[FloareTraurne]

What is the role of faith in Buddhism? Is blind faith involved at all?

This topic was suggested for us by KoolAid and it would be interesting to read your thoughts on the subject.

[soprofaxel]

I like the idea of having faith in a belief maybe not blind faith but it just doesn't happen for me, I think you're either that type of person or you're not. You can't force faith.
Regards
Mr Skeptical

[tsaaapla]

If faith = belief/conviction without or in spite of evidence, I don't see any other healthy approach to it but to minimize it with the goal of eliminating it altogether through direct experience and necessary inference. If you feel a need to believe, seems it would be a good idea to examine why you feel that need. I don't see how faith can lead to disillusionment/disenchantment or take one any closer to seeing the world as it really is. Seems that great faith can only be possible when there is concurrent great ignorance, eh?

[indentKew]

[thomaskkk]

In the same way that religious thought (or magical thought based in superstition) needs faith (allways blind) the practice of Buddha teachings needs confidence (based in preciseknowledge). A huge difference...

[mArVHDO6]

Hmm. I'm a little upset with previous posts that describe how blind faith is ridiculous.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm unsure how helpful saying this is; this just tends to make people defensive about their faith -- whether it be Buddhism or any other.
Anyway, I tend to think of faith as being something that is earned, not assumed. That is, I have faith that karma is at work in our lives as I have come across definite examples. Thus, my faith in it's validity has come about because of experiences I have had.
Blind faith, as I see it, takes the 'earned' portion of faith out of the picture. For example, the Bible is God's word. Well, I have no faith in this as I have absolutely no way of saying this is the case or not. So it is only fair of me not to have faith in this 'fact'.
So, no I do not think Buddhism 'needs' blind faith. In fact, this is never needed.
Just my two cents. I don't know if anyone agrees.
Namaste.
Chris

[kaiayout]

I have faith that karma

Hi Chris,

Yes, you need faith in the case of Karma because you do not know precisely how it works... it is speculative... but you can have confidence in the working of the four noble truths because they are precisely knowable... What Buddha taught is about to awake... to know... Religion is allways about faith and what Buddha taught is not a religion.

[Yfclciak]

...I agree with the sentiment, but I'm unsure how helpful saying this is; this just tends to make people defensive about their faith -- whether it be Buddhism or any other....

That's right on target in the sense that the important thing is the results the approach has, rather than any idea about its absolute 'rightness' or 'wrongness'.

Anyway, I tend to think of faith as being something that is earned, not assumed. However, this sounds suspiciously like parroted rhetoric, rather than the result of reflection. I don't see how it connects with what follows:

That is, I have faith that karma is at work in our lives as I have come across definite examples. Thus, my faith in it's validity has come about because of experiences I have had. If you've directly experienced karma, you don't need faith in it; it's undeniable. However, the way experiences are interpreted is crucial. One should keep in mind such things as selection bias, emotional appeals, appeals to authority and other logical fallacies. IOW, don't believe what somebody tells you; just accept it as a report. Then, investigate without bias. I've known quite a few shaven-headed, robe-wearing monks, both 'fresh' and 'seasoned' who were still caught up in such nonsense as traditionalism, nationalism and hero-worship. At some point, one who wants to see deeply must stop being a follower of anyone, including the Buddha, and see/evaluate things for him/herself.

Blind faith, as I see it, takes the 'earned' portion of faith out of the picture. For example, the Bible is God's word. Well, I have no faith in this as I have absolutely no way of saying this is the case or not. So it is only fair of me not to have faith in this 'fact'.
So, no I do not think Buddhism 'needs' blind faith. In fact, this is never needed.
Just my two cents. I don't know if anyone agrees.
Namaste.
Chris
I agree. One of the goals of Buddhism is to eradicate blind faith. I'm curious as to what you've experienced as direct evidence of karma. I have a version of it in mind, but it doesn't jibe with what the popular conception of it seems to be. I'm pretty sure there is at least one other thread about karma, though, so I won't try to derail this thread on that topic. Peace.

[Phlkxkbh]

I know what stuka's gonna post to this, so consider this me pre-emptively cosigning it. =P

Defining "faith" here as "the belief in something without needing or even in spite of a persuasive empirical case." Therefore believing in Germ Theory is not an article of faith, but believing in a God, or ghosts, or reincarnation, or heaven, or karma, is.

