When talking about religion, a certain amount of faith is required, but need it be blind faith? This illustration helped me understand the difference between reasonable faith and blind faith, and it’s application to religion, apologetics, and Christianity.

Suppose I am in a conversation with my father, with whom I’ve had a good relationship and have known all my life. I put my hand in my pocket and pull out something, but don’t show him what it is. “What is in my hand?” I ask him.

“Well, I guess that it is a quarter,” my father says.

“Are you sure?” I ask. “Would you be willing to wager $100 on that?”

“Well, it logically COULD be a quarter. Sure, I’ll bet $100 that it is a quarter.” This would be BLIND FAITH, and a foolish bet.

Now suppose that I instead told him, “Dad, in my hand, I have a 1921 silver dollar in decent condition.” This is a completely different situation. Assuming that he thinks I am trustworthy, he would be operating in reasonable faith to confidently wager on what I am telling him because he believes me, and he believes that I am in a position of knowing what is in my hand. This is REASONABLE FAITH – he hasn’t seen it, but he believes it.

Finally, if I open my hand and give him the silver dollar, so that he can hold it and inspect it and fully verify the truth for himself, he has certainty of the thing, and faith is no longer needed. He has true objective knowledge.

(Paraphrased from “The Bible – Truth or Fiction”; Simmons, Richard III; http://www.cfel-al.org/Messages/Player.aspx?MessageID=45&FileName=20040823.mp3&FileImage=RichardSimmonsMessage.jpg)