the difference between faith and blind faith

so is there a difference between the two or are they one and the same?

Originally posted by Sado22
so is there a difference between the two or are they one and the same?

There is a difference. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I have seen it before, and I understand how the Earth rotating works to make the sun come up in the morning. Blind faith is to believe in something with no evidence or understanding. Like having faith that big foot is blue, would be blind faith.

A philosopher I read once broek it into 3 categories (paraphrased below):

1. Faith that stands even in the face of evidence. Fanaticism would fall into this category.
2. Faith in something that we have no hard evidence for or against. Most mainstream religious faith would be interpreted this way.
3. Faith based upon probabilities. What shakya was talking about. I have faith that a dinner I order at a restaurant isn't poisoned, for example.

...

I like the distinctions. I think they work well to describe the phenomenon that is "faith".

2. Faith in something that we have no hard evidence for or against. Most mainstream religious faith would be interpreted this way.

When dealing with theology facts play a rather minor role. Thus the first category is rarely applicable

Originally posted by backdoorman
As does the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster.

When dealing with theology facts play a rather minor role. Thus the first category is rarely applicable

Only to those ignorant of theology.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I have seen it before, and I understand how the Earth rotating works to make the sun come up in the morning.

This is not faith, but inference.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Blind faith is to believe in something with no evidence or understanding. Like having faith that big foot is blue, would be blind faith.

Faith is any belief that is not based on material evidence.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is not faith, but inference...

To me, it is the only real faith. My belief in Buddhism is because I have seen how the practice has given me the tools to better my own life. That equates to faith to continue in my Buddhist practice.

Originally posted by Alliance
Only to those ignorant of theology.

Can you please explain how fact contradicts religion?

Originally posted by Alliance
Can you please explain how fact contradicts religion?

Originally posted by backdoorman
facts are used against religion

Refresh your memory?

So how does attacking scripture undermine religion?

Not religion in general but the faith that espouses those scriptures, at least those who believe the particular scripture to be the infallible word of god.

Do you disagree or do you just not like me?

I think you made a stupid comment.

Facts play an exceedingly important role in theology, and religion, and in scripture. These words are NOT interchangeable.

In Christian scripture, I doubt you think that there was not a land called Cannan, or the city of Jeruselem, or a nation called Egypt. Facts in scripture provide the backdrop for the mythology, putting it in the context of our world and helping us to understand its message.

Religion is not fundamentalism and does not believe in the inerrancy of its scriptures. In Christianity, St. Augustine himself established precedents for interpreting the Bible and resolving its contradictions. Thus, fact, does not change religion.

In theology, the study of religion, facts play a major role, as the study itself is based upon the combination of the history of religion, its people, and its scripture.

In short, with screaming exclusivity to Christianity, you are seeming to construct a religion, rather than actually interpret what it is. You see the abortion clinic bombing, but don't see the Vatican Council endorsing evolution. You see the parent throwing their homosexual child out of the home, but don't see the minister sanctioning a gay marriage. You've simply constructed a religion that you project on all others, with complete disregard for the diversity and plurality of that religion. Then you claim to hate it and make outrageous claims like "they disregard fact."

Originally posted by backdoorman
I never said that, you idiot. I said they are usually used against religions (e.g. by attacking Bible stories.).

Originally posted by Alliance
Refresh your memory?

So how does attacking scripture undermine religion?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Faith is any belief that is not based on material evidence.

indeed

I do not think that the idea being symbolized by the term "faith" accuratly describes conclusions based on evidence.

How important would it be to "keep faith" if it was demonstrable?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is not faith, but inference.

Faith is any belief that is not based on material evidence.

id like to make a small correction{if u dont mind} in the first statement. in formal logic, inferences{or stating facts} only work in the present and for the past. you can only really say that so n so even happened since x time till now with 100% assurity. you can NOT use it to say that the event will also KEEP ON HAPPENING, at some basic level, that is faith. based on high probability.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
id like to make a small correction{if u dont mind} in the first statement. in formal logic, inferences{or stating facts} only work in the present and for the past. you can only really say that so n so even happened since x time till now with 100% assurity. you can NOT use it to say that the event will also KEEP ON HAPPENING, at some basic level, that is faith. based on high probability.

you would be correct if we percieved things which did not follow from other things and events without cause.

no inference or prediction is 100% accurate by definition. It is not faith given that probability is demonstrable and does not need to be relied upon without evidence.

You are assuming that for someone to "think" something, they do it with absolute confidence, or that to infer something (as opposed to having faith in it) it must also be 100% accurate.

The accuracy of an idea does not make it more or less of a "faith". Evidence to support an idea makes it an inference (if not the term I would use) whereas having a belief with no direct evidence is faith.

Religion is not fundamentalism and does not believe in the inerrancy of its scriptures. In Christianity, St. Augustine himself established precedents for interpreting the Bible and resolving its contradictions. Thus, fact, does not change religion.

In theology, the study of religion, facts play a major role, as the study itself is based upon the combination of the history of religion, its people, and its scripture.

In short, with screaming exclusivity to Christianity, you are seeming to construct a religion, rather than actually interpret what it is.

You see the abortion clinic bombing, but don't see the Vatican Council endorsing evolution. You see the parent throwing their homosexual child out of the home, but don't see the minister sanctioning a gay marriage. You've simply constructed a religion that you project on all others, with complete disregard for the diversity and plurality of that religion. Then you claim to hate it and make outrageous claims like "they disregard fact."

Originally posted by Alliance

In Christian scripture, I doubt you think that there was not a land called Cannan, or the city of Jeruselem, or a nation called Egypt. Facts in scripture provide the backdrop for the mythology, putting it in the context of our world and helping us to understand its message.

Religion is not fundamentalism and does not believe in the inerrancy of its scriptures. In Christianity, St. Augustine himself established precedents for interpreting the Bible and resolving its contradictions. Thus, fact, does not change religion.

In theology, the study of religion, facts play a major role, as the study itself is based upon the combination of the history of religion, its people, and its scripture.

Facts are not essential to theology. Fiction novels can name real places but have fictional happenings. (This is not to say that is fiction, just worth mentioning because it does not prove a thing)

Regardless of what St. Augustine established, there are "Christians" who do not follow it the same way. Now to establish a certain canon is one thing, but that does not make it universal for all Christians. Now if we are to assume that you mean his canon is the "correct" way and therefore a fact, I would disagree.

Also because "facts" (in terms of history) are generally told with a twist that most folk who read even minutely know are false, I am apt to not agree with this post.

Originally posted by chithappens
Facts are not essential to theology. Fiction novels can name real places but have fictional happenings. (This is not to say that is fiction, just worth mentioning because it does not prove a thing)

I'd say fact is also essential to fiction. I never clamed the end product is factual, I said that facts are required to give it proper and believable context.

Originally posted by chithappens
Regardless of what St. Augustine established, there are "Christians" who do not follow it the same way. Now to establish a certain canon is one thing, but that does not make it universal for all Christians. Now if we are to assume that you mean his canon is the "correct" way and therefore a fact, I would disagree.

There is no correct way, he simply provided a historically accepted precedent.

Originally posted by chithappens
Also because "facts" (in terms of history) are generally told with a twist that most folk who read even minutely know are false, I am apt to not agree with this post.