That is to say - in the same way you need 'left' in order to understand the concept of 'right' - how can blind faith have value if it has never withstood the rigours of self analysis and doubt?
sort by best latest
Could "faith" as you describe it be "imperfect belief?"
And what about the confidence that Peter had to step out of his storm-tossed boat onto the unsettled Sea of Galilee?
Peter had faith but he also had periods of doubt. Listen to the rooster crow. His period of doubt was overcome, and his faith became stronger. That time of doubt built him up.
Questioning and understanding are good, certainly. But there is something beyond reason and understanding.
True faith (perfect confidence) is creation (at cause); mortal confidence and doubt are perception (at effect)
Unquestioning faith is good, but arrogance in thinking that one knows it all is bad. What's the difference? Humility to hold yourself as an empty cup, thirsty for the water of truth. But humility is entirely different than ego.
Beautiful! And just as Buddha described the paramitas, "faith" is the one-sided coin that does not contain a spot of doubt -- for confidence (which is faith) has no opposite
Yes - faith in its purist definition requires there to be no doubt - otherwise it is not true faith. However, without doubt is faith not less meaningful? If there's nothing to contrast with faith then how can its value be understood?