Faith is not blind belief
Nov 9th, 2006 by Amanda
I’ve been having a great discussion with Lifewish on this post, and I think part of it warrants its own post. Lifewish brought up a great point and this post is an expanded version of my reply to him.
It’s argued that religious beliefs, “potato chips for the mind”, lead to a greater willingness to accept data from sources of marginal trustworthiness, such as gut instinct and televangelists.
Faith is not “blind belief.” I can see how someone on the outside looking in might interpret it that way though. But the definition of faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 12:1). There are definite results in my life (evidence, if you will) that are a result of my belief in things that I can’t see (like God). I realize I’ve already committed a faux pas among nonbelievers by using the Bible to back me up, but the basis of my faith is found in the Bible. I will also argue that my belief in the Bible is not blind belief. Because of my faith I believe the Bible; because of the Bible I have faith. It’s a catch-22. Both are integral to my belief system and both rely on the other.
In the Bible, we are told to test everything against Scripture before believing it. This is why Paul praised the Bereans in Acts 17–they compared what they were taught with what was in Scripture before they would accept it. They made sure they believed what was right. Testing everything hardly leads to a greater willingingness to accept what people say. In that same vein, I love what Rob Bell wrote on the back cover of Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith.
We have to test everything.
I thank God for anybody anywhere who is pointing people to the mysteries of God.
But those people would all tell to you think long and hard about what they are saying and doing and creating.Test it. Probe it.
Do that to this book.
Don’t swallow it uncritically. Think about it. Wrestle with it.
Just because I’m a Christian and I’m trying to articulate a Christian worldview doesn’t mean I’ve got it nailed. I’m contributing to the discussion.
God has spoken, and the rest is commentary, right?
As far as “feelings” and “gut instincts” go…those really don’t have a place in Christianity. I’m not saved because I “feel” saved. If that were the case, I’d rarely be saved! It’s about what I know, not what I feel.
Now, unfortunately, a lot of Christians do place a lot of emphasis on feelings and instincts. They forget to test what they’re taught. This is why men like Joel Osteen have mega churches. It’s easier to believe what someone tells you to believe rather than what you’ve learned yourself through studying and spending time with God. And c’mon, this is America where the easy way is always the right way.
Blogs that link here: Pursuing Holiness, Dumb Ox News, Conservative Cat
As far as “feelings” and “gut instincts” go…those really don’t have a place in Christianity.
And yet, the reason I was so adamant against Calvinism the other day was because it initially just “felt” wrong (but that’s because I think it is
Wonderful post as always, God Bless.
Jay
I love the Bell quote.
Well done.
I found this through the Christian Carnival.
you put that well. good read.
You will both have to define gut instincts.
Paul in Romans 1 made it clear that God was evident both inside ua and in the nature he created. That is going to largely come to use as an “I just know” feeling.
We talk about praying about a decision; talking with wise counselors; and testing it against scripture - but it is the Holy Spirit that leads us through that process - who is resident inside us - and isnt that peace at the end of the process a “gut feeling” that we have the right answer
Please note response here. The key point is that, both in the example you give and in the wider Christian community, the tendency appears to be to test authorities against other authorities.
Whilst this is great for ensuring the consistency of a group’s worldview, it’s absolutely atrocious for checking that worldview’s accuracy. Eventually you need some way to test your views against the objective universe. That’s what science does, and what religion seems to actively avoid doing. The days when gods were ascribed concrete testable behaviours are long gone.
Lifewish: Welcome back!
the tendency appears to be to test authorities against other authorities.
Not exactly. The tendency is to test authorities against THE authority (the Word of God). I realize that answer isn’t good enough for you and will never be. But for us (Christians), the Word of God is the ultimate authority.
Lifewish: Welcome back!
Thanks
Just started the second week of my first real job - this is the first chance I’ve had to kick back and relax. It’s good to be back!
The tendency is to test authorities against THE authority (the Word of God).
That’s kinda what I said
However, this claim is strongly against the spirit of your original comment on the subject, which was attempting to demonstrate that faith was not blind belief. Simply claiming that God is the ultimate authority, against whom all other authorities (presumably including our perception of the universe) are measured, is an admission of blind faith in Him by any standard I can think of.
Everyone has an ultimate authority.
We choose one that is supremely objective (God); you choose one that is supremely subjective (yourself).
So I guess you have blind faith in yourself.
However, this claim is strongly against the spirit of your original comment on the subject, which was attempting to demonstrate that faith was not blind belief. Simply claiming that God is the ultimate authority, against whom all other authorities (presumably including our perception of the universe) are measured, is an admission of blind faith in Him by any standard I can think of.
