A Question of Faith

For this post I am reposting a comment I made on a friend’s blog which examined the term “blind faith” and its possible oxymoronic nature. His conclusion was that no faith can be blind as our experiences and knowledge plays a part in all our thoughts on belief. Despite agreeing with his general observations I felt there was a need to state that there are still instances today where the term “blind faith” can be said to be true in its intended meaning. At least since the time of the Enlightenment in the Western World reason has been valued over “blind faith”, but, as with many of our cultural characteristics, this belief is not shared by everyone else on Earth.

Though for the most part I agree with you and the other comments regarding the superiority of "true" faith over "blind" faith on this page, there is an area where I must differ from the majority. Since I am unclear as to the origin of the expression "blind faith" I am not sure if my following argument was purposefully intended by the creators of the expression, but I do believe it follows the rules of logic. As has been noted by others our experiences and knowledge have a great effect on our perceptions of faith and belief. And though in that sense no faith is blind, I do believe there are two instances where it can be said to apply.

The first, and we can say "negative", instance is when a person without any reinforcing knowledge or necessarily experiences is a complete advocate of a certain faith. For example, a member of an intolerant and fundamental society, such as the former Taliban, can be raised in such a manner where such "blind faith" is not only expected, but encouraged. For if the use of knowledge and experience were encouraged to validate the faith, the conclusions made would most likely counter the previous convictions held under "blind faith". Remember that the ability to choose our own faith and belief system is a luxury the whole world does not share. This "blind faith" could also refer to the strict obedience demanded in totalitarian regimes where explanations are also not required in order to justify the actions of the state.

The other meaning, which can be said to be the "positive" one, is when a situation demands an instinctual response to a question of faith (i.e. in life threatening circumstances). In such environments there is not a chance to rely on past experiences or thoughts to shape our attitude. For example, I believe it would be safe to say that most of us have this form of "blind faith" in our mothers and other close friends and family members. I can also imagine situations where if one held a "blind faith" in the power of love or the basic goodness of humanity then it could effect your actions.

To clarify my points I would like to restate my two definitions of “blind faith”. For the “negative” version the term “blind faith” is a purposeful exaggeration in order to stress the lack of personal reflection on one’s beliefs. In the “positive” connotation using the term “blind faith” is an attempt to emphasize the ease at which we make certain decisions under incredibly nerve-racking conditions.

The following is a response from a comment on my previous entry that challenges my conclusions on the “negative” connotation of “blind faith” on the basis that since we are all free beings and have the will to choose our own actions there is no such situation where the kind of “blind faith” I described can exist.

In what I wrote I in no way intended to negate the existence of free will. I am a staunch believer in free will and it is at the corner stone of almost every thought I have regarding the world around me. I can see though where my comments could have been interpreted to the contrary. What I would like to make clear is that while yes, we all have the ability to make our own choices (I would say though that the realistic nature of that ability has a lot to do with our relative independence or dependence on others for our livelihood) there are certain situations where it is clear that choosing against the majority will result in unpleasant circumstances if not outright death. And though that does not always morally excuse such an action I would say that I would not judge such a person as evil for following their inclination for survival and nothing more. Of course there is a lot of gray area here and I would understand if you still find what I say objectionable. I do hope though that I have made my point clear and at least achieved a position where we can respectably disagree with one another.