This essay provides an interesting multi-cultural esoteric perspective on what may be called a "resurrection" body of light, as distinct from the naive reductionist mis-understanding promulgated by the usual Christian true believers
http://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/42-publications/quest-magazine/1690-resurrection-and-the-body-of-light

.

Dear Peter,

.

"Faith", as I understand it, is belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both).

"Blind faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness.

This, in my view, qualifies most religious belief as blind faith.

So for the Church to provide “a consistent and reasonable account of the faith to which it bears witness” it needs to justify blind faith.

These articles treat the question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Fowler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion#cite_note-109

http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11090214

.

Also, apart from the fact that almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus probably existed, there is no consensus among historians on the historical reliability of the narratives of the gospels.

The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.

The elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels).

There is absolutely no agreement among historians on your affirmation that “witnesses to the resurrection became believers; to witness the resurrection was to believe”. Quite the contrary, many historians consider that: “to believe the resurrection was to witness; believers of the resurrection became witnesses”.

You have presented an incomplete, truncated and biased version of the historical facts, if indeed, they may be considered “historical facts” at all.

.

.

Oops ! The second link should have been the following :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion

Sorry about that.

.

Banjo, I have no desire to debate your belief/non belief in Christianity but I do find myself wanting to explain faith.

Faith is terribly defined in the dictionary, as the definitions give the reader no help to understand what faith is. It likens it to other related principles, like belief, trust and confidence, but if faith was the same as those principles it wouldn't be a separate word.

Faith is the acting on a belief to achieve an expected outcome, that has not yet been realised or seen. It is more than simply believing, and likewise, is also more than mere action. Hence why when beginning a university degree one can claim to have faith in oneself to accomplish the goal of graduating.

"Blind faith" as a term is a contradiction. Faith can never be blind, as it is the acting on a belief. One can act without believing, but this is not faith. You can also have blind obedience, where one acts ignorant of the consequences of ones actions. However where the actions are according to an individuals belief, it can never be blind. Misguided maybe, but not blind.

Every single human being has faith of some degree. The quality of their faith is determined by the quality of the thing that they believe in and the quality of their action. Technically speaking faith is used by scientists, students, sportsmen and women, the religious, the irreligious and more.

Every time someone acts on something that they believe to be true that person is acting in faith.

Prebs,

Thanks for an interesting explanation of the term (religious) faith. No wonder people confuse faith and belief: In some languages, e.g. German or Russian, one cannot distinguish between the words faith and belief (they have the word Glaube or vera respectively to stand for both). This can cause problems when translating religious text from German into English.

Nevertheless, one can make the distinction indirectly:

“Credo QUOD Deus unus sit” - [I believe THAT God (exists and) is one] refers to religious BELIEF, whereas “Credo IN unum Deum” [I believe IN one God] is an expression of FAITH.

Peter,

I think you have shown that it is hard to explain (to non-Christians) what is meant by Christ's resurrection but easy to explain it away.

.

Dear Prebs,

.

You wrote :

« Faith is terribly defined in the dictionary, as the definitions give the reader no help to understand what faith is. It likens it to … belief, trust and confidence … »
.

I am a reader and dictionaries help me to understand. I am surprised they don’t help you. It is impossible to communicate correctly if we do not agree on the meaning of the words we employ. That is the object of linguistics in general and semantics in particular. An authoritative dictionary simply indicates the conventional meanings defined by those fields of study.

The authoritative dictionary definitions are deemed to apply unless the writer indicates otherwise.

I indicated my definitions of the terms “faith” and “blind faith” (which I do not think you will find in any dictionary). You indicated a counter-definition of “faith” and rejected the rationality of the term “blind faith”.

You consider that “faith can never be blind, as it is the acting on a belief”. Others consider that “all faith is blind because if we can see something, then faith is no longer operative”.

In my definition, faith is blind when there is no material evidence but it nevertheless continues to be operative if there is either circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness, or both. This definition leaves room for the benefit of the doubt.

However, there is no room for doubt in either your definition or the exact opposite definition cited previously.

I consider that belief in the resurrection requires blind faith because there is no material evidence, and no consensus among historians on the historical reliability of that particular narrative in the gospels, on which it is founded. Therefore: no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness.

I see no justification for blind faith on such an important matter - even though, according to George (on this forum), I am a Christian because I have been baptised.

You also limit faith to “acting on a belief”. If by that you include “deciding to do nothing” then I agree.

.