Part 1 C: True, Healthy, Faith

           The third possibility for faith is that faith is substantial, it has meaning; there is a good reason to have ones faith.  It is also faith because at this time the thing believed cannot be proven in an ultimate sense or empirical sense.   A great example of this is getting up every morning and going to work.  Each time we go to work we know that the end result will be a pay check in a week or two, a month or quarterly.  The worker puts the work in believing that they will be rewarded for holding up their end of the commitment.  This is faith with substance but not having been fully proven at the time.  What if the company goes bankrupt?  What if the owner/CEO, whoever, is a crook and decides to skip town with all the assets? These things do not typically happen but do happen once in a while.  

 Another example is the belief that every time we are not with our significant other they are faithful to us. But before I go into this example let me state that each example listed though out the series (Part 1 A: Is blind faith the answer; Part 1 B: Is empirical evidence the answer to our faith) could be blind faith, or genuine substance based faith depending on the circumstances.  

If each time  husband #1 left his house he came home to his wife hosting another man, the husband would have blind faith if he believed the rest of his life his wife was faithful (he’s also dealing with cognitive dissonance).   If, however, husband #2  comes home from work to find his wife is taking care of things that need to be done for the family.  Throughout the day he and she talk during their breaks. If they had a good relationship, kept open lines of communication, genuinely worked hard on their marriage the husbands faith is merited based on the definition in the introduction: (Faith is the substance of things hoped for without having seen the full evidence realized).  There is no way to know with absolute certainty that either spouse is cheating or not cheating.  But one husband has more reason to believe in their spouse then the other.  This is true substance based faith.  It is not like the sun coming up tomorrow faith, because we know that it always will until it does not and then it really does not matter, because we won't be here. This is the type of faith that takes time, research, logical inquiry etc... to come to.  This is real faith.  

This real faith is not blind belief, nor does it require empirical proof that cannot ever be known.  It is substantial, logical and effective faith.  How could you know with absolute certainty that your spouse never cheated unless your kept him/her locked up?  How can you know with absolute certainty that God does or does not exist without dieing and finding out?  There are those who say they have relationship with God, but that does not help the atheist who believes there is no god.

If we as the human race are to be real with ourselves we must first recognize that we are faith based creatures.  After having acknowledged this principal fact we must be open to scrutinizing our faith, which allows us to become cognitively consonant when pursuing where to place faith. 

Most of the time people are unwilling to do this because their very foundations will be shaken.  Many religious people are unwilling to become cognitively consonant because they believe that if they look at the scientific evidence they will have to change what they believe.  Many atheists are unwilling to look at the possibility of a supernatural creator because that leaves open the possibility that all testable truth can be construed as falsehood.  In the desire to protect the value to his life’s work the atheist makes a leap of faith into naturalism as being the only possible answer to the universe and origin of life.  I will dedicate some time to each side, exploring these ideas further.

Faith is a powerful part of our lives if it is utilized properly.  How does anyone know whether or not they are putting their faith in the right things?  What happens if there is new information that causes us to question our choice?  How can we know what to put our faith in when everyone seems to believe something different?  Should faith be determined by what is contemporary?  Should it be based in something from antiquity?  

The exploration of these questions and many more is the purpose of this work; it is not designed to tell people where they should put their faith.  It is not designed to preach one thing over another, be it one religion over another or one academic discipline over another (such as philosophy or religion or science).  

Another purpose is to get people thinking for themselves.  My students hear from the first day we meet each semester to the last, “don’t take my word on anything, and don’t take another man’s word either.  You do your own thinking and your own research that way you are informed and come up with the conclusions that seem most logical to you.”    

This of course is more complicated than doing a Google search.  It takes time and exploration.  Are such matters worth it?  Most of us choose a spouse (hopefully for a life time).  Isn’t it worth the time and energy to explore that person before making a commitment of faith in them and towards them?   We put politicians in office believing they are going to do what we elected them to do (typically we have blind faith in them unfortunately).  Isn’t figuring out our faith’s foundation worth a little time and effort?  Is it not worth figuring out whether it makes more sense to put our faith in a God or in atheism?

