The confusion about faith (priests, Holy Spirit, Jewish, believer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Believing that "A = not A" (believing something for no good reason) is not what is meant by "blind faith."
First off, believing that A = not A is not the same as believing something for no good reason. Indeed, you can be mistaken about A while having good reasons, or you could hold to a truth for really bad reasons!
And second, yes, "blind faith" refers to belief for no good reason.
Quote:
Blind faith is believing (hearsay, stories, and ideas, etc.) both without evidence and in a hopeful way.
So you would call the belief that we are not all bodies in the Matrix, we're not just dreaming all of this, etc. "blind faith"? Or would you consider the experience you have of the external world as "evidence"?
And are you or are you not equating "faith" with "blind faith"? If not, what's the difference, in your opinion?
Quote:
You lied saying that any edition, version, or canon of a Christian Bible
I don't recall specifying that no version of the bible says it...
Quote:
doesn't obviously promote "blessed are you for you have believed, but not seen"
What I deny is the idea that it's rewarding blind faith. Because I see no reason to think it is.
Quote:
as "blessed are you for not requiring evidence (and thus not blessed are you for requiring it)"
I would deny that as a good interpretation, yes. It doesn't follow that because one person is blessed for one action, others who didn't take that action are not blessed/are not as blessed.
Quote:
What is that word "especially" supposed to mean at the end of that sentence of yours?
It's the key point! Lol. "I've never heard a Christian say or suggest that god rewards blind faith especially" means I've never heard a Christian say or suggest that god rewards blind faith more/more frequently than any other type of faith.
I think it would be helpful if you shared "where you are" in terms of religion. You keep saying that you're not christian. So what are you? And how does that result in you being one of the great defenders of christianity on the forum?
Don't get me wrong. You are entitled to your privacy, so this is not something I'm demanding that you do. It just seems like what you say you are (well, actually what you say you're not) is not logical based on your posts.
I think it would be helpful if you shared "where you are" in terms of religion. You keep saying that you're not christian. So what are you?
I've said several times already that I'm an atheist (in the sense that I do not believe in any gods; I understand some define it strictly as "belief that there is no god", which doesn't describe me).
Quote:
And how does that result in you being one of the great defenders of christianity on the forum?
I'm a logician first, atheist second. That is to say, I'm not defined by my lack of belief in a god. I can acknowledge the logical fallacies used by anti-theists here and elsewhere (and I'm compelled to do so because I don't think this is done often enough), while not believing the theists are correct on the god question.
I've said several times already that I'm an atheist (in the sense that I do not believe in any gods; I understand some define it strictly as "belief that there is no god", which doesn't describe me).
I'm a logician first, atheist second. That is to say, I'm not defined by my lack of belief in a god. I can acknowledge the logical fallacies used by anti-theists here and elsewhere (and I'm compelled to do so because I don't think this is done often enough), while not believing the theists are correct on the god question.
you touched on some important parts.
sects of atheists. although not officially, we difere enough that the word applies. also, some atheists are defined by a statement of belief about god as surely as some theists are. lastly, and just as importantly, just because theists are wrong doesn't make everything we do right.
to me, a simple table listing generally accepted personality types and how those accepted personalities might express a statement of belief about god (yes or no) is all we need to demonstrate the above position is not only more valid, it will shed light on some of the things you are addressing.
it that simple and its valid. its also science, witch we atheist readily deploy against theism but some of us will not apply to our beliefs.
First off, believing that A = not A is not the same as believing something for no good reason. Indeed, you can be mistaken about A while having good reasons, or you could hold to a truth for really bad reasons!
And second, yes, "blind faith" refers to belief for no good reason.
What is a single "good reason" to believe that A = not A? And I meant "A = not A" as a direct concept, e.g. "a circle is not a circle," not as a metaphor for a misperception such as "this fool's gold is actual gold."
I continue to maintain that "blind faith" refers to belief with no good evidence.
A belief for no good reason is "unreasonableness" or "an unjustifiable belief" not "blind faith."
There are many reasons outside of evidence, although proper evidence should always inform them.
In terms of metaphors, you can only be blind to evidence and deaf to reason.
You can't be deaf to evidence, and blind to reason.
You can also have a "muted reaction" but not "muted faith" or "muted evidence," such would be "broken faith" and "censured evidence."
Therefore, "blind faith" is being blind to the evidence, not lacking trumped-up reasons.
Quote:
So you would call the belief that we are not all bodies in the Matrix, we're not just dreaming all of this, etc. "blind faith"? Or would you consider the experience you have of the external world as "evidence"?
And are you or are you not equating "faith" with "blind faith"? If not, what's the difference, in your opinion?
A believe which involved either denying the Matrix or simply not accepting the Matrix as likely true, would need "no evidence" and "hope anyway" to be "blind faith." Is there any evidence for the Matrix outside of movies, writing, and hypothesizing? No. Is there any evidence for a real non-Matrix world? Yes. Even if that is what the over-powered Matrix would have you believe.
The difference between "blind faith" and "faith" is that faith doesn't require a lack of evidence, while blind faith does. The false faith of the religions of the various peoples of the world, by itself, is merely an awkward conglomeration of trust, hope, desire, loyalty, conviction, creed, etc.
