Do you think that blind faith is dangerous? How?

Question

Belief is also known as blind faith because often there is no evidence to support the belief except the man written bible/koran/etc and belief itself. Neither of which qualifies as proof to me.

Believers admit it themselves when they say we have faith. Notice they don't say we have facts.

Who would you be more likely to trust when it comes to life and death decisions or any advice in general? If you had the following two to choose from. An atheist doctor or a faith healing christian?

Before you say it, let me explain that atheists don't suffer from blind faith. We know that there is no such thing as gods. If there were definitive proof other than the two reasons explained above that there was anything supernatural in this world there would be no such thing as an atheist. Trust me when I say that if I would ever experience anything supernatural I would be the first to admit I was wrong. The problem is you can't prove things that are only supported by faith.

Science does not ask you to believe any thing. Science creates theories, proven or not, to research and test before they are claimed as fact. They do not ask you to believe in evolution. They are just gathering data in the hopes they can understand it more.

Answer 1

The very first line of your rant discredits all the rest of it. You say, "Belief is also known as blind faith because often there is no evidence to support the belief..."

You're obviously wrong, but let's examine why. You say, "...Often there is no evidence to support the belief..." The important word there is "often." Often does not mean always. It makes a particular statement, as opposed to a universal statement. Although "often" is used to convey that a statement is true in multiple instances, perhaps even a majority, not just one instance, it is logically no different than saying "some." Your argument also seems to imply that "All belief without evidence is blind faith." Thus, logically, your argument in the first line can be summed up like this:

Some belief is belief without evidence.
All belief without evidence is blind faith.
Therefore, all belief is blind faith.

This is an IAA-4 type logical argument, and is invalid based on the fallacy of illicit process. Go ahead and substitute "Most" instead of "some" or say "Belief is often belief without evidence." It doesn't matter. Logically, it's the same thing, and logically, your argument is invalid. Think about it, it doesn't even make sense.

In plainer terms, you admit outright (through the word "often") that there are other evidences for belief besides that which you disqualify here. You then base your argument on the idea that there are no other evidences.

In the question itself (misleading as it is) you refer to blind faith, as you do in the first paragraph. Yet in the second, you generalize that to all faith, with no basis for doing so. All faith is not blind faith; if it were, why would we even need the term blind faith? Faith is based in fact, and you exercise faith every day. When you sit down in your chair, you act on faith that it will hold you up, based on the historical fact that it has never collapsed under you before. This does not mean your faith is well-placed, but it is definitely not blind faith.

Also, although it doesn't really matter, in reference to your second paragraph, you never said you had facts either. You only say what "believers" don't have.

Your third paragraph suffers from the very fallacy you accuse believers of in the first! Knowledge obtained through the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads or whatever your book is, is knowledge gained by authority. That authority must be judged and it must be determined whether it is a valid authority before its advice is taken. Yet you suggest we should take the advice of an atheist doctor over that of a faith-healing Christian in any matter whatsoever! Now it's true, when it comes to whether or not my leg is broken, I will trust the doctor, because the doctor is trained in this area and is valid, reputable authority, whereas a faith-healer is not. But to whom will I go for advice on how to cook a turkey? It's possible either of them could help me, but without further information on them, neither of them appears to be a valid authority at all in this area. A more pointed example of your fallacy is that you assume all doctors are atheists and all Christians are faith-healers. Honestly now, if you had the following two to choose from, which would you choose: the atheist herbalist or the trained, certified Christian doctor? You see, religion has nothing to do with effectiveness as a doctor.