              Being cognitively consonant is a huge step toward true peace and confidence.  Knowing in what and whom one believes brings the individual to a better understanding of himself and the world around him.  That person can answer with conviction “I know where my faith is.”  The next step is making sure that where we put our faith is logical and reasonable.  If one believes that a peanut is god and knows it and is content believing it, that individual is not using their reason.

Part I B: Is Emperical evidence the answer to our Faith problem?

The other problem I addressed earlier concerning the definition of faith is that of having to be able to prove something before it can be believed.  This is error because if something is proven it doesn’t require faith to believe it.  It doesn’t take a whole lot of faith to believe the sun will come up every morning or that gravity will keep us from floating up into the universe.  These are constants that we know to be true because we see them more fully.

              Some of my readers may be thinking to themselves, “that is the stuff I think about and believe in; I don’t worry about the stuff that isn’t provable” or something very similar to that.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to find concrete answers and absolutes.  The problem with only believing in concretes (without faith) is that there is no moving forward, there are no new hypotheses presented and everything ends up becoming stagnant.   Plus, in reality, it’s impossible for humans to not put faith into something.

              Someone who believes in only the testable comes to the conclusion that there are no answers to life.  A good example to illustrate my point is asking the questions, where or why did the Universe begin and how did it start?  Since it is impossible to recreate the beginning of the Universe it is impossible to answer these questions absolutely by any known method of testing (one must believe something by faith to broach this subject).  If an individual determines that because there is no possible way to answer these questions with near 100% certainty, they are unwilling to view this subject as material or meaningful to their life; they have chosen to put their faith in something by default.  

              To believe that answering the questions of how the universe began, or why it began is unimportant, it must be determined that there is no ultimate meaning to the universe or to life.  That is faith based on the individual’s part.  There is no way to prove to someone else that there is no meaning to life, thus one who comes to that conclusion has faith that they are not missing out on something more meaningful or fulfilling. 

              To say that one doesn’t care whether or not there is meaning to the universe is also a faith based position.  The faith resides in the belief that not caring is an acceptable answer.  It is the belief that there is no ultimate universal God that one will have to answer to.  Or it’s the belief that having to answer to this God doesn’t matter or the consequences are manageable.  Can anyone prove that there is no God or that the consequences of not caring if He exists are manageable?  If it cannot be proven that the consequences of rejecting God are manageable then proponents of this line of thinking are faith based too.  This is not a play on words!  At the heart of each foundational principle that man has, the choice to believe, is faith based.  

              To come full circle, those who believe that faith must be testable on every level with empirical certainty attainable and a material result must be established, have faith in whatever there foundational principals are and cognitive dissonance because they don’t want to believe they are faith based people.  Once an individual recognizes that they believe what they believe by faith then they have the opportunity to be real with themselves and others and determine if what they believe is worth their faith.

Part I A: Is blind Faith the answer?

Every semester I teach Intro to REL or REL of the world, I have an introductory first class that explains what is expected of the students.  During this introduction I ask my students many questions.  One of those questions is “What is Faith?”  There are a wide range of answers; some answers are of a personal nature; others are more academic in nature.  

              Most answers are correct on one level or another.  For the purpose of this work I am going to broaden the scope of the word faith to mean three things. Something that covers a broad basis because it makes the most sense in getting to the root issues for man and society.  Faith is the substance of things hoped for without having seen the full evidence realized.  “Seeing is believing” as they say, and faith is believing without seeing fully.  

              This brings about some problems in interpretation.   Some may interpret faith to be “blind faith” which usually has a negative connotation (rightly so).  Some may focus on the word substance, which by definition, is weighty or substantial and interpret correct faith to mean something that is provable empirically.

              There are many examples of blind faith found in science, religion and life overall.  A good example that is also somewhat informative; allowing us to have a better understanding of two religions points of view concerning the historical Jesus are found in the Biblical record and the Qur’anic record.    The Biblical record tells us that Jesus was crucified and rose again.  There are secular sources that corroborate the crucifixion; there is also the biblical record of those stating Jesus was seen alive after the crucifixion.  

              In the Qur’anic revelation it states that Jesus was not crucified, but ascended into heaven with Allah.  The Hadiths state that Judas was transfigured to look like Jesus and was crucified in Jesus place.  The record of Jesus found in the Quran is over a half millennium more recent than the biblical record and there is no historical evidence from outside sources, that are earlier than the Qur’an, to back it up.  What is more, the Hadiths are considerable more recent than the Qur’an, ranging from at least 25 years later to over a century later.

