Faith Proves Nothing … So What?

As a non-theist, I thought this would be a very short article, for the very idea of faith in a deity is misdirected. What justifies the move to the specific religious text that informs the person of how to understand the specific deity? What experiences validate this trust, or why should one continue to pursue this belief as some sort of blind faith?

I decided I was approaching this the wrong way. The question is not whether the faith is justified, but why it is justified.

The question is not whether the faith is justified, but why it is justified. Click To Tweet

Then I got to thinking about faith as an extension of the very condition of being human. Now faith became more interesting, and more important.

It is a lot to unpack in such a short space, I will surely do a poor job of narrowing my subject matter, but maybe a broader brush will paint a great conversation starter.

According to a 2014 report by Pew Research, “Nearly three-quarters of Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party say that members of Congress should have strong religious beliefs (72%).” But this is not surprising. Come election season, we are inundated with commercials and speeches leveraging a politician’s Faith as a virtue, asking this to be one of the important reasons to vote for him/her.  Never mind that they might be living inconsistently with respect to that Faith. When was the last time you heard someone ask them about how they reconcile their Faith with how they perform their job? If they have Faith in Jesus Christ, then they obviously have a moral grounding that makes them a good leader. They are trying, and even when they fail their source of how to be human warrants they be elevated above those without such a Faith.

Let me be very clear. I am not dismissing the importance of Faith, but should Faith be considered a special virtue? Do we draw a distinction between “Faith” and “faith?”

In asking the latter question, I’m holding the position that faith is something inherently human, that our very biological makeup includes acting on faith, along with a more active decision of Faith where we consciously decide to give our trust to something. I contend that we all have faith, and that this thing called “Faith” is falsely proper. That, inevitably, we all rely on hope that is fed by some form of faith in something or someone.

-|||-

Let’s start with an example of “faith.”

Every night, well almost every night, I fall asleep beside my wife. Every day I turn the key to start my car. While I might not think about the act of sleeping next to someone, I trust that my wife will not, at some point during the evening, decide that I need to die. Additionally, my thought when starting my car is not, “I hope this thing doesn’t explode.”

Experience with my wife and my car has afforded me a degree of trust for the person I chose to marry, and the company that built my vehicle. What would cause me to lose faith in either? Maybe a knife suddenly appears on my wife’s nightstand. Maybe throughout the day she exhibits behavior that displays an animosity for every breath I take. At that point, the faith I have in my wife subsides to the point that changes must be made. But as stated, this isn’t something I think about. This faith is both passive and implied.

-|||-

What then of this active “Faith?”

This is a move grounded in a directed belief. Faith in a god is such a move. One reads a book and is convinced of its authenticity. Maybe some feelings come with this authenticity and it is presented as a “religious experience.” At this point, Faith becomes directed not at a person, or even a tangible thing, but an idea bound by language and feeling. Unlike the wife, or the car, this Faith is not directed at something in which anyone else can participate. It is inherently personal. The words invoke an idea, that while academically can be shared, are necessarily tied to how one feels about the idea.

If one defers to the politician of Faith, aren’t they really just hoping that person follows Jesus in a way consistent with one’s own Faith? To put it a different way, don’t they have faith in their Faith decision? Deference can be given to the source of the Faith, but when you boil it down, all the voter is doing is using faith to make a pragmatic decision.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing.

—  Friedrich Nietzsche

This is a fitting quote on all accounts. The passive faith in my wife does not prove she won’t kill me, any more than my faith in those who built my car did so without the seeds of catastrophic error. In turn, Faith in a god does not prove a god exists.

Yet what we find in any of these examples is something that allows us to move forward. A something that keeps us from being paralyzed by fear of (X). Again, it is less about the justification and more about the need of application.

Does the object of Faith matter?

The theist will want to argue their Faith can be justified in some way, but the question I have yet to receive a sufficient answer for is how such a Faith can be accepted within their own frame, and yet so easily dismissed for others with differing ideas of god. The very idea that one must put Faith before the evidence, and then hold onto Faith with the idea that evidence is forthcoming (while again denying the evidence finding process for others), is hypocrisy. It might even be framed as a paradox if the response to lack of evidence is, “just have the Faith of a mustard seed.”

Some time ago I asked a few Christian friends what evidence would be required for them to doubt their Christian idea of god. One of them told me no evidence would be sufficient, that his Faith is something he was going to adhere to until he dies. He might hope to maintain that “Faith,” but it is his present faith that grants him the peace to exist. We can debate whether it is reasonable, but it is still a practical move for him. While his Faith is important, he has a passive faith in himself even before his Faith.

At this point you might have many thoughts swimming through your head. One might be profanity directed at me for this “faith” vs. “Faith” nonsense. I can’t blame you for such words. Maybe you’re wondering what my faith position is. Seems only fair I should answer that question. I’ll use a verse from “Faithless,” a song by the band Rush from their Snakes & Arrows album.

I don’t have faith in faith
I don’t believe in belief
You can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that’s faith enough for me

“Ah ha!” you might exclaim. “He spoke of hope early on, but never really addressed it!”

Fair criticism. Here is where I tie that into faith.

The common theme amongst both theists and non-theists is a need to trust, which, in simple terms, is “faith.” Trust that they will see their loved ones after passing. Trust someone is looking out for you. Trust that harm won’t come.

Because I love my wife I will trust that she doesn’t decide to murder me in my sleep. That hope is predicated on my passive faith in her as a person. While I will argue that the faith in my wife is more justifiable than any Faith in a deity only known through language and sentiment, this faith/Faith is what one needs to get through the day.

If someone can’t get by on faith alone, then find that Faith. Maybe our focus should be more on hope than faith. Even Sisyphus had hope, right?