Faith

Let's talk a bit about faith. Few words have as potent an impact on the minds that receive them. Christians and other theists tend to view faith through rose colored glasses, happily ensconced in our convenient views of faith in God and the joys it brings. Non-theists, on the other hand, have a rather more cynical view of the subject, seeing faith in God (they rarely acknowledge any other type) as a delusion in need of treatment at best, and a disease capable of destroying the human race at worst. Thank you, radical fundamentalism. To a certain extent, both theist and atheist camps are responsible for the degradation of the concept of faith. I have an announcement to make for both parties.

You're both wrong.

Being a Christian, specifically of the Catholic variety, I will hereby confine myself to Christian theism (being the only one I'm specifically qualified to engage in apologetics for, even if only in my own mind), and Christianity's usage of the term "faith," as compared with atheist/agnostic usage of the term.

While I often complain about the problem of people redefining words to suit their needs, I'm going to have to be guilty of it myself. The issue, of course, is that there's no hard line. One cannot say the word means what it means with no room for discussion, since, of course, usage determines meaning in language. If a word is used in a new way by enough people, that word gains a new meaning, regardless of whether purists are happy over it. Because usage determines meanings, resources such as dictionaries are never perfect authorities, they merely reflect compiled usages of words.

When it comes to what the dictionaries tend to say about "faith," we see this:

1.	confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.	belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.	belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.	belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.	a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6.	the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7.	the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8.	Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

(Dictionary.com)

Having listed all the definitions to be found in the first dictionary entry at dictionary.com, I'd like to highlight two.

"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

and

"Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved."

I want to highlight these two because I believe that these are the two usages closest to those most prevalent among Christian theists and atheists today, particularly those of the fundamentalist/militant variety. I say "closest" because there's a singular problem in the usage of both camps in regards to their respective definitions.

In the atheist camp, which uses the first definition provided of the two, the word "proof" is often disregarded, and the word, "evidence," inserted. This is a major problem. Proof (and there's no way I'm appealing twice to the dictionary in one post), refers to something that is both 1) evidenced, and 2) accepted. If I provide compelling evidence of evolution, and a Creationist accepts it as proof of Evolution, then Evolution has been proven to that person. If, however, I provide evidence of Evolution, and a Creationist rejects it, then Evolution, despite its overwhelming evidence, wasn't proven. This is, in fact, very similar to the issue with regards to "faith" that I wish to address. Proof is a term that is, ultimately, subjective. The subjective individual decides what will qualify as proof for him or her. Thankfully, at least in the scientific world, things are often approached as objectively and rationally as humanly possible (putting aside the empirical axioms necessary), which results in logical, compelling evidence being taken as proof in a more universal fashion. But that is still the result of individuals accepting what has been evidenced. Failing this, it can only be thought of as evidence so drastically overwhelming and compelling as to be completely irresistable.

The reason the substitution of "evidence" for "proof" is a major problem is because it changes the implications of the word "faith." If someone has a belief that isn't based on "proof," then it is a belief that may very well be based on evidence, but that evidence may not be 1) accepted by others or 2) be utterly overwhelming and compelling. If it fails on either count, that evidence cannot be proof, and this the belief is a matter of faith by the definition. This is fine, it's what the definition offered is supposed to suggest. And contrary to a somewhat popular belief among atheists today, this does not only apply to God, or the supernatural. Faith is a concept that applies across the board to anything we believe, that others don't accept as proven. There are many objects to faith, each must be analyzed based on its individual merits and dealt with accordingly.

Now, to claim that faith is belief without evidence is to claim something completely and utterly impossible. Not only is it a misrepresentation of faith, it's an insult to what should be apparent to anyone with even an iota of common sense. And that is the foundational fact that underlies all beliefs: There is no person who believes something without a reason. I do not say believes without reason, ie without rational, logical reasons for belief. I mean that people always have some reason for believing what they believe, no matter how delusional, psychotic, stupid, irrational, personal, logical, scientific, environmental or genetic it may be. There is always a reason. Without fail. This is an absolute truth of belief, and it is apparent to anyone thinks about it for more than 5 minutes and actually analyzes the beliefs they hold.

This notion of "belief without evidence," is a perversion of the definition of faith used by some atheists to attack Christians who don't have a subtle enough understanding of the terms to tell the difference. Most frightening of all about this; however, is that so many atheists believe it to be true. Too many atheists have become convinced that to be a theist, to have faith, one has to utterly abandon all rational precepts, and devote oneself to believing in something while completely devoid of reasons for belief. This, of course, is absolutely absurd to any educated Christian, and thus the reason why so many atheists today are shocked when they meet just such a person. I cannot begin to relate the amount of atheists I have met who have been shaken to the core of their disbelief by the realization that theists can and do have reasons for their belief, and yet this is still faith. It is my belief that this realization is the trigger of at least some hope in them. If not hope of conversion, at least hope that not all theists are trigger happy lunatics with no reasoning behind them, and can be spoken to and worked with like any other rational adult person.