Point taken.
But I will go back to my statement about the meaning of faith: “”the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 12:1). There are definite results in my life (evidence, if you will) that are a result of my belief in things that I can’t see (like God). I realize I’ve already committed a faux pas among nonbelievers by using the Bible to back me up, but the basis of my faith is found in the Bible. I will also argue that my belief in the Bible is not blind belief. Because of my faith I believe the Bible; because of the Bible I have faith. It’s a catch-22. Both are integral to my belief system and both rely on the other.”
I’m not “simply claiming” that God is the ultimate authority…it’s something that I’ve discovered to be true. Although I am well aware that each person has to discover that truth for themself.
[WOMI] We choose one that is supremely objective (God); you choose one that is supremely subjective (yourself).
I’d say that I choose an ultimate authority (the physical universe) that is as objective as any I’ve found; you choose an ultimate authority (your experience and interpretation of God) that is as subjective as they come.
Everyone can see the same sun, the same moon, the same trees, the same birds. No two believers see the same God. Which, then, is the more subjective?
[Amanda] There are definite results in my life (evidence, if you will) that are a result of my belief in things that I can’t see (like God).
Do you feel these results are more a consequence of God’s existence or of your belief in it?
I will also argue that my belief in the Bible is not blind belief. Because of my faith I believe the Bible; because of the Bible I have faith. It’s a catch-22. Both are integral to my belief system and both rely on the other.
Would you say you have blind faith in the combination of your faith and the Bible? I realise this is getting a little recursive.
I’m not “simply claiming” that God is the ultimate authority…it’s something that I’ve discovered to be true. Although I am well aware that each person has to discover that truth for themself.
Is it necessarily true for all of them?
Do you feel these results are more a consequence of God’s existence or of your belief in it?
Definitely God’s existence. I know where you’re going with this…something along the lines of “positive thinking.” Medical patients who get better because they think they are. Or even something like buying a new car and then seeing that same kind of car all over the place. The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. But that isn’t it.
Would you say you have blind faith in the combination of your faith and the Bible? I realise this is getting a little recursive.
No. Because I can see the results of my faith. That’s kind of the opposite of blind, isn’t it?
Is it necessarily true for all of them?
Ultimately, yes. Even if a person never discovers that truth here on earth, the Bible is clear:
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:10-11)
I know where you’re going with this…something along the lines of “positive thinking.”
Precisely, although I’d also considered the placebo effect and confirmation bias (which I think you mentioned in passing). If that isn’t the sort of experience you had then fair enough - I obviously overinterpreted your original comment.
Out of curiosity, what kind of experience was it that you had? (Feel free to tell me to go to heck here if these experiences were too personal to be publically discussed)
No. Because I can see the results of my faith. That’s kind of the opposite of blind, isn’t it?
Again, seeing the results of your faith is different from seeing the results of the object of your faith. IMO both can be considered valid reasons to believe, but only the latter necessarily correlates with consensual reality. In other words: if you accept something as true primarily because of the effect of that acceptance, that thing is not necessarily equally true for everyone else.
Ultimately, yes [it is true for all people]. Even if a person never discovers that truth here on earth, the Bible is clear: […]
As I think I’ve mentioned before, the claim that something is true for the human race as a whole, or even for intelligent life as a whole, places a certain obligation on the maker of that claim. You have to be able to demonstrate that the statement is true for every such entity.
The only approach I’m aware of that applies to all intelligent lifeforms is the scientific method - you’d need to show that your God was an essential component of a predictive model. However, if such a model is created it’s not exactly going to be announced in the comments of a random blog, so I’d settle for an explanation of why God is a useful assumption for all humans.
Out of curiosity, what kind of experience was it that you had?
After reading your question here, it’s occured to me that I may have come across as saying that I’ve had this incredible “supernatural experience” with God. That wasn’t my intent. Yes, any experience I’ve had with God would be considered supernatural, but it’s not like I’ve heard voices, seen hallucinations, or anything like that. Generally speaking it’s in the “small” stuff…prayers answered, hearts changed, disabilities healed (nothing like what you’d see at a Benny Hinn conference though…I’m 99.9% sure all of that is a crock). A favorite quote of mine is, “Who ever said that a straightened hand is more spectacular than a healed heart?”
seeing the results of your faith is different from seeing the results of the object of your faith
I’m not sure I agree with that statement.
You have to be able to demonstrate that the statement is true for every such entity.
You asked me a question, and I gave you my answer. And according to Scripture (which is my authority) it is true for everyone.
The tricky thing about truth is that it’s true whether or you believe in it or not (and I don’t mean that as a dig to you…if what you say is true then it’s still true even though I don’t believe it is).
