Is Faith Blind?

H

Hallam Willis

Registered Member
I have read through many posts here and the most prevalent problem people seem to have with any kind of religion is the fact that we base our belief, our trust in a God off of a blind faith which has no evidence other than I say it is true because I have decided to believe this is so. If this was the case I would agree completely, fortunately it's not the case. I would like to present a case for faith that is not blind, but in fact can be seen as true. Thomas Aquinas explains it the best when he makes distinctions about beliefs in God. He say’s that there are things about God we can understand such as he exists, and there are things we cannot understand such as his Omnipresence or the Trinity. He states that these things cannot be explained, and are proven on the authority of scripture alone. It is important to note he does not want to say that we cannot combine faith and reason, because that is exactly what he does. Truths about God are not “above logic” but are simply not empirically factual, but I ask you, why are you assuming that something that is not a part of our universe should be subject to our chemical or physical equations? So the bible states in Revelations that the dead will rise, there is of course no historical or empirical evidence that this will happen because it is a prediction, something we have to take on faith. Truths of reason can be clearly seen because they can be proven, or are empirically evident; where as truths of faith must be believed. Aquinas explains then that fulfilled prophecies in the bible, (which is a historical text) makes it very credible that scripture is a revelation from God, and thus completely authoritative (This is not circular because God does not require the bible to be true, as he is the highest conceivable being we can think of), therefore we can take the parts of the bible that are not demonstrable as faith based on the authority of scripture. Aquinas brings faith into epistemology, and it is no longer simply trusting with the heart, but a way to know something, complementary to reason.

I appreciate ideas contradictory to mine, I look forward to peoples insight into my reasoning.
 
Yes, faith is blind.
No, there is no good evidence for the Gods and Goddesses. More than likely they do not exist.

There IS the same amount of good evidence for whichever of the Gods you worship as there is for Xenu the Intergalactic Federation Warlord. Which is to say, none.
 
If God isn't part of our universe, then you place him conveniently out of the reach of reason, which is basically dishonest. The bible is not a historical text, although there are within it, certain parallels with actual history as confirmed by other sources. That doesn't mean everything in it is true. Faith is belief without evidence, and there is simply no good evidence for the things the bible claims.
 
Hallam Willis said:
Aquinas explains then that fulfilled prophecies in the bible, (which is a historical text) makes it very credible that scripture is a revelation from God, and thus completely authoritative (This is not circular because God does not require the bible to be true, as he is the highest conceivable being we can think of), therefore we can take the parts of the bible that are not demonstrable as faith based on the authority of scripture.
Click to expand...

If God does not require the bible to be true then it shouldn't matter if a prophesy comes true or not. Either way you end up with a God, and who in His name can argue against that kind of illogic. Faith is indeed blind and I think Thomas knew it before he came up with that.
 
Hallam Willis said:
.. why are you assuming that something that is not a part of our universe should be subject to our chemical or physical equations?
Click to expand...
if god isnt part of OUR universe it isnt omnipresent,correct?
therefore xian god doesnt exist here.
Aquinas explains then that fulfilled prophecies in the bible, (which is a historical text) makes it very credible that scripture is a revelation from God,.
Click to expand...
there arent any fulfilled prophecies.
and bible is a load of crap writen by some primitive ancient tribesmen who had no clue what universe is made from,so they invented god to explain things

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
 
Hallam Willis said:
I have read through many posts here and the most prevalent problem people seem to have with any kind of religion is the fact that we base our belief, our trust in a God off of a blind faith which has no evidence other than I say it is true because I have decided to believe this is so. If this was the case I would agree completely, fortunately it's not the case. I would like to present a case for faith that is not blind, but in fact can be seen as true. Thomas Aquinas explains it the best when he makes distinctions about beliefs in God. He say’s that there are things about God we can understand such as he exists, and there are things we cannot understand such as his Omnipresence or the Trinity. He states that these things cannot be explained, and are proven on the authority of scripture alone. It is important to note he does not want to say that we cannot combine faith and reason, because that is exactly what he does. Truths about God are not “above logic” but are simply not empirically factual, but I ask you, why are you assuming that something that is not a part of our universe should be subject to our chemical or physical equations? So the bible states in Revelations that the dead will rise, there is of course no historical or empirical evidence that this will happen because it is a prediction, something we have to take on faith. Truths of reason can be clearly seen because they can be proven, or are empirically evident; where as truths of faith must be believed. Aquinas explains then that fulfilled prophecies in the bible, (which is a historical text) makes it very credible that scripture is a revelation from God, and thus completely authoritative (This is not circular because God does not require the bible to be true, as he is the highest conceivable being we can think of), therefore we can take the parts of the bible that are not demonstrable as faith based on the authority of scripture. Aquinas brings faith into epistemology, and it is no longer simply trusting with the heart, but a way to know something, complementary to reason.

