Topic: Faith

[Desert Fox]

I have heard that historically, the term "Faith" did not mean how many Christians use it today (blind faith.)
As far as religious faith, it meant belief through persuasion.  Trying to explain this to somebody else but don't have any resources I can find. Any suggestions?

[Shibboleth]

1  Cor 2

[Vincegamer]

Not really, as you are probably thinking of non-English use.
As far as I know "faith" has always meant both blind faith and something akin to earned trust (faithful dog, faithful spouse etc.)
18th century philosophers probably used different Latin or Greek words such as fides to make the distinction.

[benschwab]

My understanding of Buddhism is that the theology draws a sharp distinction between "blind faith" and "cunning discerning faith" with the former being shunned and the latter being encouraged.  Faith is important in Buddhist theology and that includes faith in things that cannot be verified objectively but the faith that is encouraged is cunning discerning faith.  In part because of this, Buddhist theology recognizes that not everybody will or should be Buddhist as different people will come to different conclusions if they use their own reasoning.

The stereotypical Christian equates "faith" with "blind faith."  While there are significant differences between European and Indian philosophies, I highly doubt that sophisticated discussions about different types of faith and whether or not "faith" and "blind faith" are equivalent is absent in European philosophy.  Most Christians I've talked to about this (clearly something very different then a random sample) also claim that blind faith is not true faith and that dogma shouldn't be accepted unquestioningly.  While I'm not Christian myself I have a lot of respect for Christians who consider, meditate, and pray on the Gospels and through that discover meaning in it that may not be the standard meaning.

[Plastique]

What's a cunning discerning faith when it's at home?

[benschwab]

What's a cunning discerning faith when it's at home?

I must apologize but I don't understand your question.  I can try and explain the Buddhist concept of cunning discerning faith but I don't know what you mean by "when it's at home?"  I'm sorry.

Cunning Discerning Faith in the Buddhist tradition is held to have been stated by Shakyamuni (The Buddha) in the Kalama Sutta.  A tranlation that is the first one to come up on Google.  Different traditions and different schools interpret this teaching differently but I will quote Shakyamuni from the translation I found that I think sums up the point of the Sutta:

So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

The quick interpretation of this passage is that one should test an idea to see if it leads to good things.  If it does, one should have faith in it but if it does not then one should not have faith in it.  I think logic, tradition, inference, analogies and the like can be useful in making this determination but one should not believe something just because it satisfies some or even all of these qualities but rather one should consider whether an idea leads to good or to bad.  A modern concept in western Buddhism would likely be that one should not have faith in something because it is in the dogma but rather one should develop faith through the use of study, practice, contemplation, and meditation and through that discover what of the dogma is correct and what of the dogma is incorrect and what truth there is in the dogma.  I can give specific examples if requested to do so.

[Proto]

I have heard that historically, the term "Faith" did not mean how many Christians use it today (blind faith.)
As far as religious faith, it meant belief through persuasion.  Trying to explain this to somebody else but don't have any resources I can find. Any suggestions?

Why don't you work out what it means. You're bright enough. Belief without evidence. Belief without falsifiable evidence. I'm sick of that shit. It is a way of perceiving the world. A means of existence. An epiphany of abasement, ardour and rigour, in the hope of grace, redemption and joy. A means of deriving hope from an obviously meaningless and hopeless existence. A willingness to go beyond "rationality", to what matters. A recognition that our "rationality" is.... mmmmmm..... circular. Perhaps even self-defeating. Properly basic knowledge in the human spirit that recognises a transcendence without the need for justification.

Measure that with your protractor.

I want you to name a single Christian today who means "blind faith"when they talk about faith. It is more complex than that by a country mile.

When you realise that for some the idea of "existence" is too narrow a way of thinking about the supernatural - and that our grasp of the world is .... well.... bound to be ridden with shit - you are getting close.