accept these texts as the word of God. Is this unfair and do you have a sufficient basis to claim for yourself rational grounds to accept these texts as the work of a deity? I am not so much interested in whether it fits conventional definitions or methods of acquiring knowledge, but rather than you regard it as knowledge as a basis for your own beliefs. ( if you can think of an equivalent outside of Judaism, Christianity and Islam you are welcome to share).

more specifically, would you consider revelation or mysticism as paths to knowledge or would you regard them as non-rational basis for blind faith?
What I really want to know is if you apply a different standard or definition of knowledge as a rational basis for your beliefs than the ones which are used to criticise them.

Long answers are welcome btw, as this will probably help cross the theist-atheist divide and understand each other.

If you have faith in a book or scripture merely because you were brought up with it or you were told it is correct without having healthy skepticism, that is blind faith. It certainly exists in those who fail to explore the historical context and reliability of scriptures for themselves, but it certainly doesn't apply to every religious person.

 

[EtuMalku]

Both theists and atheists are encapsulated in blind faith, both claim they 'know' but neither have any evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

Both theists and atheists are encapsulated in blind faith, both claim they 'know' but neither have any evidence.

That certainly isn't true. Gor example, many atheists merely withhold belief due to lack of evidence. They don't claim to know anything with any certainty when it comes to God's existence.

 

[EtuMalku]

That certainly isn't true. Gor example, many atheists merely withhold belief due to lack of evidence. They don't claim to know anything with any certainty when it comes to God's existence.

Those would be agnostics

 

[JesusBeliever]

Both theists and atheists are encapsulated in blind faith, both claim they 'know' but neither have any evidence.

Hi there, I could be wrong but I don't think that blind faith and having no evidence are the same thing. I might not have evidence to show you something I've seen but that doesn't mean I didn't see it. E.g. I saw a UFO but have no evidence to show you. Does this mean I didn't see it just coz you didn't?

 

[Windwalker]

The exact scope to which science can be applied is debated but nowadays if someone cliamed to have a scientific answer to the question of gods existence it would be regarded as "scientism" or "scientific materialism" which is thought of as a dogma because its underlying assumptions cannot be tested or proven in a recognised sense.

This is not exactly what defines Scientisim nor materialism. What Scientism is is when someone believes that science alone can tell us about what is true or not in life, essentially replacing Church Authority with Science Authority. It's a religious absolutism misapplied to science. It has nothing to do with science as a discipline, but rather a philosophical worldview which places science as supreme authority. Regular old science with a small s, becomes Science with a capital S.

As far as scientific materialism goes, or you could even say reductionism, there again you have to be careful. Reductionism has its place as a method of doing science. But when it moves from science to a worldview, that nothing is real, nor valid, nor trustworthy to hold as true without science to validate it, this is going way beyond science into a faith. Reductionism when approached as a belief that nothing is truly real unless it can at some point be explained by reducing things all the way to its component parts. That's a philosophical premise, and one which itself doesn't work that well. So you have legitimate science and reductionism as a method, and what otherwise can and should be understood as individual and collective faith, appropriating science and reason as supports for that faith.

So, "blind faith", which is a term I think is not all that valid in any instance, applies to a lot more than just religion. It applies to how we choose to frame and see and filter all of reality through. It is their "faith" science will tell us all and we should trust nothing less than it, and subsequently everything they think, feel, or are capable of seeing will be colorized by that belief. It's the same thing as religion's faith in that regard.

The problem I am finding is that we take these definitions of what is knowledge so much for granted that we loose sight of how people are able to justify opposing views.

I think there are different criteria for validating types of truths. You don't validate love is real the same way you validate which types of gasses exist on Jupiter! Though I know some neo-positivists might like to believe we could and should.

But there's a point here I wanted to make about this "blind faith" idea. People like to assume that those who believe in various mythological stories as being literally true lack any sort of evidence to their validity. That's actually not true. They have sufficient enough reasons to validate it to themselves, regardless if it meets scientific standards. It's not truly "blind", but rather a response to something internal. How that something is symbolized is actually quite secondary to the actuality of that thing inside of them. That "faith" inside of them is quite real to them, and with clear evidence of its reality through the effects it has in their lived experiences. It's not just blind, or wishful thinking, but something far more substantial and real to them.

It seems to me what the so-called battle between faith and reason, or religion and science, actually is is really a confusion of what symbolism is and how it works and functions for us. Both the "true believer" and the modern so-called "skeptic" are doing in battle against each other are missing the fact that all of it, both religious and scientific views are simply languages, symbols, metaphors to talk about reality. They are arguing which symbol is real! The whole thing can be put into the same camp, each side arguing which side of the same coin is "right". Neither quite getting that they are both attempting to do the same thing, each mistaking the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself. Science is simply a more sophisticated metaphor, but a metaphor nonetheless. Whichever one holds as pointing to true reality, is an expression of their personal, subjective faith.

I wanted to see if the reason for that was because one group believed knowledge could be defined in one way, and another group defined it in another- so they just can't see each other's point of view or are "blind" to each other's reasoning.

I liken it more like how one chooses to talk about a sunset. One could speak of it poetically, or one could speak of it scientifically. Both are valid. But those who like to argue which one is right, are missing truly seeing the ****ing the sunset.

 

[EtuMalku]

Hi there, I could be wrong but I don't think that blind faith and having no evidence are the same thing. I might not have evidence to show you something I've seen but that doesn't mean I didn't see it. E.g. I saw a UFO but have no evidence to show you. Does this mean I didn't see it just coz you didn't?

It means you cannot show any evidence to another that you saw a UFO, as an agnostic I have no obligation to believe you or disbelieve you. If I choose either I am going on 'faith' that you saw this, or faith that you didn't see what you believe you did.

 

[whirlingmerc]

If something is truly baseless and blind it might be problematic for God to judge whether you leaped this way or that,
but leaping toward the light or away would be quite another thing