Blind Faith

[Rick O'Shez]

I usually replace faith with the word hope.

I think "hope" is more honest.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Or sue them for not delivering on their promise.

Yeah, and you can't get your money back with God.

 

[Orbit]

So you don't think that Atheists have faith in the theory of evolution (unless there's some other type of explanation Atheists have for mankind being here)? After all, it is a theory.
Plus religion has been around since the beginning of time....all known civilizations and cultures ever recorded throughout history have had "religions".

No. The theory of evolution is science supported by observable facts and evidence. Faith is a belief where there is no proof. Evolution has proof, therefore it has nothing to do with faith.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What does this term mean to you?
This is the technical definition....
Blind Faith
Belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination.

And then here's the definition of faith....

Faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

First off,
I can believe that people will believe in something without discrimination or perception but "true understanding"....idk....who can truly understand something without having all the evidence or facts? Especially when it comes to God and "the meaning of life" or how humans got on this earth...no one can "truly" know this....maybe if there is an afterlife, we'll find out...One thing I know, is that when it comes to these subjects, everyone has faith in what they believe..
I was once told (on this website) that I have blind Faith after sufficiently providing what I consider to be evidence and facts...which is what lead me to ask this question.

I think religious faith is combining the two knowingly, acting on a belief which one acknowledges cannot be proven- just as we get in a car with the faith that we will arrive at our destination, and the knowledge we can prove it.

And I'd say blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such, a superstition, atheism in many cases

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The wind, gravity, and many other things are unseen.

False. Those are the names we give to observable, quantifiable processes. Gravity is an observable phenomenon.

This does not make them any less real, nor less evidence-based.

No, but what DOES make them evidence-based in the evidence of them.

What you describe is not faith, IMO, but credulity.

In my opinion, with regards to religion, there is a lot of cross-over between the two - at least as far as my experiences go.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

No. The theory of evolution is science supported by observable facts and evidence. Faith is a belief where there is no proof. Evolution has proof, therefore it has nothing to do with faith.

what facts and what evidence? Isn't that why scientist are still desperately looking for the missing link or sasquatch?
Theory- an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.

So the theory of creation isn't just a theory too....?
Evolution has no proof..no one was there in the beginning and carbon dating has been proven to be unreliable.....
....attributing the development of life to natural forces such as evolution by natural selection is like expecting a tornado moving through a junkyard to result in a fully functional Boeing 747aircraft. This argument was originally made by British astronomer Fred Hoyle.
Yes animals and creatures of the earth adapt but as far as the theory of evolution is concerned, it still is just a theory just like the theory of creation. Therefore, you have faith (trust or confidence) in the theory (idea) of evolution.....which is newer than the theory of creation.

 

[Agondonter]

I was once told (on this website) that I have blind Faith after sufficiently providing what I consider to be evidence and facts...which is what lead me to ask this question.

Get used to it. This forum is dominated by materialists who don't comprehend that there are no noncircular arguments for the reliability of sense perception, mathematics or reason.

 

[Windwalker]

what facts and what evidence? Isn't that why scientist are still desperately looking for the missing link or sasquatch?

Oh for God's sake! There are thousands of missing links. You're just parroting the BS from the apologist community of 40 years ago! Get with the program here.

Theory- an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.

Scientific Theories are not the same as what you quote. They are in fact models. They are are know to be true, and proven evidence supporting them. Again, get with the program.

So the theory of creation isn't just a theory too....?

That's not a scientific theory. It's purely a religion belief. And that's fine, but do not mistake it as the same thing as science. That's neither good faith, nor good science. It's bad faith, and bad science.

Evolution has no proof..no one was there in the beginning and carbon dating has been proven to be unreliable.....

*yawn*... more garbage from 40 years ago that has be disproven countless thousands of times to the deaf ears of the willfully ignorant.

....attributing the development of life to natural forces such as evolution by natural selection is like expecting a tornado moving through a junkyard to result in a fully functional Boeing 747aircraft. This argument was originally made by British astronomer Fred Hoyle.
Yes animals and creatures of the earth adapt but as far as the theory of evolution is concerned, it still is just a theory just like the theory of creation. Therefore, you have faith (trust or confidence) in the theory (idea) of evolution.....which is newer than the theory of creation.