It is my own fervent wish that atheists who hold to this false notion of faith will read this and realize that they have been misled, either by their own experiences or by others who have come to believe this untruth, and wake up from it. I do not ask for your belief in what I believe, I simply ask that you hold us to a fair and rationally defensible definition of the word we both so often employ. Or, if I'm lucky, you'll accept the definition I will eventually offer, because then we can actually speak to each other with a common understanding of terms. Whichever may be the case, I believe that this aspect of the debate should be settled to the satisfaction of any fair minded and rational audience, theist or atheist alike. I hold no grudge or dislike for atheists or atheism, and I wish it understood this is not meant as an assault upon atheism. It is frustrating for me as a Christian apologist that there is such a huge gap in understanding and commonality between our usages of a simple word, and it is equally frustrating for me as a person who questions everything and loves to debate and analyze with logic to see rational people lured into a trap designed to delude them into believing that a theist cannot have reasons for belief.

I hope any atheists who are reading this will forgive that I addressed their side of the issue first. If it is understood this is not meant as an attack on atheism, I trust it will be easier for them to accept and bear with me as I proceed now to note the problems with the current fundamentalist Christian usage of the word "faith." Believe me, it is my opinion that both sides in this debate will have their feathers thoroughly ruffled before I am through.

As it has been some distance worth of text between this space and the original posting of the definition, I'll repost the second definition, the more specifically Christian one, here:

"Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved."

Now, to the issues at hand. First and foremost, to my fundamentalist Christian brethren, and even some other Christians out there who are much more rational. You need to stop listening to, and letting atheists set the tone for any discussion of faith. I've just finished explaining why there's a major disconnect between what is commonly being labelled "faith" by atheists, and what is at leats a fair and reasonable usage of the term. Don't play by such rules, or you'll deserve to be caught in the absurdly illogical trap you will find yourselves in.

More pressingly, the Christian problem with this definition is not that it has become perverted through a substitution of concepts, it is that this definition is simply not being adhered to. I suspect it is related to a reaction of anti-intellectualism among fundamentalist Christianity today, wherein people are suspiscious of anything that seems to have come from the academic world or the intellectual elite. If I cannot begin to express the atheists who've been shocked to meet a Christian who used logic and had expressible and rational reasons for belief, it is only because you all have so impressed upon the psyche of the atheist world your incredible penchant for spurning reason in all its forms.

You are wrong because you have abandoned reason. Your understanding of faith is faulty because so many of you believe merely what you're told, without exercising the rational faculties of your God0given minds. You either believe what your pastors and parents tell you about faith without examination, or you believe what atheists tell you about faith, equally without examination. The only ones you have to blame for the state of modern, fundamentalist Christianity are yourselves.

Non-Christians reading this, please forgive the digress as I delve into a touch of Scriptural hermeneutics on the topic of faith. And worry not, my own definition is on its way.

Faith, as the above definition highlights, is a concept involving trust in certain promises made by God and known largely through the Scriptures (for the Protestants in the audience, only through the Scriptures). This is all fine and good. Most atheists are, frankly, not going to care. They lack a belief in God, and couldn't care less about the supposed promises of the great Mespotamian Sky Daddy. This definition is meaningless to them. And frankly, it's meaningless to you if my observations are correct. It is my intent to rehabilitate it by offering an alternative I believe can be accepted by both parties.

For the Fundamentalists, the rehabilitation begins here. Faith in Scripture certainly involves belief in things that we cannot prove, particularly in an empirical sense. God cannot be proven via science. We can't perform experiments to demonstrate Him. We can't see Him with telescopes or bounce radio waves off Him, etc. God is unseen. God is immaterial. God is unprovable. Thus faith is involved. But Christian faith goes a step beyond the idea that faith is just belief which cannot be proven. To demonstrate this, and rehabilitate faith, we'll need to address several topics. First is the issue of "Sola Fide," or "faith alone." Second is the problem of believing faith and belief to be separate, which occurs in two ways.

To the first: Sola Fide is the doctrine that Man is saved by Faith alone, and that humanity cannot earn salvation. To avoid any larger unnecessary debate, I will make it clear right now: No Christians since the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians of the 4th Century have believed that humanity can merit salvation via their own actions. Not the Catholics, not the Orthodox, not the Protestants. No Christians, period.