              Secular scholars and free thinkers may interpret both these examples as blind faith, but is that accurate?  The biblical record, records eye witnesses to the account.  This along with some outside sources such as Josephus and Roman governmental records make the account at its foundation more than blind faith.  Thus, one who believes this record has some substance behind their faith.  The Qur’anic record does not have the correct timing to get the record right (being over 500 years late), nor does it have other valid sources to back it up.  The Hadiths are not a valid source for backing up the record of the Quran because the purpose of the Hadiths is to be an explanation or illumination of the Quran. Thus, the foundation of the Qur’anic record by definition appears to be blind faith based.  

              Does this mean that the Biblical record is correct on everything or the Qur’anic record incorrect on everything?  That example alone doesn’t merit such a statement about the Biblical record; there must be further analysis of the material to come to any conclusion.   It does give us something to go on concerning having faith in the record of the Quran.   

              The first thing a believer must come to grips with is that the Qur’an has to be the only authoritative source on everything it addresses (which it states about itself).  Secondly the believer must admit that they are unable to reasonably explain why all of recorded history up until the Qur’an is in error concerning what happened to Jesus (and many other topics concerning the Jews).  The believer must also put aside reason and intellect and believe solely, by blind faith, the message of the Qur’an (unless the believer chooses cognitive dissonance).   Does this make everything in the Qur’an a falsehood?  By no means, it just means that we don’t necessarily know which things are facts and which things are false without doing extensive research.  What it leads a reasonable, thinking human to believe is that the Qur’an cannot be a copy of a perfect book found in heaven.  That is of course, unless all of history is wrong.

Your Faith! Where is it? Introduction

Over the next days, weeks I will be introducing some thoughts about faith.  It is my position that each human being has a measure of faith and they put their faith in something.  The dialogue will consist of delving into what science is, should be; what religion is, should be; and how philosophy can help to bring these things together.

This work will have many parts as it is long and I do not care to bore you with a book.  I will also, at times, take a break from this discussion to interject other thoughts and debates as they arise.  As always, I would love to know what you guys think about the information presented.

Here is Part 1: Your Faith!  Where is it?

Introduction

              When I started this work I knew it was going to be a broad overview of many topics to get to a clear and concise understanding of what faith is to people and what faith ought to be.  It is impossible for someone to know exactly what they are putting their faith in if they do not realize that on so many levels they are applying faith.  

              The purpose of this work is not to give an overall view of religion, philosophy, or science; I use all of these concepts and constructs to focus on the overall theme of the essay.  This is not supposed to be an exhaustive work on any one of these topics nor is it an exhaustive work on any particular religion, philosophy or scientific discipline.   There are many books that go into such details and if you find any particular detail in this work of interest or worth further investigation then the purpose of this work has been realized.   As I approach each topic the goal is to use logic and reason to present consistencies and difficulties within the subject being discussed.   The reason I have decided to do this is because it helps to clarify foundational things.  In the process of clarifying these things it gives us a better understanding, a clear path to see if the root of something is worth putting faith into. 

              I choose to focus on science, religion and philosophy because these are the typical constructs that frame our beliefs.  Each discipline has its place and purpose in our lives and society at large.  Many problems arise when each discipline over steps its bounds into the other disciplines purpose.  The problem is worth investigating because of two reasons.  One, as mentioned earlier, we all put our faith in something, based on our belief about these topics.  Two, if we could reconcile the value of each discipline and allow it to have the proper place in our lives and society it could possibly make for a more cohesive individual and society.

              Another reason for this work is to put in print what I teach in my religions classes.    My students know that I don’t care about “fluff” as they call it.  They tell me that though my class requires them to “work harder” than they “have to work” for their “core classes and this class is just an elective”; they find it to be “more valuable than” their “other classes”.  Not everyone loves my class, but most do.  

My hope is to give people a chance to truly be real with themselves and others.   We all have faith, and the question is where do we put our faith?  Buddha taught about the way to enlightenment, Jesus taught about the way to eternal life, faith based atheism teaches us the natural origins for life is the best known answer.  Are they all right or wrong?  Is it worth our time to care about such things?