Does your faith really need to believe this??? Can't it withstand a new way of understanding? Do you know, it is possible to have faith in God and not bury your head in the sands of willfully, unfaithful, ignorance? Again, this is bad faith, as well as bad science.

 

[George-ananda]

Matthew 7:6New International Version (NIV)

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

I think Christianity such as yours is indeed a 'Faith' and not a 'Blind Faith' because you claim evidence (not proof) for your position. One should listen to the reason presented by others but at some point you must decide for yourself and then not let the repeating hecklers bother you.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Oh for God's sake! There are thousands of missing links. You're just parroting the BS from the apologist community of 40 years ago! Get with the program here.


Scientific Theories are not the same as what you quote. They are in fact models. They are are know to be true, and proven evidence supporting them. Again, get with the program.


That's not a scientific theory. It's purely a religion belief. And that's fine, but do not mistake it as the same thing as science. That's neither good faith, nor good science. It's bad faith, and bad science.


*yawn*... more garbage from 40 years ago that has be disproven countless thousands of times to the deaf ears of the willfully ignorant.


Does your faith really need to believe this??? Can't it withstand a new way of understanding? Do you know, it is possible to have faith in God and not bury your head in the sands of willfully, unfaithful, ignorance? Again, this is bad faith, as well as bad science.

No....not bad science. ....truth.
Scientific theory or model. ....the fact of the matter is that it isn't law. There is no absolute proof that can be exhibited to prove that the theory of evolution is in fact correct. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection and something cannot come from nothing...has there been any ground breaking proof to show? If there is, I'd like to see it.

 

[Windwalker]

No....not bad science. ....truth.

No, it's simply bad science. It's no more credible science than reading the entrails of owls is. It's also bad faith. It's not even blind faith, but bad faith based upon wilful ignorance. Wilfully cutting yourself off from your mind out of fear of knowledge which challenges you is not worship of God. It's worship of self.

Scientific theory or model. ....the fact of the matter is that it isn't law.

Scientific laws are another matter, like the law of gravity. The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law. No scientist alive claims it is.

There is no absolute proof that can be exhibited to prove that the theory of evolution is in fact correct.

There is no absolute proof of anything! However, the credibility of the ToE is highly, highly credible. It has tons of supporting evidence. It's as close to a "law" as you can get, even though technically it's not a "law" for other various reasons.

DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection and something cannot come from nothing...has there been any ground breaking proof to show? If there is, I'd like to see it.

Good Lord, avail yourself of the tons of information out there! It's prolific and substantive. Just do some research from actual scientists, not those apologists I know you run to who like to "tickle the ears" of those who only want to hear what they want to hear. That's not faith. It's bad faith. A true worship of God is only done when you are not wilfully burying your head in the sand.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Good Lord, avail yourself of the tons of information out there! It's prolific and substantive.

what "Lord" are you talking about?

Just do some research from actual scientists, not those apologists I know you run to who like to "tickle the ears" of those who only want to hear what they want to hear.

I've heard arguments, have read from articles, have seen "evidence" from both sides of the argument...I even have Darwin's book "the Origin of Species".....and although I do like my ears being tickled (specifically with air being blown into them....it gives me goosebumps!) I'm not choosing the side of the argument that benefits me most...I'm choosing the side that makes more sense to me...I just can't get on the side that says we are here because of coincidences and randomness...I'm also not convinced with the "proofs" that have been exhibited to prove it's validity. Like I said...I do believe that all living creatures on earth can adapt (not evolve which is different) to their environment (to a certain extent) but that doesn't change DNA and there might even occur some mutations as a result of their environment (like cancer) but these mutations damage DNA and these mutations most often cause hindrances...not advancements. Also mutations are (usually) unpredictable and have nothing to do with adaptation....just because a species has adapted to a specific environmental condition doesn't mean that species will develop a mutation as a result. Beneficial changes in DNA don't happen more often just because an organism can benefit from them. ....even if an organism has a beneficial mutation, the associated information will not flow back into the DNA "memory".

A true worship of God is only done when you are not wilfully burying your head in the sand.

So you're saying I have blind Faith huh? Just cause I choose to believe in something (after making comparisons) that makes more sense to me, doesn't mean I have blind Faith. I can say the same thing about anybody else.....in the end, when it comes to God or the existence of mankind (the earth etc...) everyone chooses what they want to believe.

