Debate Info

True False
Debate Score:11
Total Votes:11
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 True (2)
 False (7)

Debate Creator

casper3912(1581) pic

Faith is by definition blind

All faith is blind faith.


Side Score: 2


Side Score: 9

I am going to say true, because faith most usual applied context is of the definition of blind faith, although no definition is more object than the others. what the true defenition is, is subjective. so I can support either, but Ill go with true since by the most popular context of faith is definitivly blind. to believe in something for no reason at all, just purly believing it, you are asserting faith, it is blind as it means to believe in no matter what and thus can be anything. that is blind. however having faith in your self, and friends is different, it is confidence in your friends and in yourself, because you know if you could try hard enough you can do it, as cheesy as that sounds, as long as you can try hard enough you can achieve, its just something require so much effort people can't rise up to it. therefore its success is logically controllable, wether it seems like it or not effort controlls success, usually there is a luck factor but still. faith can be very very very blind sometimes, depending on the context.

Side: depends on the definition
2 points

I don't think so. Faith is, by definition, the belief in something without fact. This is not to say that it has to be BLIND faith. Blind faith is when one accepts something for no legitimate reason at all. Faith is oneself can have coorelative evidence - but not factual evidence. We have no way, and, no reason, to believe we, as humans, will always be right in the things we decide to do or believe. Yet, the only thing we can accept, if we do not trust ourselves, is inaction, and, thus, illogical unproductivity.

Side: False
2 points

When I read the debate question, I was going to agree with it. But what you said has changed my mind. People who have faith in something or someone can usually cite reasons for their belief - not incorrigible proof, but nevertheless they provide some rational grounding for the belief. Their faith may still be terribly misguided, but it is not blind.

Side: False
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Faith is by definition belief without proof/valid evidence, isn't it?

While someone may have reasons on why they are faithful, they can not provide proof to validate their beliefs without turning their faith into something else.

Consider the theist who has faith in his religion because it grants him a sense of security, and what provides him a sense of security he tends to take a liking to.

The truth value of his faith is not validly supported by his rational reasons for his belief.

more clearly:

If Faith causes a sense of security, he will have faith

Faith causes a sense of security

Thus he has faith.

This does not support the truth of what he believes, the belief itself is blind(aka, unrelated to the truth values of what is believed)

In symbolic form.

If A(f) thus B(f)




However, you can't conclude anything about the truth value of f from the premises presented. The belief is unrelated to its truth value, and is thus "blind".

Side: True

Without faith in my basketball stroke or golf swing, the results are terrible.

Side: False

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)

Side: False
1 point

Faith is by definition only defined. It is not tagged or made a theorem or converted into something solid and material. It is an abstract feeling of support provided from within as human souls choose to fight or live by certainties. Every one has faith. You need not necessarily have faith in God. You have faith in yourself. Wordsworth had faith in nature. It isn't blind, just abstract and you cannot see it, but it is happens.

Side: False