posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:18 PM
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I'm not using faith in that sense. I'm using it in this sense: faith. I am particularly taking the
side of reason in this debate.
I understand what having trust in something means, but would you trust something without having any reason to trust it? Trust without reason is faith,
and to me, trust must first be earned.
I was mostly trying to make the distinction between blind faith (which is just faith in today's
world; trusting in something without really testing it) and visionary faith (which is testing it for the sake of truth and possibility). Dogmatic
faith and personal faith, respectively.
In terms of earning trust: you will probably have to go out of your way to earn this trust. Sometimes trust is a given, but sometimes it needs to be
taken. If there's no reason to trust it, then don't, but then you could potentially be closing yourself off to untapped possibilities, and that is
what I meant by the open-mindedness of it.
I see no reason why reason must preclude the faith I describe. Faith to me is a rational tool for when rationality yields no answers, because the
attention to the surface of things isn't the whole picture. I would be deceiving myself if I thought that it was.
Implicitly, rationality is the right hand and faith is the left hand, while explicitly they are against each other. The whole "faith vs rationality"
argument is one of duality, much like "religion vs science", which is stupid. All arguments pitting aspects of duality against each other lead no
where because they cancel each other out.