Is a Hammer the only tool? Is Science?

Below is a response to an atheist with many questions.  What is the point of studying if most questions lead to "We just don't know the answer yet..."?  Is it best to spend our entire lives concluding we just don't know because it cannot be known; hoping by faith "one day" science, the only tool for the atheist, will answer every question?  Or should we be open to looking at more options?
Please know that I think science is a wonderful tool that is useful when used properly, but how can it be the only tool man has?  Would a hammer be the only tool to build a house?  Is it possible other tools have been given to us?

A question to ponder as you read this.  Does it take more faith to be an atheist, or more faith to believe in a God?

This is the deal.

I assume something higher that made us. There are logical reasons to believe this. If 1’s and 0’s in binary code grew a consciousness and could not see into our 3 dimensional world it would be logical for one of them to say there is nothing outside this world, our binary world. The other would say, but how did we get here? There is order, there is law, and something intelligent must have created this. Then depending on who was more educated and the better debater one would seem more right or less right. But the facts do not change, a world outside of the binary world does exist.

How do we know we are not stuck in a 3 dimensional world with some higher intelligence outside of it? If we cannot see outside the fish bowl does it necessarily mean it is logical to think all there is, is the fish bowl? You assume there is nothing higher that made us. And it would appear that you think everything happened by chance. And it appears as though you do not think this is an assumption. I showed you how there is a ton of information that makes abiogenesis highly unlikely and yet you still assume this is the best answer. You say there are problems with new science and that is to be expected.  So this is a faith based belief, not based on any physical evidence.

The truth is much bigger than science or the scientific study man will be able to do. You assume that because there was no time as we know it, the Big Bang is the final answer, the first cause that caused itself. But does that mean there was nothing before it? Is it true that there is no other dimension of time? And how do we get around the fact that something caused the Big Bang? All the questions and the millions more that you do not have the answer to you will say, or at least you have only said “We don’t know yet…” But let’s call it illogical to believe God or some other dimension exists.

Another thing said is, You do not need empirical data to prove this god but science is the best and really only way to measure anything.  So how am I to prove this when all you look to is science? Again, binary code and the laws that govern it do not apply to humans. Why must the laws of physics apply to God? Why is it illogical to consider that as a possibility? Why must we believe in no god to be logical especially since for most questions our atheistic answer must be “we don’t know yet…”?

What if we assumed a god instead of no god and still asked all the same questions? What if that did not make us lazy? What if that made us understand things like metaphysics better? What if that meant we did not have to decide evil based off of whims and good based off of feelings or the whimsical nature of humanity? What if that helped to make things come together more logically instead of less logically?

What if we agreed that God does not make ice cores look hundreds of thousands of years old but in reality are only 10,000 years old? What if we agreed that God does not undo the laws He makes? What if we decided that it is logical for a God to make the laws orderly and that we did not have to throw our brain out to believe in a supernatural God? What if that is what God really intended all along?

You say I have never shared a method of why I believe and think it makes sense; it is because you told me you cannot believe it no matter what. What is the point of sharing if you are opposed and unwilling to consider another way?

In my world view I do not have to pretend I don’t have faith to believe what I believe. I have never found an atheist who has not had to pretend that they do not believe and also at some point when talking about rights and wrongs, good and evil either had to decide that these things really only mean something to those who agree. Or pretend they are not religious when in reality atheism is just a belief system that people buy into.  And no two atheists agree completely just as no two other religious believers believe completely the same. All your arguments as to why religion and faith are no good are not based in anything other than personal opinion and feelings.  For if I used the same argument that no two atheists believe the same what does that prove?

I can still use my reason to look at all the scientific data. I can use reason and faith together. Does that mean I have all the answers, by no means!!! I just don’t have to pretend.

Can you honestly say you do not have faith in some of what you believe? It does not appear so, because for many questions your answer is “We just don’t know yet…” How is that not faith?  Holding to propositions that cannot be proven in hopes that one day they can be proven is belief and faith based.

Can you honestly say that this belief in atheism, if proven false, that you would not be shaken to the core? If you would be shaken, then it is religious, meaning your are vested in it. Your whole world is wrapped up in it.

Now, this is only my assumption... but I do not believe you will be genuine, real and honest with how you would feel if atheism would be proven false.