I’d settle for an explanation of why God is a useful assumption for all humans.
I’m not sure I can give you the logical answer you’re looking for here. I can tell you all about how belief in God and being a Christian makes life so much better (not easier, mind you) and how there’s all of this peace and comfort and joy for those who believe…but that isn’t what you want. So I can’t give you the explanation you’re asking for.
After reading your question here, it’s occured to me that I may have come across as saying that I’ve had this incredible “supernatural experience” with God.
I was more expecting it to be along the lines of a fuzzy-warm-glow conversion experience. Certainly hadn’t expected the hearing of voices or anything.
Generally speaking it’s in the “small” stuff…prayers answered, hearts changed, disabilities healed (nothing like what you’d see at a Benny Hinn conference though…I’m 99.9% sure all of that is a crock). A favorite quote of mine is, “Who ever said that a straightened hand is more spectacular than a healed heart?”
My initial judgement on this would be: confirmation bias. It’s like the way toast always seems to land butter-side-down - unless you make a positive effort to keep track of all the times where your prayers weren’t answered, or someone’s disability wasn’t healed, the natural human behaviour is to conclude that the data supports a pattern. This is why science is so big on experimental protocols: to stop scientists fooling themselves.
A healed heart may indeed be more significant than a straightened hand, but it’s infinitely harder to objectively assess. It also leaves open the possibility that the curative force may be a feature of individuals’ subjective realities rather than of the objective universe.
If you can suggest any way in which we could eliminate the possibility of confirmation bias and placebo effect from the question, I’d be very interested to hear it.
“seeing the results of your faith is different from seeing the results of the object of your faith”
I’m not sure I agree with that statement.
Reductio ad absurdum: if we did not accept such a distinction, we’d be forced to conclude that placebo-effect cures like homeopathy were representative of a real physical phenomenon. Double-blind testing strongly suggests that this is not the case.
You asked me a question, and I gave you my answer. And according to Scripture (which is my authority) it is true for everyone.
But then you also need to demonstrate that the authority of Scripture is real for everyone. Otherwise, I could simply declare that I was going to take as my authority this scrap of paper upon which I’ve just written “the sky is green”.
This is why I like predictivity as a metric - it’s not subject to this sort of issue. Regardless of what your personal goals are, the ability to predict what will happen next will in general aid rather than hinder your progress. Regardless of the assumptions that our model consists of, if it makes accurate predictions it cannot help but be useful to us.
I’m not sure I can give you the logical answer you’re looking for here. I can tell you all about how belief in God and being a Christian makes life so much better (not easier, mind you) and how there’s all of this peace and comfort and joy for those who believe…but that isn’t what you want.
Actually, your examples are very much along the lines I was thinking of. If you can provide an explanation of why we could expect that these effects would be felt by any human who became a Christian, that would constitute a proof that Christianity is in some ways useful for all humans.
The debate then becomes a matter of comparing the usefulness of different positions, which is a far more subjective debate as it inevitably brings the question of an individual’s ultimate goals into play.
So, in what ways does belief in God make life better for any human?
If you can suggest any way in which we could eliminate the possibility of confirmation bias and placebo effect from the question, I’d be very interested to hear it.
I’m not sure there is a way. In fact, I’m pretty sure that there isn’t a way to. You want to test God to see physical, rational proof for His existance. You’re not going to get that. God can’t be recreated in a lab.
we’d be forced to conclude that placebo-effect cures like homeopathy were representative of a real physical phenomenon. Double-blind testing strongly suggests that this is not the case.
I get where you’re coming from, but it’s extraordinarily hard for me to seriously compare God to a sugar pill.
For me, my faith is in the fact that God is faithful to me. I believe in God, and I believe that God is not only good, but good to me. It gets very personal. And that’s why there’s no way to “prove” God.
But then you also need to demonstrate that the authority of Scripture is real for everyone. Otherwise, I could simply declare that I was going to take as my authority this scrap of paper upon which I’ve just written “the sky is green”.
The thing is that truth is truth regardless of who believes it. You can say the sky is green and wholeheartedly believe that; your belief doesn’t make the sky green.
If you can provide an explanation of why we could expect that these effects would be felt by any human who became a Christian, that would constitute a proof that Christianity is in some ways useful for all humans.
Because the foundation of Christianity is simple: love God; love people. It has nothing to do with terrorism, scaring people into hell, cults, Bible thumpers, fundamentalism, conservativeness, or any other negative connotation that appears in your head when you hear the term.
True Christianity is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world (from James 1:27, the Message).
If everyone reached out to the homeless, the helpless, the poor, the widows, and all other downtrodden folks… this world would be a better place. And that’s exactly what we’re supposed to do!