 

[McBell]

what "Lord" are you talking about?
I've heard arguments, have read from articles, have seen "evidence" from both sides of the argument...I even have Darwin's book "the Origin of Species".....and although I do like my ears being tickled (specifically with air being blown into them....it gives me goosebumps!) I'm not choosing the side of the argument that benefits me most...I'm choosing the side that makes more sense to me...I just can't get on the side that says we are here because of coincidences and randomness...I'm also not convinced with the "proofs" that have been exhibited to prove it's validity. Like I said...I do believe that all living creatures on earth can adapt (not evolve which is different) to their environment (to a certain extent) but that doesn't change DNA and there might even occur some mutations as a result of their environment (like cancer) but these mutations damage DNA and these mutations most often cause hindrances...not advancements. Also mutations are (usually) unpredictable and have nothing to do with adaptation....just because a species has adapted to a specific environmental condition doesn't mean that species will develop a mutation as a result. Beneficial changes in DNA don't happen more often just because an organism can benefit from them. ....even if an organism has a beneficial mutation, the associated information will not flow back into the DNA "memory".
So you're saying I have blind Faith huh? Just cause I choose to believe in something (after making comparisons) that makes more sense to me, doesn't mean I have blind Faith. I can say the same thing about anybody else.....in the end, when it comes to God or the existence of mankind (the earth etc...) everyone chooses what they want to believe.

I wonder if you realize just how much this sounds like you made your "choice" based on which one you can insert whatever you like?

 

[Windwalker]

what "Lord" are you talking about?

You know, the one when they say "Oh, for God's sake!". That one.

I've heard arguments, have read from articles, have seen "evidence" from both sides of the argument...

Actually, you haven't. There is no other side of the argument being made. These arguments you have read come from non-scientists. So it's not the other side of the argument. It's no argument at all. It's not arguing the science. For that, it takes scientists, not just those who read the Bible a peculiar way that not even all Biblical scholars agree with and consider that to be "the other side of the argument". It's an argument comparing apples and orangutans. It's myth versus science. Not science versus science.

I'm not choosing the side of the argument that benefits me most...I'm choosing the side that makes more sense to me...

If we did science by what "makes sense" to us, we'd never have left the ground in air flight. Let alone fly to the moon. Let alone understand the world is round. Let alone understand we orbit the sun. Let alone come to see that species evolves. Are you sure you think "what makes sense to me", is really what you want to rely upon???

I just can't get on the side that says we are here because of coincidences and randomness...I'm also not convinced with the "proofs" that have been exhibited to prove it's validity.

You're not convinced because of what contrary data? Or is it that you're not convinced because it "Doesn't make sense to me"?

But if it means anything to you, not every scientist believes the process of evolution is purely blind and random. The mechanics of "how" it happens are not set in stone. But they do accept the fact that we have evolved from earlier species. The evidence for that is overwhelming and undeniable. There's no valid reason one has to reject belief in God in order to accept the fact of evolution. I certainly believe in God, and accept evolution. It's not a problem for me. Why is it for you? If you accepted evolution, does that mean God isn't real to you?

Like I said...I do believe that all living creatures on earth can adapt (not evolve which is different)

Part of that adaptation does actually lead to separate species over time. Is it that you're married to the story in Genesis being read literally like a scientific and historic account? You do realize that's not necessarily a valid reading of it, and in fact a very great many people of faith don't read it like that? You are aware of that, aren't you?

So you're saying I have blind Faith huh?

No, I said you don't have blind faith, but bad-faith. Blind faith doesn't end in anti-science. I see blind faith as a leap for the sake of faith itself. It's more an existentialist approach to faith where you simply 'leap' into faith. That's different than just faith itself which I see as more an intuition of the divine. Faith is open to challenges to beliefs, because it does not rest the soul in "What makes sense to me", as you stated quite clearly. Bad faith is one which finds reasons to hang onto beliefs against evidence, against reason, and against faith itself. It's true nature is fear. And as a result in relies on the beliefs being "right", to find security. This is not faith at all. It's not blind faith. It's bad faith.

Just cause I choose to believe in something (after making comparisons) that makes more sense to me, doesn't mean I have blind Faith.

