What is the difference between faith and blind faith?

I had an interesting discussion with someone on Facebook bout whether religion requires blind faith. I thought I would post it here as it brought out a distinction between reasonable and unreasonable "blind" faith.


Graham:
Isn't it true that a belief in ANY religion only requires a kind of 'blind faith' of which proof and scientific evidence play little or no part?

Me:
Religion is normally a belief in things that are un-testable. For example, the divinity of Jesus or his resurrection. Its only when religions require belief in things which ARE testable that they require a faith which is blind to the evidence.

Graham:
God (sorry about the pun) you're good Gordon H! Where does Christianity fit into the 'scheme-of-things' then, do you think?

Me: 
It all depends how you define Christianity. If you mean the Apostles creed then that doesn't require blind faith. If you mean the statement of faith of many modern evangelical churches then they often do.

In the new testament faith does not exist in isolation as some kind of virtue - in the way many modern Christians depict it. Faith is closely linked to hope and to love. Faith in the resurrection leads to a hope for the future and a desire to love others as Christ has loved us. Which is why Christians seek to serve others who are less fortunate.

Interjection into the discussion by a young earth creationist:
Very good Graham see your talking about the faith of evolution.

Me:
Believing in young earth creationism requires blind faith, because you have to be blind to the observable evidence against it.