Wud up, dude...
Person A has heard about ghosts from stories and believes they exists. Let this be blind faith.
Person B gets the shit scared out of them by a vision of an incorporeal person and believes it was a ghost.
Wouldn't person B still have to accept on blind faith that ghosts are non-physical enitites of decesed people, animals, etc.?
In other words, what lead to the determination that the vision, whatever it was, correlates to what people have described as ghosts in stories and folklore?
The way I see it, person B has only added one step between them and blind faith, and that was the vision. But instead of stopping at the vision itself, they've gone one step further have made a determination that it was a ghost, which means they've accepted on blind faith that the stories and folklore define accurately what ghosts should be.
They could have just said, I had a vision of a person. But they didn't. They said, I had a vision of a ghost.
It wouldn't be blind faith to say I had a vision of a person. But I think it is blind faith to add a characteristic to the vision like that of "ghost" when the only bit of evidence is that you had a vision.
It's like when someone says they saw a UFO. Ok, you saw a UFO. But then they add, it was a spaceship from a far off galaxy or another universe. Ok, now how on earth was
that determined? You would have to accept on blind faith that (1) intelligent life exists in other galaxies, and (2) that they have mastered the ability of galactic space travel. Two things that not one single shread of evidence exists for.
This to me is what separates
faith from
blind faith.
- Oni