I appreciate ideas contradictory to mine, I look forward to peoples insight into my reasoning.
Click to expand...

Your rather lengthy paragraph above suffers several fallacies and requires several premises that have not been shown true.

Not the least of these premises is that, assuming a god exists in the cosmos, this god is your god (or Aquinas' god, the god of biblical mythology, etc.).

Another of these is that biblical stories are "historical" and not mythical. This premise fails utterly since we can find many irrational and contradictory inclusions as well as exclusions that make a divinely inspired bible the inspiration of a god who is, at best, ignorant and, at worst, stupid. But this is, perhaps, another thread topic.

In addition, your assumption that a god would be "outside the universe" and therefore not subject to reason or empirical observation renders this god non-existent by definition. An omnipresent and involved creator would have an affect on the universe even if "outside of the universe" (whatever this is supposed to mean) and, thus, his actions would be measurable and observable. Yet, the universe behaves just as it would if a god were not present at all.

Indeed, the very assumption of "outside of the universe" is a cop-out of mega-proportions and a bit of intellectual cowardice to boot. This is the apologist method of removing an alleged god from reason and protecting this god from rational thought. And yet, even Aquinas, the asshole who was so paranoid of the godless that he opined that they should be put to death without mercy, couldn't demonstrate that his particular notion of a god was the right or correct god. Had he been born to a Hindu family or a Muslim one, I'm sure he would have argued that Vishnu or Allah were the right and correct gods with equivalent certitude.

To say that "there are things we cannot understand" and thus conclude that a god, much less the Christian god, therefore exists is to argue from ignorance.

So, to answer the OP: faith, when not equivocated with the kind of "faith" that includes trust and confidence in a person or method based on observation and experience, is definitely blind. The blind kind seeks no information. It seeks only the darkness, shielded from the light of reason, inquiry, and objective truth. This type of faith, relies on delusion, collusion, and ignorance to keep indoctrinated adherents in lock-step.
 
It's easy to substitute faith for reason, towards something thing that isn't clearly defined. The basic definition of God equates to being the overseer of the universe. But what is the universe to him, solely a fief of his? His intentions are vague, and man will skew and distort God's enigmatic nature to add meaning to his life.
 
Last edited:
can faith be "hard to explain" logic?

like when you "know" that a person is lying?
 
SkinWalker said:
To say that "there are things we cannot understand" and thus conclude that a god, much less the Christian god, therefore exists is to argue from ignorance.
Click to expand...

I think that basically sums up everyone's argument against faith. Nicely done, Skin.

When you think about it, the faith isn't quite blind. Ask yourself why you or your neighbor, who were born and raised in New England, are Catholic. Or ask yourself why a girl in rural Pennsylvania is Amish. How about the old man in Baghdad being a Sunni Muslim (I'm probably using the wrong denomination, but you get the point).

The reason most people are of any particular denomination is because it's the religion they were raised on, and the first holy text they ever read. They're raised believing something is true, and that their primary source for information on the matter (their holy book, or holy man) are both infallable. So it's not like people, generally-speaking, are beliving something blindly--they have their own personal truth right there in front of them, as they have been--dare I say--trained since childhood.

It's blind faith only in a vacuum, where Johnny and Jane Atheist can only see the finished, polished religious product maintaining faith amongst a sea of information to the contrary. What we don't see is what binds them to that faith, and that's why most non-believers (and even some believers) call it blind.
 
-=-

Despite the otherwise good points, faith is yet blind. Regardless of how or why they come to it, believing without logic & proper evidence is blind.
 
-=-

Many (most?) view life as evidence of gods. Many view the order & "design" of the universe as evidence of gods. Most view existence of morality as evidence of gods. Most view souls as evidence of gods.
That's all logical evidence that they're blind to reason.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that evolution is evidence of gods.
Someone in another thread just said the definition of god is proof of the existence of god.
 
JDawg said:
Fair enough, but I think most religious people view their holy book as evidence enough.
Click to expand...

i don't. that's why i don't consider myself to be religious, although truth in scriptures has been shown to me through experience.
 
glaucon said:
Nope. Threats of violence and eternal damnation will do..

lol
Click to expand...

take a look around. are you in the same world that i am? do you not see violence and damnation everywhere? the destructive power of which keeps getting greater, and greater, and greater...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top