I’m not sure there is a way. In fact, I’m pretty sure that there isn’t a way to. You want to test God to see physical, rational proof for His existance. You’re not going to get that. God can’t be recreated in a lab.
Why not, when pretty much everything else we believe about the world can be?
I get where you’re coming from, but it’s extraordinarily hard for me to seriously compare God to a sugar pill.
I’m not surprised. As with placebos, the realisation that the “cure” is a sugar pill is itself sufficient to stop the effect. To the extent that you get value from belief in God, that value would be destroyed if you were to accept the possibility that He was just another sugar pill.
I can understand that stance. However, it’s not to my personal taste. I feel that beliefs that rely for their effectiveness on the belief itself are risky because they resist rational scrutiny, and thus can linger on even if they’re of no further value. People get their cold cured by homeopathy, and go on to use it for their cancer instead of chemotherapy.
The thing is that truth is truth regardless of who believes it. You can say the sky is green and wholeheartedly believe that; your belief doesn’t make the sky green.
That’s precisely my point. You can say that God exists and wholeheartedly believe that; your belief doesn’t make God exist. And referring to a written document as your authority just puts the problem of that authority’s trustworthiness at one remove.
True Christianity is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world (from James 1:27, the Message).
Apart from the “godless” bit, I’d say that that could be better described as true morality, true virtue. If that’s the concept you’re thinking of, then I completely agree with you that it’s valuable - but I’m not sure why you think it’s more inherent in the Bible than in (say) Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”.
Isn’t saying “virtue is great”, and then redefining “Christianity” to mean “virtue”, something of a bait-and-switch?
Why not, when pretty much everything else we believe about the world can be?
Because those things are natural and God is supernatural.
go on to use it for their cancer instead of chemotherapy.
Just a sidenote: I know several people who are cancer survivors and went into remission without chemotherapy or radiation–they used homeopathic remedies.
You can say that God exists and wholeheartedly believe that; your belief doesn’t make God exist.
I know. But your disbelief doesn’t make God nonexistant either. I think we can both agree that belief isn’t a valid argument for truth.
I’m not sure why you think it’s more inherent in the Bible than in (say) Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”.
The difference is that Gibbon’s book is really nothing more than a textbook. It tells us how people lived during the Roman Empire. The Bible, on the other hand, tells us how to live.
And Christianity has never been redefined to mean virtue. The definition of Christianity I just gave you (that you’re saying is virtue) is the original definiton–straight out of the Bible.
I can see that this is about to go in yet another direction…I have a feeling you’re going to ask why Christ isn’t mentioned in that definition.
Because those things are natural and God is supernatural.
Gremlins are supernatural too. Does that mean I don’t have to provide any evidence of their existence before I blame them for my computer’s frequent misdemeanours?
Just a sidenote: I know several people who are cancer survivors and went into remission without chemotherapy or radiation–they used homeopathic remedies.
Which perfectly illustrates my earlier point about confirmation bias. It is demonstrable by means of carefully-controlled testing that homeopathy is no better than a placebo as a cure for any ailment for which it is marketed. It is equally demonstrable that modern medical treatments such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy are considerably more effective than a placebo. And yet you rate homeopathy highly because, to be very blunt, a few of your friends happened to get lucky.
But your disbelief doesn’t make God nonexistant either.
And your disbelief doesn’t stop the sky being green either. I’m still waiting for a criterion that adequately distinguishes these two cases.
I think we can both agree that belief isn’t a valid argument for truth.
Depends on your definition of “truth”, but as a member of the reality-based community I’d broadly agree with you.
The difference is that Gibbon’s book is really nothing more than a textbook. It tells us how people lived during the Roman Empire. The Bible, on the other hand, tells us how to live.
Actually, DaFotRE has a degree of passion to it that really impressed me. I’ve always been a sucker for the greco-roman notions of virtue, so this may be only a personal response, but I would happily take Gibbon’s work as an adequate description of what distinguishes good and evil people, and as a motivation for placing myself in the former category.
I can see that this is about to go in yet another direction…I have a feeling you’re going to ask why Christ isn’t mentioned in that definition.
That’s precisely my point, yes. The definition you listed doesn’t mention Jesus and only tangentially mentions God. If that’s Christianity then a great many diverse individuals around the world - Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Shinto, Wiccan, atheist - are all “Christian”. The term, as defined by James 1:27, ceases to be useful except as a synonym for virtue.
My next post will be more on what the definition of a Christian is. My brain isn’t working quite well enough to get it out tonight.
So if you can sit tight for a bit, I’ll get the discussion going soon.