Colbert has stated he's a Catholic because he doesn't believe there's any other reasonable explanation for the existence of joy.
I'm sure there's a little bit more to it - but perhaps not much more. His take on the Bible is literal enough that he believes in the existence of hell.
More specifically, please characterize what makes something "blind adherence" vs. "adherence" in general. When can I say that someone blindly adheres to vegetarianism? When can I say that someone blindly adheres to a support of representational democracy?
Going back to the topic, how does that blind adherence prevent someone from being an out-of-the-box thinker of any sort?
how does that blind adherence prevent someone from being an out-of-the-box thinker of any sort?
It doesn't, at least not necessarily. That is to say, they may (and often probably do) correlate, but as we all know, correlation != causation.
What you're seeing here is just another flavor of blind adherence — namely to the dogma of atheism which dictates that people of faith are by definition delusional.
If no one is willing to define what "blind adherence" means then it's hard to determine if there's a correlation, as you suggest.
Based on the conversation so far, I interpret it to mean "someone who believes something other than what I believe, and for reasons I don't agree with."
Perhaps the best solution might be to invert things, but I have been unable to find a list of out-of-the-box thinkers. Mostly I find people claiming to be so, without providing any external evidence.
I'm sure there's a little bit more to it - but perhaps not much more. His take on the Bible is literal enough that he believes in the existence of hell.