Many people speak of faith as if it is something that requires ignorance. Of course there are many possible definitions of the word "faith" but when speaking of the concept of invariable trust, I see no need for such trust to be based on a lack of knowledge and understanding unless one is expected to have faith in something that is in fact not trustworthy.

There's nothing wrong with blind faith, as long as nobody gets hurt. The problem is that people do get hurt, and sometimes without even knowing it. Society as a whole suffers from the exploitation of the masses by those who would rather lead them like sheep to the slaughter than allow them to think for themselves. Whether this is a case of corrupt leaders with selfish motives, or a case of the blind leading the blind, it is definitely an exploitation of the unsuspecting followers.

Have you ever asked why something had to be a certain way and been told "because I said so" as if that were a valid answer? When I hear kids getting an answer like that from their parents, I feel sorry for both the kids and the parents. Yes, I know that sometimes it's the best answer a parent has to offer and sometimes it's the only answer that the parent has sufficient time or patience left to offer under the circumstances, but resorting to the use of such a cop-out answer causes the question to remain unanswered and is encouraging the child to accept the convictions of someone they see as an authority figure without the opportunity to exercise any reasoning on their own part. This sort of blind faith acceptance can lead to disastrous results, and there and many cases in recorded history where it has done just that. I'm not going to get into specific cases, but you can probably think of at least one case where some military leader ordered the deaths of innocent people or some cult leader convinced a group of people to end their own lives, or where some church leader convinced people to give up a portion of their income to help finance the workings of an all powerful god who probably doesn't need their money and quite possibly doesn't even exist, or an officer of the law proclaiming himself to "be" the law rather than upholding it. This sort of thing does happen, and it's not about faith. It's about blindly following the leader, and whether that leader is also a blind follower or has a clear view of the path ahead, those following blindly behind are at the mercy of the leader's discretion or lack thereof.

It's interesting that some people feel those with more faith are the ones who believe what they don't know while others feel that those with more faith are the ones who believe what they do know. In my opinion, the quantity of faith isn't what makes the difference but rather the quality of their faith. As an example, those who claim faith in god not because they have personally found god to be real and trustworthy but rather because they have been told that god is real and trustworthy are exercising a false faith, because the real faith is not in what they claim to have faith in at all but rather in the validity of what they were told. A little further to the same extreme are those who claim to have faith in god only because they have been told that there is a reward in it for them, and that to do otherwise will result in punishment. This is technically not faith in anything at all but rather a choice to act as if they have faith just in case there is some possibility of such rewards or punishments being real. A similar example can be found in the tactics of terrorists and kidnappers. Their victims often need only believe that there is a possibility of reward or punishment in order to do as they are told. On the other end of the scale are the people who accept personal risk in order to do what seems to be right. Without faith in their conviction that they know what the right thing to do is, they would have no motivation to accept such personal risk. Another example of true faith is the person who volunteers to help a worthy cause without expecting anything in return. Without faith in the worthiness of that cause, there would likely be insufficient motivation to volunteer their time and effort. Helping a neighbor because your religion has mad you feel obligated to do so may make your religion look good and may be nice for your neighbor, but doesn't require any more faith than paying a bill that you owe. Helping a neighbor just because you saw the opportunity to help and thought it would be nice requires faith in your knowledge of what is nice. Stopping to help a stranger often involves considerable risk with no reasonable possibility of reward, and yet some people have enough faith in what they know to be right that they will frequently stop to help a stranger in need for no other reason than their belief that it is the right thing to do. That's real faith, and the world we live in could use more of it.

Donald A. Kronos, PhD.

Back to oocities.com/technozeus