Quote:
I don't recall specifying that no version of the bible says it...
What I deny is the idea that it's rewarding blind faith. Because I see no reason to think it is.
I thought you had said that Christians don't believe in, nor with, blind faith.
Most religious people usually see a "blessing" as a "gift" and a "reward." Otherwise, a blessing is truly nothing. In fact, a Christian blessing is defined as "God's favor and protection." How is that NOT a reward? And why would God's "favor" not lead to a reward? It would be as meaningless as a snowflake's favor if it led to nothing. If "blessed are you for believing blindly" means "nothing, no reason to think anything in particular for believing blindly" then why would any Christian fall for it or use it against others?
Quote:
I would deny that as a good interpretation, yes. It doesn't follow that because one person is blessed for one action, others who didn't take that action are not blessed/are not as blessed.
How would you interpret "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth," then? That inheriting material things is no blessing? Or that "no worries, the proud are also blessed in the afterlife for having been proud, and quite possibly with also inheriting the earth along with you meek dupes!" is the right interpretation instead?
Quote:
It's the key point! Lol. "I've never heard a Christian say or suggest that god rewards blind faith especially" means I've never heard a Christian say or suggest that god rewards blind faith more/more frequently than any other type of faith.
And I'm not a Christian, BTW.
I thought you had originally said that Christians don't believe in blind faith. That is why I even began this discussion with you, to correct you and others who would have otherwise thought similarly.
One of the main stables of the current fashion of high-selling Christianity is "saved by any kind of faith in the true Jesus alone." That would, of course, include blind faith as most Christians see it. A blind faith which they see honor in because it is "blessed" and a virtue signal of forceful self-driven will (although that is a counterfeit apprehension on their part).
What is a single "good reason" to believe that A = not A? And I meant "A = not A" as a direct concept, e.g. "a circle is not a circle," not as a metaphor for a misperception such as "this fool's gold is actual gold."
Oh, well in that case there isn't one. I just misunderstood you.
Quote:
I continue to maintain that "blind faith" refers to belief with no good evidence.
Well then, we are all guilty of "blind faith" on a regular basis (constantly, in fact) as I pointed out earlier.
Quote:
Is there any evidence for a real non-Matrix world? Yes.
Oh? What would that be? Because you can't use your experience to justify belief that your experience is veridical, that would be arguing in a circle. And the point was simply that this wouldn't count as "evidence", unless you're granting that experience = evidence which is a move I wouldn't expect someone arguing against theism to make...
Also, note that the idea isn't just "There is a non-Matrix world" but that the world you're perceiving is a non-Matrix world. A subtle but important distinction.
Quote:
In fact, a Christian blessing is defined as "God's favor and protection." How is that NOT a reward?
Because it's not tying "favor and protection" in with blind faith? And of course "favor" in this context doesn't mean god is picking a favorite (when compared to other people) and treating others in some inferior way.
Quote:
How would you interpret "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth," then?
This one seems even easier. Merely a prophecy. Not saying that they'll inherit the earth as a reward for being weak, just that they will be the ones who will be blessed in that way.
Quote:
That inheriting material things is no blessing? Or that "no worries, the proud are also blessed in the afterlife for having been proud, and quite possibly with also inheriting the earth along with you meek dupes!" is the right interpretation instead?
No, I think that because it specifies how they will be blessed, we can say that the meek will be the ones to inherit the earth. But again, I don't think it makes sense to say it's "for having been proud/meek". Nor does it suggest the proud will have no reward, or even an inferior reward.
Indeed, now that I think on it, this could simply be a consolation for the meek, so as to say "You will have your blessing also. Even though you are meek, you will inherit the earth. That will be your blessing."
Quote:
I thought you had originally said that Christians don't believe in blind faith.
I still don't think Christians (generally) promote having blind faith, or think that god rewards it. But that's because I define "blind faith" as "believing with no good reason", not as "believing without evidence".
Quote:
One of the main stables of the current fashion of high-selling Christianity is "saved by any kind of faith in the true Jesus alone." That would, of course, include blind faith as most Christians see it.
But even here, that doesn't mean blind faith is being promoted. One could hold that, while blind faith is sufficient to save your soul, it's not preferred (if nothing else, it'd be easier for you to lose said faith when confronted with some seemingly good anti-theistic arguments!)
Quote:
A blind faith which they see honor in because it is "blessed"
I would say that anyone interpreting that verse that way is just wrong.
I continue to maintain that "blind faith" refers to belief with no good evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Well then, we are all guilty of "blind faith" on a regular basis (constantly, in fact) as I pointed out earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
...and your examples are?
As I pointed out earlier (hence the phrase "as I pointed out earlier" ), the belief that you are not just a body in the Matrix/that what you experience is veridical would be an example of a belief held without evidence. You can't appeal to the experience to prove the veridicality of the experience, because that would be arguing in a circle. Nor do I suspect you guys would say the experience is evidence, because that would arm the theists something fierce!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), the belief that you are not just a body in the Matrix/that what you experience is veridical would be an example of a belief held without evidence. You can't appeal to the experience to prove the veridicality of the experience, because that would be arguing in a circle. Nor do I suspect you guys would say the experience is evidence, because that would arm the theists something fierce!
