Blind faith?

[BruceK]

Here’s a question I was recently posed with, “but isn’t faith to a degree blind anyway?? We are taking a trust into something we truly don’t know and putting in faith that our trust is true. In a way, by definition, faith is blind.” Is it really? I thought as christians we go on a trust that is grouded in reality, reason and facts. Who’s right?

 

[ABiii]

Yes, I think it is true to a degree.

Since God is infinite in so many ways, we cannot even fathom understanding Him completely. With experience and knowledge, we can get to know him more, yet because He is infinite, not all our personal questions can be answered, even if we learn some answers every day.

To fully understand God we would logically have to be God… if the information was force fed, our brains would explode.

 

[tigers08]

I like what Dr. House says about it:

Faith; that’s another word for ignorance, isn’t it? I’ve never understood how people can be so proud of believing in something with no proof at all, like that’s an achievement.

Blind belief is basically the definition of faith:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

There’s really no such thing as faith in a religion. For unless God reveals to each of us individually that a particular religion is truly His disclosure to us of Himself, then, by believing that religion, we are not taking His word for it, but we are instead putting our faith in the person or institution telling us it is so.

 

[ABiii]

Not all faith is necessarily blind.

There is experiential faith: My father has always been there for me, so I have faith in him.

There is learned faith: The manual says that in order to keep my engine in good shape, I have to change my oil every 8 months. I have faith in the manual.

There is shared faith: My father trusts him, so I trust him.

Granted, Christian faith starts with blind faith, but as we get older, there is an opportunity for this faith to blossom… a once blind faith can be a secure faith.

 

[AndyF]

We are taking a trust into something we truly don’t know and putting in faith that our trust is true. In a way, by definition, faith is blind." Is it really? I thought as christians we go on a trust that is grouded in reality, reason and facts. Who’s right?

“trust is true”. With man we determine this by observation. We study his virtuousness, his consistantcy, responsibility and accountability and his social interaction. We look for double standards,dishonesty and unsolid principles in the face of conflict of interest. We are assured this method is sanctioned by God therefore good, so there shouldn’t be any reason we cannot apply a good to God. In an independant investigation we shouldn’t find anything amiss with God.

In the same vein that everything is required to be believed, is it reasonable to insist everything be revealed.?

Do created beings who are repugnant to him and who involuntarily are the first satisfaction and benefit from him deserve any expectations.?

AndyF

 

[ABiii]

In the same vein that everything is required to be believed, is it reasonable to insist everything be revealed.?

It is reasonable to insist/demand. Yes, why not.

Is it feasible for us to even understand if it were revealed… Theoretically, no.

Is it a duty that it be revealed to us? Theoretically no, if God is superior, why does he have to do so. If he does so, it would be under his terms and judgement… again theoretically.

Actually, even in the bible it says that those who seek, find. Those who knock, the door shall be opened.

If you want a 5 minute answer to your life, you won’t find it complete… but if you actually try to consider the Christian reality humbly for a year or two, you might actually see how it works.

Do created beings who are repugnant to him and who involuntarily are the first satisfaction and benefit from him deserve any expectations.?

Are there actually repugnant beings? No. Disobedient or Apathetic or Hateful beings can exist, but are not necessarily repugnant… God may not agree with or may be angered, but not be repugnant. A father may disagree with his rebellious son’s choices, but not be repugnant towards him.

In that scenario, yes, we all can have expectations… and God has expectations of us too.

If you went to see the CEO of the big company that you work for (let’s say you work in one) and asked him to give you a $50,000 raise, first he will ask: “who are you?” and “why do I have to do so?”. Then he will ask you: “what did you do to deserve this?”.

Of course, that is not how God treats us. I am just sharing the context that we are in. God is in higher regard than man. Many make demands of God, as if they were God… but if you humbly say: “Lord, please”… you have a better chance for an answer.

 

[AndyF]

ABiii:

re there actually repugnant beings? No. Disobedient or Apathetic or Hateful beings can exist,…

Perhaps my choice of adjectives wasn’t correct, but yes, for some individuals they are, besides stigmatized by original sin, some have been selected(elect) and some receive a double whammy(reprobate) before they were even conceived.

So for some at their welcoming home party, God doesn’t hold out much hope for and he has it in for him. Not only that, but his creating the reprobate was the first involuntary satisfaction he will do for Him. Nasty disgusting reprobate hey? Imagine the audacity of the guy being born?

"If you went to see the CEO of the big company that you work for (let’s say you work in one) and asked him to give you a $50,000 raise, first he will ask: “who are you?” and “why do I have to do so?”. Then he will ask you: “what did you do to deserve this?”.