Dharma practice is good, because it's a set of tools to accomplish certain things. It's a process that can do some good for just about anybody. However, the things that Buddha taught which are actually tools to advance and improve oneself don't require the practitioner to believe anything that flies in the face of evidence.

Lots of Buddhists say that Buddhism doesn't require blind faith, but frankly I've heard the same statement from followers of the big monotheist traditions which nevertheless require adherents to build their lives around assertions like "there's a wish-granting moody man in the sky who likes you best." People who believe this don't believe they're being irrational or believing things which fly in the face of evidence, and I don't see the people who believe in things like karma or rebirth to be all that much different.

Not everybody who has an opinion about a subject has an opinion because of "faith," but everybody who believes something supernatural, superstitious, or otherwise metaphysical most certainly does, because there's no empirical support for the existence of those things. As a result, "faith" (which is always blind, imo) plays a large role in a lot of people's dharma practice, but not in mine.

[Rurcextedutty]

I'm a little upset with previous posts that describe how blind faith is ridiculous.

Why are you upset..? I am not sure what you are referring to...?

[iroxmxinau]

Nine definitions of faith from dictionary.com, perhaps it would be useful to reference these to clarify discussion.

faith
   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9.
in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

[shkarpet$]

anybody think any of these definitions match their definition of blind faith?

[Chubrehege]

If faith = belief/conviction without or in spite of evidence, I don't see any other healthy approach to it but to minimize it with the goal of eliminating it altogether through direct experience and necessary inference.

You bring up an interesting point here of evidence. In my training class today as a child protective investigator we discussed evidence in legal proceedings. There were two main categories about this: type of evidence being presented and burden of proof required for the court to make a finding. The standard of evidence and burden of proof vary depending upon the type of hearing. I think it is safe to say that anyone who has faith in something is using some kind of evidence, even it is limited "it's in the bible," or "so-and-so told me so." The levels of burden of proof that I am aware in courts:

1) Probable cause: reason to suspect a certain fact is true (used for police to search and CPIs to remove children on a temporary basis)
2) Preponderance of the evidence: more evidence in favor of one conclusion over the other (in court: the state concludes that it more likely than not that a child has been abused and requires parents to take certain actions to rectify situation)
3) Clear and convincing: stronger evidence than with preponderance, pretty sure about the the truth of a situation (used to terminate parental rights)
4) Beyond a reasonable doubt: no reasonable doubt about the truth of a situation in the mind of a "reasonable person"

Obviously these are subjective terms, but may help us in determining what constitutes blind faith and what constitutes "reasonable confidence." Interestingly, it seems as though the four can be used in sequence as well. Starting with probable cause, about the Buddha's teachings removing suffering for instance, and moving towards being beyond reasonable doubt. Also, it seems that the evidence used to verify the Buddha's teachings would have to include empirical evidence that cannot necessarily be verified with certainty externally... any thoughts?

[famosetroie]

In the same way that religious thought (or magical thought based in superstition) needs faith (allways blind) the practice of Buddha teachings needs confidence (based in preciseknowledge). A huge difference...

True, true, where do we draw the line between blind faith and confidence based on precise knowledge?

[XangadsX]

Hmm. I'm a little upset with previous posts that describe how blind faith is ridiculous.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm unsure how helpful saying this is; this just tends to make people defensive about their faith -- whether it be Buddhism or any other.
Anyway, I tend to think of faith as being something that is earned, not assumed. That is, I have faith that karma is at work in our lives as I have come across definite examples. Thus, my faith in it's validity has come about because of experiences I have had.
Blind faith, as I see it, takes the 'earned' portion of faith out of the picture. For example, the Bible is God's word. Well, I have no faith in this as I have absolutely no way of saying this is the case or not. So it is only fair of me not to have faith in this 'fact'.
So, no I do not think Buddhism 'needs' blind faith. In fact, this is never needed.
Just my two cents. I don't know if anyone agrees.
Namaste.
Chris
hands

I think I can see where you are going with this.... If you don't mind me asking what helped you determine the validity of the examples of karmic influence you have seen?

[plalleste]

what constitutes blind faith and what constitutes "reasonable confidence."

This question turns on verifiable evidence.

it seems that the evidence used to verify the Buddha's teachings would have to include empirical evidence that cannot necessarily be verified with certainty externally

The Buddha taught an individual path. One need only prove the efficacy of his Noble teachings to oneself.