It certainly is not how one approaches faith! Making comparisons, reasoning logic, and so forth? How, and in what way should that be considered faith? It sound like relying on your ideas of what is true and not. That's not faith.

I can say the same thing about anybody else.....in the end, when it comes to God or the existence of mankind (the earth etc...) everyone chooses what they want to believe.

And not all beliefs are equally valid. When you deny mountains of evidences, that's not a valid belief. It's denial. Holocaust deniers can argue they simply choose to believe that too. But is that valid? No. They too have bad-faith.

 

[Acim]

Blind faith is the type of faith I had in material existence, until I became more spiritual, more reasoned.

 

[Segev Moran]

Most unbelievers wouldn't have a reason place faith in what isn't in front of them. Only a believer would feel the need to take that extra step and actually believe something that can't be proven.

So it is with science, it isn't necessary to doubt anything except what can be observed. There are cosmologists like hawking trying to figure out the beginnings and maybe taking extra leaps to figure stuff out but that's their job.

I Wouldn't say unbelievers (as am i) have no belief... i just think our definition of belief is a bit different..

all science discoveries are made do to sort of a belief...
someone thinks of an idea.. based on reason, based on observations...
and based on his belief of the possibility of it.. the scientist will explore and try to find the proof to his belief...

a "believer" (using your term) on the other hand, defines belief as the actual truth...
there is a big difference believing something might be true and trying to prove it
and believing something is true because it wasn't disproved...

 

[Segev Moran]

So you don't think that Atheists have faith in the theory of evolution

Most certainly not!
atheist have no faith what so ever in the evolution theory...
its like saying you have faith in a table...

the evolution theory is an explanation to how life evolved to what they are today...
you just misspelled to word.. it's not faith.. its fact...
evolution is based of factual information...
and so, if someone will discover a new evidence that suggests that evolution is wrong.. and that evidence will be indisputable..
then evolution will be just that... wrong!

but again.. unlike faith.. it is based on facts!
on evidence collected for billions of years on our small planet...
on other planets...

it was happening... and it is happening today!!!
the human body is morphing!
we are changing...
from generation to generation our bodies are adapting to our surroundings!

true... you can't witness a inner specie change because its a process that takes billions of years!
but the evidence is there...
and again.. some of it can be wrong! tons of it is yet to be learned and understood...
but no matter how you look at it it is based on facts and not faith!

(unless there's some other type of explanation Atheists have for mankind being here)? After all, it is a theory.

Your a bit confused about a theory and a scientific theory...
I can say i have a theory that when you sleep your body levitates 10 inches above the ground!
It;s a theory...nice ones might i add...
but it's not a scientific theory...
It's a scientific theory only when you find the evidence to support it...
only if it solved issues that are yet to be answered.. and then.. only then .. you start questioning the theory and see how can you make it false.. where does it fail to work? and than.. after being proven to support the reality we live in.. only then can you call it a scientific theory...
and obviously.. mine will fail big time...
cause it might be true.. somewhere in the universe... but until to proven as such.. it's not even a valid candidate to be referred to a scientific theory

Plus religion has been around since the beginning of time....all known civilizations and cultures ever recorded throughout history have had "religions".

No it has not lol
religion is here since humans developed social abilities...

 

[Segev Moran]

Thus our faith is evidence based.

where is that evidence?
someone saying that there is evidence but cannot show it.. means there is no evidence...

 

[Acim]

Most certainly not!
atheist have no faith what so ever in the evolution theory...
its like saying you have faith in a table....

It's exactly like that. You have no (technically) objective evidence for your faith that a table exists, but you do have your faith. You do have high degree of confidence in it.

This same faith is at work at the core of science that rests on the assumption/faith in materialism. Once that is accepted (with high degree of confidence), reason and logic can make all sorts of correlations, presumptions of causation and support certain hypothesis. All fine and dandy. But don't be thinking this rests on something entirely different than faith in Being that is known through your Being. The evidence for Supreme Being starts with understanding own Being. If spending all of 15 seconds and exercising extreme doubt, chances are the evidence you seek could hit you in your proverbial face and you'd still show up as denier. Calling that 'reasonable.'

 

[idav]

It's exactly like that. You have no (technically) objective evidence for your faith that a table exists, but you do have your faith. You do have high degree of confidence in it.

Thats deep.