I wouldn’t quite go that far - Faith can be a powerful thing when properly applied.
I have faith in my wife.
I have faith that my children will screw up.
I have hope that they will come to me when they do.
I have no faith in an invisible sky pixie.
“Blind Faith” however, has zero place in any thing.
I doubt that. Trust yes, you probably trust that they will; but not faith. Your trust in your wife would only be faith if she made a practice of betraying you and you trusted her anyway; and your trust that your children will screw up would only be faith if they were superhumans who never committed errors. If something is supported by evidence, such as experience, it isn’t faith.
The evidence is the past actions of said person - the future is unknown - therefore it is faith. calling it “trust” is just renaming it.
The same kind of “faith” that christians claim to have - but their evidence is shoddy at best.
See the difference?
I am not reffering to “blind faith” or “faith despite the evidence to the contrary”.
No it isn’t. Evidence is the key difference between faith and trust; trust has it, faith doesn’t. We may not “know” the future, but with evidence and understanding we can make pretty good predictions. Faith on the other hand tells us nothing.
The difference between faith and blind faith is that faith has no evidence, and blind faith actively goes against evidence.
Powerful != good.
Actually, if it existed it wouldn’t be “supernatural” – it would be a natural phenomenon we don’t understand yet.
Eh, we’d probably end up calling it supernatural or some similar word anyway.
I agree with your assessment.
Yes, you can do that. The only choice I’m advocating is to keep the religion separate from science as much as possible, for reasons I articulated in post 50. I do hold that Christian belief need not compel one to ignore or distort science.
That’s a question that a believer must answer, yes.
There are many definitions for the word ‘Faith’ - its synonomous with “trust” - while the “religious” form of faith is as you say (without evidence or even despite evidence) it is not the ONLY definition.
powerful was likely the wrong word choice there - Faith (aka “trust”) is a fine attribute to have in something when it is warranted.
It’s always going to be tempting for advocates of religion/woo to use science in an attempt to back up their beliefs. People overwhelmingly respect science; they see evidence of its value all around them in their daily lives.
But if you’re going to use science, you have to take the “good” (isolated/irrelevant/flawed science that seems to support your woo) with the “bad” (the abundance of good evidence that inevitably will rebut your claims). No special pleading when things go wrong, i.e. arguing that your science can’t measure/disprove my woo.
Perhaps because Jesus goes on to say: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29). Which as I read it means believing because you’ve been given proof is OK, but believing without proof is better.
Personally I’d find the passage rather more compelling if Jesus had said something along the lines of: ““Because you have seen me, you have believed; the rest of you scruffy lot should be less credulous. And check the teeth of any horses you’re planning to buy”. (But then that would help explain why I’m not a believer).
granted, tht would be “Christs” words in that context - written later by people that want to build followers on “reports” only, Howver, Luke 21 (words of christ specifically), the rest of the chapter in Thessalonians (words of Paul) are all about “not being deceived” and recognizing that there will be false teachers - and not following them.
Since the litmus test must be true vs false - anything that cannot stand up to the scrutiny of validation must be considered ‘false’ and therefore tossed away.
Believing without seeing is directly contradicted by the admonition later to “test everything”.