This is a perfect example of what I am espousing.
Abraham had an entire lifetime - a century - of God making promises to him that if he did X he would receive blessing Y - and then when Abraham did X God made good on his promises.
All of these promises eventually culminated in the birth of Isaac - which was a fulfillment of God's promise that Abraham would become a great nation that would bless all the families of the Earth.
So - Abraham had a lifetime of knowing and trusting God - then the commandment to sacrifice Isaac came.
This could be an even more significant thing than the Bible records because if you have read certain noncanonical books of scripture - and even one Mormon one - it is believed that Abraham himself had been a subject of sacrifice - not once but twice.
The Book of Jasher claims that Nimrod - who claimed to be king of the world - wanted to have the newborn Abraham sacrificed because his soothsayers prophesied that the child would one day become a greater king than him.
Terah - Abrahams father - swapped his newborn for another and Nimrod killed it.
The Book of Abraham - the Mormon one - claimed that as a young man Abraham was almost sacrificed in Ur of the Chaldees by the priest of Pharoah - but an angel came and rescued him.
So - if these records are accurate - this commandment would have had even more of an impact on Abraham than the Bible portrays.
Either way - Abraham knew that God did not work in human sacrifice and he knew that God had made promises to him that would have been broken if Isaac were to die at that time.
So - no - I don't consider this story to be one of "blind faith" - because Abraham had a lifetime of knowing and trusting God and he knew that God did not break his promises.
It was "informed faith" - but he it was still "faith" nonetheless - meaning it was not perfect knowledge - so he had a modicum of doubt.
Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
I also do not consider this to be an example of "blind faith".
Thomas and the other disciples had been taught by the Lord personally for years. They had seen His miracles all that time. Not only that - but they themselves had been given authority and they exclaimed after using that authority that they themselves had power over evil spirits and that they could heal the sick.
Also - Thomas had heard the Lord prophesy His own death and subsequent Resurrection on multiple occasions - even though he and the other disciples did not understand it.
Also consider that Mary saw angels and the Lord personally and conveyed their message that He had risen and that His disciples were to go meet Him at Galilee.
Peter and John witnessed the empty tomb and two other disciples met the risen Lord on the way to the town of Emmaus.
So after watching His Lord be crucified - Thomas remained faithful to the commission given him by the Lord and stayed with the Twelve. He heard the testimonies of Mary, Peter and John and went with them to Galilee. Even though he was not with them the first time that the Lord appeared to them - he remained with them there.
Yes - he did not believe their claims - he considered it too good to be true - and it would have been better for him had he believed without seeing - but he was hardly "blind" in his faith.
He had experienced so much - received so many witnesses in answer to his passing trials of faith over the years - he was not exercising "blind faith".
Either way - he was not judged negatively for his doubt - he remained a member of the Twelve until his death.
For we walk by faith, not by sight.
If you are doing as the Lord commands - your faith is not "blind" - because you are receiving witness after witness for passing your trials of faith.
Do you have demonstrable falsifyable evidence that there is a god?
Can you prove that the color green exists? Not everyone can see it. Can you demonstrate what salt tastes like? Does everyone taste it the same?
There are many things in life that we cannot prove to others. We need to experience them for ourselves.
I can talk about the scriptures and my personal experiences with you all day long - but that is not how anyone truly learns or demonstrates these things.
You would need to actually do these things we are talking about. Exercise faith in a particular principle. Test it out. Experiment with it. See if you receive the promised blessing associated with that principle.
"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:17)
You would need to "do his will" - or in other words "keep his commandments" - in order to "know of the doctrine".
I would call that blind faith. I do not have the believe that there is an elephant on the lawn before being able to perceive the elephant. In other words, I do not have to go through a "trial of faith" to perceive things that are real. Because my belief is irrelevant to what exists.
Let me try to use this analogy another way.
Let's say your neighbor told you that there was an elephant running rampant in your neighborhood.
If you immediately dismiss it as crazy and go back inside claiming that you would never believe such a story unless the elephant were to present itself to you - you may never know if there had actually been an elephant.
So - what if you exercise a particle of "faith" in what your neighbor said and stay outside and look around a bit?
Suddenly - you see a large elephant foot-shaped impression in your lawn. This is startling. You start to feel as though there may be some truth to what your neighbor said.
You had put what your neighbor had said to the test. Gave it only the bare minimum of effort. It may not be true - but you received a witness that there may be some truth here.
The more time and effort you dedicate to study and follow these - the more likely you will be able to prove or disprove to yourself if an elephant had actually ran through your neighbor.
It's "line upon line" and "precept upon precept" when it comes to knowing the things of God.
He is not going to force anything on you. He is not going to appear to you if you are not prepared.
I could see why that could be irksome in circumstances where it really doesn't matter. Which is probably most circumstances. My (pre-covid) bartender honestly believed the earth was flat. I thought it was fascinating. Though I will tell you Zaha, if someone had a child whose life could be saved by a blood transfusion, and they refused on the basis of their faith, I would not feel one iota of regret for cursing them angrily. And I would defy anyone for being offended by my doing so. Save for perhaps that child.
I would be right there cursing them with you.
However - I would become offended if you tried to force people to violate their beliefs.
I would encourage you to try and persuade them - but if any sort of force - legal or otherwise is applied - you would lose my support.
People have the right to to live according to their beliefs - no matter how dumb we think they are.
I intentionally chose examples that were likely out dated to make my point without making you defensive. I would say that all faith based existential/ontological beliefs that are either unsupported by, or are contradicted by, the scientific evidence fall under the category of faulty thinking.
Perhaps - but the scientific community has been wrong before.
I'm not claiming that actual evidence is wrong - but the theories that people formulate based on the evidence can and have been wrong before.
It's not what one thinks, but why one thinks it. You know?
Faith is important though. I believe many things that I cannot prove. There just is not way I could prove it. That doesn't mean those things are not true.
I believe that it is illogical to reject an idea because it cannot be proven.
