the Fact of Faith

With the movie "Expelled" coming out, there is bound to be some reaction - even if for just a little while. Until the next celebrity stunt, political gaff or overly-reported tragedy.

With that in mind, I thought I'd throw out an idea about the concept of faith, and how it's far more a fundamental part of our lives, whether you are religious or not, than most people suspect. Let's start by defining some terms...

Here are some definitions of faith;
Oxford English Dictionary: Faith - noun 1. Complete trust or confidence
Dictionary.com: Faith - 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Here's a generalization, but it's generally true. Scientists and naturalists, for the most part, say that faith is blind; that it is the belief in something despite a lack of evidence, or - some might say in spite of the evidence. Mostly they are talking about religious faith, which, for most in their camp equates to someone choosing to believe that something (God, supernatural, spiritual...etc) exists even though there is no evidence or proof for it. To them, these people are to be pitied, or educated, or in some cases committed.

Blind faith. I think that is the phrase that many equate to belief. But let's step back a second and think about the nature of facts, knowledge and faith - especially their relationships to each other.

I don't like the Oxford definition above, because I think that the idea of complete confidence isn't really a reality for most people. In fact, I don't think that anyone operates on that level of confidence - if their honest.

Here's why - we're finite, and we therefore have limited knowledge. Really limited, if you care to think about it. Of all the information in all the universe, a brash claim is that we would even know a tenth of 1 percent of it all. No way.

So when we say we have a certain knowledge of facts, we're making an inherently limited (but assumably reasonable) claim. We can't gather information about something, for instance - a physical 'law' like gravity, in all possible places, times, conditions and circumstances. We never have a complete picture or truly comprehensive knowledge.

This doesn't mean we don't have knowledge, just that it's not complete. We can make reasonable assumptions and assertions based on repetition and consistency and therefore operate on a principle or law assuming it is true, but we can't say definitively that something like gravity is always as we observe it here and now - because we cannot test that claim in all places, in all times and under all circumstances. We have knowledge about the world around us, but it is inherently limited in it's scope.

Here we are even speaking about things like cold, hard science. Every theorem and experiment rests squarely on the shoulder of assumption. Reasonable assumptions for the most part. The chemist assumes that oxygen will behave in a certain way in certain circumstances, that a combination of two elements will achieve a certain reaction, that chemical X will behave as it has in the past in the same situation. Does the chemist absolutely know? No, not really. But he is reasonably confident it will, otherwise he won't be mixing potentially deadly ingredients together.

Or scientifically, let's push a little father out of the lab. The reason good science is good is because it has been tested and refined to a very high degree of consistency. Assumptions are then a pretty safe bet. When we shoot a spacecraft off to another planet, I doubt that the project includes repeated tests and experiments to determine the force of gravity that the Earth imposes. We don't keep checking the mass of the planet and prove every time how big it is and how much it weighs. That data has been collected, tested and refined to a point where NASA probably just has some data on hand which it adds to the plan. There is trust that the data - which they themselves have not produced and tested - is good and correct.

Here's what I think faith is: reasonable trust based on incomplete knowledge.

If you'll accept that definition of faith, then let's agree that faith is a part of everyone's life - yes even the noble scientists.

There's a balance between both ends of that equation. Knowledge means that there is information collected - it's not complete, and so there is a chance that it doesn't conform exactly to reality - i.e. that the knowledge is untrue. But it's gathered and used to process our action. The extent of that knowledge and it's nearness (or distance) to comprehensiveness will then, if we are reasonable, effect our level of trust.

For example - should I walk out on the icy pond?

My knowledge is incomplete. I don't know if it will hold me for sure. But I know that it's been pretty cold for the last week. I assume that water generally begins to freeze around 32 Fahrenheit. I see that it is frozen all the way to the edge. It looks thick. I weigh 200 pounds. But I can't know for sure if it will hold my wait.