Bob would respond “It’s in payment of the involuntary satisfaction that I gave you in bringing me here. I was content in my unaffected non existant world bothering no one and causing neither harm nor good, and you had to form me to satisfy you, and offer me what I already had. “YOU” brought me here, “I” didn’t bring myself.”. (switched anology for clarity)

And from this a test of sorts will arise. All employees will watch to see if the CEO will take any responsibility for Bob’s working there. But no one will object if he doesn’t because they are afraid to lose something, because they have no way of leaving the “firm”, for they know that complaining sends them to the basement to join the furnace stokers. So they will hide their concern in their hearts, and they will laugh at will, and dance at will, and say how the boss is always right, and believe at will.

But the people get togeather and discuss their concern and some logical conclusions they come up with. “Why didn’t he just ask Bob if he wanted to join, then everyone here will be in the spirit and attitude that he wants.” “Who will do the suggesting.” another says. “No way, not me, man.” one says. “not me neither, I’ve got too much to lose.” another says.
So all the Bob’s will always stand alone, for everyone knows but never admit that they work in a coerced environment, where everyone will say “yes” and the furnaces will always beckon.

Now the CEO is a good guy he says. He will offer his loyal crowd one day be invited to upstairs where everyone doesn’t need to work, and there will be partying and forgetting and grass to smoke so everyone can forget issues. “Wow” they say" quickly forgetting about Bob’s case. Now some jump on Bob’s issue an opportunity to advance their cause, hoping the CEO will notice and give them extra credit. “Maybe Bob didn’t have a real case”, they begin to think. “Maybe he should have been greatful for being seized into work. After all the CEO is really a nice guy we discover.” One day Bob realizing the social conditions of his work goes to his boss to apologize. “That was really silly of me not being greatful for working here.” he says. “Just for that I will grant you your 50000, because I’m a good guy and you said you were sorry.”

So everyone lives happily ever after, but they all know in their heart something in teh way the Bob’s are handled intially was intrinsically wrong, but later right now, “Has anyone seen my martini.?”

AndyF

 

[ateista]

Very well put!

 

[East_and_West]

Here’s a question I was recently posed with, “but isn’t faith to a degree blind anyway?? We are taking a trust into something we truly don’t know and putting in faith that our trust is true. In a way, by definition, faith is blind.” Is it really? I thought as christians we go on a trust that is grouded in reality, reason and facts. Who’s right?

Not correct at all. The first Vatican Council declares an anathema on anyone who propogates the idea of blind faith. Rather it firmly states that we must believe, as Catholics, that a person can know the existence of God by reason alone.

 

[ABiii]

Perhaps my choice of adjectives wasn’t correct, but yes, for some individuals they are, besides stigmatized by original sin, some have been selected(elect) and some receive a double whammy(reprobate) before they were even conceived.

• We all were born with original sin.
• Who are the reprobates? Are they: Those who died before birth? Those born with deformities? Those born with irresponsible parents? Those who will never be taller than 5 feet? Those with lesser IQ?

(Is this response about the question of inegality when born? Check Kreeft’s “Making sense out of suffering”, or C.S. Lewis: “The Problem of Pain”)

Philosophically speaking, whatever our context at birth, who can really judge if one received a double whammy? Who says that someone born in a dirt poor slum is less blessed than someone born with a silver spoon?

In any case, all humans are born equally loved and wanted.

Where did the idea that some are unwanted come from?

In regards to the CEO example, I was just explaining the nature of our relationship with God. It is not necessarily the reason for God not explaining things to everyone as a grace. I did not write that as a copout answer, just a philosophical truth in terms of the context of unequal relationships. Theoretically, if God exists, then we are inferior in stature. That is irrefutable. We are even lucky that he is loving.

If I understood your response properly, you imply that there is an injustice in that (our uneven relationship/stature). There would be one, if we were not designed for that very purpose ( to love and serve God ). However, if we were designed to serve and worship God (actually, that is the greatest happiness in heaven), then the formula works.

The Christian paradox of choice was never hidden:

Would you rather be God in hell, or serve God in heaven?

Now, your perspective actually changes if you understood how heaven and hell really works. I personally would be so happy if I were granted the job of washing Jesus’ feet for all eternity.

( I would have been blown out of my mind if I said that years ago… but now that I know what heaven and hell imply, it is all so much clearer.)

If you would like to know more about this heaven and hell thing I write about, I suggest reading a couple of Peter Kreeft books… starting with “YES/NO straight answers to tough questions about christianity” and even “Back to Virtue” (of the same author)… and maybe attending a spiritual retreat.