Yet your fourth paragraph is even more fraught with fallacy than the rest. It's hard to know where to begin. Let's assume from your first paragraph that belief really is blind faith. Yet here you say that atheists do not suffer from blind faith. This seems impossible, especially when the very definition of an atheist is someone who believes there is no god. You see, everyone has beliefs. You believe in different things than I believe in; you accept different truths than I accept. You are just as much a believer in atheism as anyone else is a believer in their religion. So it's clear, once more, that belief is not blind faith. Still, how can you say atheists do not have blind faith? I don't think that they do, but you offer no evidence for yourself, when you claim evidence is so important. You say, "We know that there is no such thing as gods." Yet your proof for this specifically contradicts your first paragraph, again. Here you say there is no proof other than the two reasons stated above, yet right above those two reasons you explicitly allow for other reasons.

But if we move on from that, your argument against the supernatural is that if it existed anywhere, there would be no atheists. So why doesn't this work the other way? Why can't we say, "If there was any evidence at all for atheism, then there would be no theists."? It's the exact same statement you make, merely switching atheism and theism. This boils down to the popular fallacy, which is the same as saying "Ten million atheists can't be wrong!" The problem is, they can. You can just as easily say "Two billion Christians can't be wrong," or "One billion Muslims can't be wrong." It doesn't matter how many people believe in a thing; their belief has no impact on whether or not it is true. I'm surprised you would even suggest this, given your obvious dislike for the notion of belief.

This may surprise you, but I actually agree with you on your additional detail. Science is a tool, a very useful tool, to help us understand the world around us. It helps us determine what to believe, but it does not ask us to believe anything. I just don't see how that helps your case, is all.

Answer 2

You make a good point, however I do think it is possible to prove the supernatural. I'm not talking about the God of the bible, or any religion in particular, I'm referring more to a general sort of spirituality. Many Atheists refuse to believe in such things, the same way that Many Christians and other true believers refuse to believe that their beliefs are wrong. Skeptical atheists will see proof of something supernatural, and simply call it a hoax, or a misinterpretation of the evidence. Some Atheists are just as firm in their blind faith in science as Christians are to their blind faith in the Bible. I put far more faith in science than in the Bible, or any religious belief system, but you can't rule something out based on a biased opinion of how the universe works.

Answer 3

Of course blind faith is dangerous. If God exists, then he gave us a brain to use. If you don't use that brain to reason out your situation, then you're just another lemming following everyone off a cliff. But then there is faith and there is blind faith. Faith is part of most religions, so you have to have some of it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a thin line between faith and blind faith. And if you use your faith to be closed minded about everything that opposes your belief then that is blind faith. And with your blinders on you may not see that cliff coming up.

Too many metaphors, sorry.

I'm agnostic BTW.

Answer 4

You must have faith to be human silly man. it's just the way it is. what you put your faith Into is a different story. no harm can be done if ppl live by the bible by the way it tells us to, Not twisting it into what we want it to be. such as the abortion clinic bombings, a good example of twisting the bible. fred phelps and his clan of hate mongers. Totally twisting the bible. u as an atheist, do have faith, u unfortunately put your faith in something else, that cannot be proven either. sorry :(

Answer 5

General evidence points to how the Middle East conflict is still taking shape. That's usually what happens when you believe in faith blindly.

The other extreme would be things like cults springing up with "weird" teachings. Example: Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists (spelling right?).

Answer 6

I do think blind faith is dangerous. I think it can lead to a socially destructive attitudes and bigoted beliefs. I consider myself to be a spiritual person but have turned away from organized religion because I think we should each question everything we encounter, and find out what we believe on our own. Being told what to believe, how to believe, and telling another that his beliefs are wrong is a travesty in my honest humble opinion.

Answer 7

That is why we Christians are around. We live on Faith. We have the faith to know we are going to heaven and not hell. If you would bother to read the Old and New Testaments, you would see that everything is foretold in the Old Testament and the New Testament reveals it. If you don't believe this, then read bot books from Genesis through Revelations. That is where we get our faith.

Answer 8

If ones faith is "blind" there is a problem with it. We are to be ready to give a reason for the hope that lies within us. ; -)

Answer 9

high hopes and big disappointment, to put faith in thing, to risky.