Jove

In many discussions, I've seen theists, Christians in particular, make statements about faith and it's relationship to love e.g. "God wants you to love him by faith."

My question is this: why is love greater, or better, when you only have faith that the being you love exists? Why would love for a being you are sure exists be less?

Personally, I would want the love of someone who is unequivocally sure that I exist, that has proof that I exist, who accepts me and everything about my existence, and loves me. I wouldn't want the love of someone who just has faith that I exist, that ignores the contradictions in my personality and actions, who attributes "good" things that happen to them to me when I have nothing to do them, and ignores the "bad" things that I allow happen to them.

In short, I believe that love of a being that I am sure exists, that I have solid proof that they exist and I have solid proof of all the things about them, and the things they do to/for me (e.g. my mother) is much greater than the love for a being that I am not sure even exists, and who I don't/can't comprehend totally can possibly be.

Your thoughts?

Rhea

Interesting look at things. Good question. What _is_ so good about blind faith? I can't think of a single thing that makes it desirable.

Yellum Notnef

It`s a great thing if you`re a religious leader.

Jamie_L

It goes beyond just religious discussions.

American culture seems to place a great emphasis on the importance of faith in general. There are many films that portray faith without proof as a noble thing. I first started noticing this one Christmas after watching the original "Miracle on 34th Street".

Take something on the opposite end of the spectrum, like the X-Files. The character who seeks sufficient evidence and logical explanations is portrayed as the misguided one, while the character who leaps to believe all manner of fanciful theories is the hero.

Blind faith in fanciful stories just seems to be viewed as a wonderful thing. Why?

Jamie

christ-on-a-stick

IMO "faith" is just a nice word for "gullibility". Generally intentional.

With evidence, there is no need for faith.

Jove

It allows for fanciful excursions to whatever false truth makes you comfortable.

Ensign Steve

Faith is their crutch. It is beyond logic, so when their arguments fail logically (as they are wont to do) they fall back on "faith" as an out. That way they can never lose an argument. They have a (literally) holier-than-thou attitude, because they think their faith is so darn special, and if you can't see why, that's because you don't have any faith, and that's your fault. Sort of one giant "close your mind and open your heart" kind of gimick. Long story short, faith is so important because they have no logical reason to believe what they believe. Without faith, they have nothing. They'd have to become (EEP!) atheists!!

Jen

Old Man

Quite untrue. All genuine faith is based on evidence and reason. The one with faith will say that the one without faith is a victim of propaganda.

sakrilege

Mat 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

And when the disciples saw [it], they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this [which is done] to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.




Killing Fig Trees is important too!

Ensign Steve

Forgive me, I was using this definition of "faith" from Miriam Webster: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." The definition that I was using was apparent in the context that I used it, before you took the liberty taking my words out of that context.

That is the opposite of faith based on evidence and reason. By using the words "all genuine faith" you are using a fallicious ad hoc argument form, called the "no true scottsman" fallacy. Click here to see what I mean:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots

Given that I have no faith at all, I really don't care whether anyone else's faith is genuine or not. And one without faith (specifically me, since I don't speak for anybody else) will say that the one with faith is a victim of propaganda.

Jen