Brain-Splattered : I don't think there actually is such a thing as blind faith. Blind faith meaning ignoring all contrary evidence and having no evidence of your own. If you ask someone why they believe in ghosts they will say they had an experience with a ghost or they heard a story from someone they trust that explains ghosts. Most everyone has a reason for what they believe even if their evidence may be shaky or their reasoning flawed. In addition to this there is nothing that can be 100% objectively defined as true using all the science or mathematics that we know.

I'll bet there are some aspects of reality you believe to be true, but never blindly trusted even though you never consciously questioned. For example Mathematics is based on the assumption that there is a number 1. All other numbers and formulas are derived from the number 1, but the number 1 does not have any basis to derive itself from. If 1 is false then all of math is wrong, with no math all of physics and chemistry fall apart up through psychology and sociology. However if you accept 1 as true then it explains nearly everything that we can observe. You don't accept the number 1 for no reason, you accept it because it makes sense and explains how everything works even if you don't understand it.

For many people belief in God, ghosts, black holes, aliens, or the headless horseman works the same way that any sane person would accept 1. By simply accepting a single premise regardless of the evidence for the premise itself, many things that were hard or seemingly impossible to explain can be dismissed with a hand wave and a huge grin.

Now I'm not saying aliens invented 1, but it would explain everything.

I am more into Proof. I don't believe in any religion mostly because they can't prove that their god exists. I am really good at math because there is proven logic behind it. 

So... I think I take logic over blind faith. 

thing1 :  Can you yourself provide proof for the 'facts' of science you were fed as a student?  If not, you should not so readily believe in those things either.  I could use math beyond your knowledge to "prove" something like '1=0', but it doesn't make it true. It simply means you don't have the tools necessary to prove me wrong.  However, upon seeing certain things, you'd be hard pressed not to believe me either.

I think that is somewhat the point of this thread.  Unless you PERSONALLY experience something, you are always taking others' words for things.  Records can be falsified, people can make mistakes, and every day folk can be persuaded of just about anything.

We have to choose what 'hearsay' we're willing to accept as truth, based on the experiences we've had and the perceived wisdom of those around us.  I'll take my faith in what the Bible says any day, and I'll also tell you that it's quite scientific.

Brain-Splattered : I am more of a proof kind of guy but that doesn't mean I don't have faith I believe in god but I guess you could say I'm not as devoted as others because I don't go to church on sundays.

Here's my take on it.

We need a reason to believe in something. But not all reasons necessarily prove a point.

Many people for example have nearly correct ideas, but would need more information to complete the picture. And there's nothing wrong with that. Part of the problem is knowing when the picture is complete. There does come a point down the line were we are more certain that we have it right, but even then, an open mind is well servicing.

Some people believe things because they were raised with it. Even though our teachers and parents usually mean what's best for us, that does not always make it fact. However, they should not go ignored either. Take everything that you hear with a grain of salt. Know who you can trust, and what subjects your mentors in life specialize in. This will make your ideology a lot more stable, and not totally dependent.

In the end, most all of our information is dependent upon the reports of other people. It's not that we necessarily have to cut out the middleman to find truth, it's just we have to know if they're trust worthy, or if they're methods work. That's why you should sort through what you are taught, to see if it works logically.

If someone gives good advice, constantly, then you begin to learn that that individual . . . well. . . gives good advice.

But what if he tells you something that seems untrue? Like how to fix a problem with your car for example.

You may not know much about cars, but are you willing to put your trust in someone more knowledgeable?


It all depends on the individual.

I find older people around me know lot's more than I do about Work, Life, Car maintenance, whatever. And the more that they tell me which works out, the more trust I have in them.

So, even though I may not understand what they are saying, I have faith in what they are saying, and for a good reason even. That reason being, they were truthful in the past.

The Bible is the same way. We cannot prove everything in it 100%, but it has many truths locked into it. These truths that we did not understand previously encourage us to trust the things we aren't sure about. Or that we cannot even verify. And there's nothing wrong with that. 

I believe things because at least as far as I can see, they appear factual. If one viewpoint is wrong, then I can change it later once revealed so. 

I believe things because I trust the individual telling me the information. This is called faith. And it's not illogical. Nothing wrong with that.

No one really works on Blind Faith. Only Children do that, everyone who has grown a mind of their own works on something they believe is reasonable. I sometimes ask questions till it gets old. Other times, it's not that important to me, so I'll just let it go, but that doesn't mean I just blindly believe it. 

I believe that God exists, but not out of blind faith. To me, it's the most logical conclusion... The world didn't make itself, therefore, something had to make it. It's a reason that clarifies a belief. 

Black Holes, several brought this up, I would ask a question. How do you make a textbook on something you can't see, hear, smell, feel, taste, or see the effects of? There are no observed facts that prove it's existence, nothing big enough disappeared into an area, to never return... How do we know what it's made of? How do we know what it does? None of this can be proven, seen or even theorized... 
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html 

I don't know if that's a reliable source, (the website) but it sounds right, according to my understanding of Science. 

That sums up my thoughts.

I think of blind faith as beliefs that are believed simply to make one feel comfortable, versus figuring out the truth. I don't have anything against that, as long as it such beliefs aren't forced upon anyone else.

If we're searching for truth, however, then it shouldn't really matter what we individually believe at this moment. In that case, we're all learning, so we should be willing to discuss with others who oppose our views and not ridicule them for their views themselves. So it wouldn't be the views that matter, but the line of reasoning they used to get there.

If you think about it, faith is a prerequisite for reason leading to proof.  In order to reason about anything, we must have faith that there are laws of logic which correctly prescribe the correct chain of reasoning.  Since laws of logic cannot be observed with the senses, our confidence in them is a type of faith.