It is hard to consider a point if we don’t know all the facts… and especially if we have a bias.

My point is to say that in order for us to communicate on this topic, let us put all the cards on the table… because if you would like to argue about God, then let us look at all my points about God and the whole Christian experience before even doing so.

Thanks and God bless!

 

[AndyF]

Perhaps my choice of adjectives wasn’t correct, but yes, for some individuals they are, besides stigmatized by original sin, some have been selected(elect) and some receive a double whammy(reprobate) before they were even conceived.

• We all were born with original sin.
• Who are the reprobates? Are they: Those who died before birth? Those born with deformities? Those born with irresponsible parents? Those who will never be taller than 5 feet? Those with lesser IQ?

(Is this response about the question of inegality when born? Check Kreeft’s “Making sense out of suffering”, or C.S. Lewis: “The Problem of Pain”)

Philosophically speaking, whatever our context at birth, who can really judge if one received a double whammy? Who says that someone born in a dirt poor slum is less blessed than someone born with a silver spoon?

In any case, all humans are born equally loved and wanted.

good points.

Where did the idea that some are unwanted come from?

see here:

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

Ok, it just means God knows who won’t and who will make it, so yes he knows who won’t. The problem is if as a robot maker you know which of your eventually aware units are bad models, you of course don’t build them because its a danger to someone and you can’t allow him to have unmerited advantages. The reasonable thing to do is scrap the model since you do a diservice to him as well.

BUT, I also am responsible in part for my creation. It would be unfair for me to tell the robot I never make a mistake and can never err, therefore the responsibility is all his. If I ignore this, all those who are hurt will remind me pretty quick of my part.
This is my problem with this doctrine, it doesn’t make sense to me.

In regards to the CEO example, I was just explaining the nature of our relationship with God. It is not necessarily the reason for God not explaining things to everyone as a grace. I did not write that as a copout answer, just a philosophical truth in terms of the context of unequal relationships. Theoretically, if God exists, then we are inferior in stature. That is irrefutable. We are even lucky that he is loving.

I know you did, and thanks for the excellent anology.

If I understood your response properly, you imply that there is an injustice in that (our uneven relationship/stature).

Initial injustice not addressed. (getting deep here, bear with me.). All created creatures did have a place they left from. They came from nothing. If it were possible for them to assess their state, they would realize they are content and unaffected. They can’t realize this, but we can. WE can see they are not affected and content; if they were to realize it they would agree.

Creation ignores this transferance. Jesus even acknowledges the advantage of not being here in some cases. He said in regards to Judas, “It was better that he had not been born.” Prior to birth, he was a concept, prior to this he was an unaffected and content nothing(plasma,quark,string,whatever), so yes non existance is better than hell.

This is why I can’t see why beings couldn’t be asked to exist, given a window of timed existance to make the choice and learn the options. If he says no he zaps into nothingness. God can do anything.

Gotta go, wife needs phone, later.

AndyF

 

[MH84]

I like what Dr. House says about it:

Blind belief is basically the definition of faith:

There’s really no such thing as faith in a religion. For unless God reveals to each of us individually that a particular religion is truly His disclosure to us of Himself, then, by believing that religion, we are not taking His word for it, but we are instead putting our faith in the person or institution telling us it is so.

Sorry, but Dr House is not a real character and what he said is an arrogant know-it-all comment. Who says having faith means you walk around showing it off like a trophy. The key to faith is to actually live it.

Instead of talking about how we have know proof that God is real, while don’t you make a genuine effort to find the truth for yourself.[Edited by Moderator]

 

[ateista]

Instead of talking about how we have know proof that God is real, while don’t you make a genuine effort to find the truth for yourself.

The question is: how could we do that? What are the ways and means one can employ to find out the “truth” as you put it? Is there a method which does not employ “faith”?

I have seen many arguments presented and they all are unacceptable, because they are based on a logical fallacy, called the “fallacy of composition”.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[tigers08]

Sorry, but Dr House is not a real character and what he said is an arrogant know-it-all comment. Who says having faith means you walk around showing it off like a trophy. The key to faith is to actually live it.

Instead of talking about how we have know proof that God is real, while don’t you make a genuine effort to find the truth for yourself.[Edited by Moderator]

Actually I have spent a ton of time searching for the truth. (Which is why I don’t like the idea of faith). I never said anything about whether God is real or not. All I said was faith in a religion isn’t really faith in God, just faith in the person who told you that religion is right. Personally, I define God as whatever created the universe, so there automatically is one.