My trust level should be informed by reason. If all the information I have seems to be accurate and compelling to me that it will be safe, I'll enter into an action reflecting faith, or trust. I'll walk out. But if my data is less sound. (there was a warm-up this weekend...the ice looks a little thin) I might not be willing to take an action of faith. I might opt for more information gathering - like throwing a heavy rock out or putting some of my weight on the edge and observing.

In the reasonability component there is also the element of risk vs gain. I have much more to lose when crossing an icy lake than when, say, trying a new flavor of yogurt. But put one of my children out on the ice, badly hurt, and my reasonable level of risk will change.

When things go wrong is when faith is unreasonable, or when the an action or belief is reasonable, but the information and assumptions were far from reality.

Unreasonable faith is the realm of insanity or delusion. That's trust and action DESPITE the information, despite the risk. I knew a mental patient that could verbalize that eating random mushrooms may kill him, but he ate them anyway. (he lived, but still didn't see the connection) That's an unreasonable action.

Reasonable faith can still result in a very poor outcome. Take for instance the 2 crane collapses this year in New York City. Workmen loaded and used the cranes - which passed inspection - and reasonably operated in faith that all would work as it should. Their actions, though completely sensible, resulted in calamity because the reality was very different than their information and assumptions. The inspectors either overlooked problems, or worse - turned a blind eye to them.

So, all day, you and I take faith-based actions. Whenever I choose something, unless something is wrong with my ability to process and evaluate, I am exhibiting trust at some level in the information I have, which is not complete.

The bigger questions then become:
How incomplete/sufficient is my knowledge?
How reasonable is my trust in what I know?


Parenthetical thought: (the opposite of reasonable faith would be unreasonable fear. Healthy people don't operate this way. I could live in total fear all the time because of my limited knowledge. Do I know for sure that no burglar will enter my house while I sleep? Do I know for sure that a fire won't start in the living room? Do i know for sure that no meteor may crash into my office while I work? Do I know that someone on a cell phone might cross the yellow line and hit me? That my hamburger isn't laced with poison? That my phone isn't tapped? No. No to all. I don't know for sure that these things won't happen. But they are unlikely. I take small precautions like locking my door, installing smoke detectors and paying attention when I drive. But I don't live in a bunker, I don't distrust everyone. That we don't know anything for absolutely certain shouldn't completely prevent us from any action. It just means we take precautions about the more likely risks, or small efforts toward unlikely events [life insurance] and know that the rest is rare and nothing that should debilitate us. If we can't make that distiction we're back to the mental hospital or in a life of reclusive internal self-incarceration.)

So all that being said - let's turn to Religion.

If faith is a component of everything we do, religious belief shouldn't be any different. The major mistake people make is in assuming that only in the realm of spirituality and religion is there no information available to make reasonable decisions.

The fact gathering may look a little different than something like genetics, but not unlike other things we trust in - like the fact that Abraham Lincoln was a president. I have no personal experience with that - just information from others who were there, and corroboration.

Religious Faith is just a sub-category of faith in general, but the same principles apply. What information do you have? How reliable is it's source? Are there others who will corroborate the information?

Where science and religion really have their differences is not really in the realm of reasonability - it's in the area of presumption about what constitutes valid information, which is a whole different topic. (of volumes of books)

Naturalism would say that the physical is all there is and there can be nothing more. Religions - in particular Christianity - would say that there is also an immaterial, super-natural aspect to the world with a very real God at the center of it all. Your presumptions about that will play a major role in what information you consider to be valid and what choices you will make.

And when you evaluate the risk versus gain factor, this becomes the most important matter in our lives. Our lives here and now, and our next life - if indeed there is one - will be fundamentally accurate or catastrophically wrong based on what we assume about the nature of reality and the faith-based-actions (which is really all there is) which we make as a result.

No reasonable faith comes without information - but information needs to be tested. To walk through life giving it no thought, no evaluation at all is too big of a risk. It's a blind walk across a barely frozen pond.