I can see and verify for myself that greed, anger, and delusion lead to suffering.

I can see and verify for myself that removing greed, anger, and delusion lead to the cessation of that very same suffering.

i can see and verify for myself that the Noble Eightfold Path as prescribed by the Buddha removes greed, anger and delusion; effecting the cessation of suffering.

QED.

[propolo]

Originally Posted by chrisfraas I have faith that karma

Hi Chris,

Yes, you need faith in the case of Karma because you do not know precisely how it works... it is speculative... but you can have confidence in the working of the four noble truths because they are precisely knowable... What Buddha taught is about to awake... to know... Religion is allways about faith and what Buddha taught is not a religion.



Hmmm... I would argue that both the four truths and karma are speculative on the basis of objective truth. However, on the basis of subjective truth they each have truth relevant to the person who perceives it.... Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but the only truth I can ever find is based on perspective and perception, which are subjective. Objective truth only seems to exist as much as people agree on it, which is really more of a collection of subjective truths.

For example, we generally agree that red represents a certain dimension of experience that specifies a color. With further investigation we can limit that definition to a certain frequency range of light and use that as a standard definition of red. This would be scientific and in accordance with our experience. However, we have no way of knowing absolutely if what you see as red or I see as red are the same at all. What you call blue I could experience as red and as long as the color ranges match up we could both call it red and never know our experiences were so different. Also, the original designation of the color red being within a certain range is entirely dependent upon the way the eye consciousness & eye organ interpret the visual data. There seems to be some consistency in our experience as humans about this, which leads to the conclusion that the definition of the color red has some objectivity to it, but if we had evolved seeing half of the color spectrum as red, the definition of red would be entirely different. Following this reasoning, all evidence based on experience is subjective and any sort of belief is based to some extent on faith that our subjective experience, or the collective subjective experience, is in some way valid.

Does it then follow that blind faith would be faith based on the words of someone else rather than one's own subjective experience? If so, then it is very difficult to define blind faith for anyone else besides ourselves with certainty...

comments very welcome plz

[vipdumpp]

Originally Posted by KoolAid900 what constitutes blind faith and what constitutes "reasonable confidence."

This question turns on verifiable evidence. Right, that is what I am trying to get at. At what point does evidence establish truth? That's why I mentioned burdens of proof as ways to describe at what point we as individuals consider evidence as sufficient to establish truth. For myself, I usually consider something as a possibility when there is a reasonable suspicion that it could exist (kinda redundant I guess). I usually will refer to something as true when there is slightly more evidence in its favor than for the other alternative. I don't mind a low burden of proof because I feel that truth is relative anyway.

However, if someone else only considers something true when evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, then there idea of verifiable evidence will differ. This also means that their definition of blind faith will differ I imagine...

[eljugadordepoquer]

Does it then follow that blind faith would be faith based on the words of someone else rather than one's own subjective experience? If so, then it is very difficult to define blind faith for anyone else besides ourselves with certainty...

I think faith will be always blind. You need faith to believe in god, or that a mantra repeating it over and over again will heal you and give you a wonderfull rebirth or that karma will compensate your sufferings in a better rebirth... faith belongs to speculative realms... like god, karma and powerfull and devotional mantras... But in the case of the teachings given by Buddha, that is different from "Buddhisms", each of them, like in the case of the Four Noble Truths, can be verified directly. Non of his teachings will guide you to phylosophical or religious speculation where is the realm of faith.

[SDorothy28]

Not everybody who has an opinion about a subject has an opinion because of "faith," but everybody who believes something supernatural, superstitious, or otherwise metaphysical most certainly does, because there's no empirical support for the existence of those things. As a result, "faith" (which is always blind, imo) plays a large role in a lot of people's dharma practice, but not in mine.

Shure Cobalt, and this is the point I wanted to reach but I am not very talented at agruing...

With what Buddha taught... and here, at BWB, where there is a refreshing aim to give a chance to know about, you will find nothing speculative like rebirth, karma, powerfull mantras and devotional Green Taras and Pure Abodes here and there...

If we dedicate some time to study the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path you will find that is like learning to dance or to play an instrument... you have to practice each step at a time so to get some rithm and to verify what to dance is about. But only you can know after some time of disciplinated practice... Nobody can tell you how the tune sounds...