But there is a fundamental difference between how certain of these sects express the notion of faith alone. We Catholics, for example, are careful to note that 1) it is Grace that saves, 2) it is through faith, not by faith, that we are saved and 3) that according to the Church, according to Scripture and according to Tradition, works are a fundamental expression of living faith. In other words, a person cannot have faith without having works. Without going into long exegesis, this is expressed most particularly in the letter of St. James 2:14-20, wherein such faith without works is compared to the empty words of those who wish warmth and food upon those who are cold and starving, yet do nothing to provide it. Furthermore, it is pointed out that faith without works is dead. Not just empty but dead. And finally a very important point: That even the devils believe in God, but such belief avails them nothing.

What does this mean for us, Christian, attempting to arrive at a rehabilitated understanding of the theological usage of the word faith? It means that faith, according to the Scriptures, involves a second requirement besides belief, which must be met before faith is achieved. That requirement is action. Thus we are now at a point where I can offer my own definition of faith:

To have faith is to believe/trust/or accept and then act upon.

For the atheists reading this, it should already be understood as a necessary condition of belief that one has a reason for belief, even if that reason is personal, or does not serve as proof for anyone else for some other reason. The issue of proof should be understood going in, thus removing the need for a further statement of a lack of provability. Likewise, I urge atheists to consider the implications of the second condition of faith in terms of its applications outside of the theism/atheism debate.

For example, if you have faith that a friend will mail a letter for you, that means you both believe that your friend would do so, and that you have acted, are acting, or are willing to act on that belief. If you just believed it, you only say you believe it. If you have faith, a component of action has entered into the equation. And this is true of every single instance wherein the term faith is used, again both in the context of our debate, and outside of it. I challenge anyone who has an issue with the proffered definition to provide an example they believe invalidates it, and I'll gladly take up the challenge to revision or rebuttal. Honestly, I don't expect many attempts, I believe this definition to be as perfect an understanding of the word as can be achieved by human means.

For the Christians reading this, I simply urge you to meditate upon the letter of St. James, particularly the passage already cited, and also to remember the one abiding truth we should all be able to agree on regarding our faith: It is transformative. Faith is such that it should be visible in the things a person does (hence the acting based on our beliefs), and that visibility should be the sign of the interior transformation that faith effects in humans through the power of God's Grace.

Now, to the second set of problems from the fundamentalist camp: I have seen (far too many times) people claiming one of two things in response to the atheist question, "why do you believe in God?" Those statements are:

1) I believe because I have faith!

2) You have to have faith to believe!

I have saved this until last because I needed to first outline the problem of a raw bones view of sola fide, and thus rehabilitate the notion of faith being predicated upon belief and action from belief, before I could address the fundamental flaw in this type of simplistic thinking.

You are repeating yourself, and thus not answering the question asked.

Given the definition of faith as "belief in something that is then acted upon," or one of the variant forms involving trust or acceptance, or even that of a belief which cannot be proven, it becomes intellectually vacuous to tell someone asking why you believe, that you believe because you have a belief which cannot be proven, or conversely that you must have a belief which cannot be proven to believe.

This is nonsensical, and as noted before it is exactly why atheist think the vast majority of Christian theists are utterly mad.

To answer the question of why one believes, you cannot answer that you believe because of faith, or that you need to have faith to believe.

You cannot believe because of faith, since to have faith, you must already believe, trust or accept the truth of Christianity. Likewise, you cannot use faith to believe, since you cannot have faith until you believe. When you answer like this to a rational atheist, they're going to see the absurdity of such circular and self-defeating propositions, and view faith as something absurd. This simply contributes further to atheists believing faith is something that cannot be evidenced, as opposed to something that cannot be proven. When Christian theists, by and large, cannot or do not provide any evidence or reason for their beliefs besides just talking about "faith," then it's difficult to blame atheists for believing faith to be something that cannot be evidenced. Very difficult, in fact. Were I an atheist, I expect I'd be caught in the same trap.

When asked why you have faith, you must answer with the reason why you believe, even if it isn't a very "good" one. For example, do you believe because you had a personal experience and felt God communicating with you in some way? Then say so! While you shouldn't expect anyone else to believe because of your experience, you still shouldn't be afraid to say that you believe in God because God revealed Himself to you in some way. Personal experiences are a valid reason for personal belief. They're just not great reasons for someone else to believe, lacking such an experience or other reason of their own to work in support.

If you believe because you were taught to believe, or raised to believe, then say so! I myself am a "cradle Catholic." I was born in Catholicism, raised in it, Confirmed in it, and I fully intend to die in it. I have no shame that my parents chose to teach me to love God, and you shouldn't either. And if you, also like me, have reasons to believe such as logical conclusions and arguments, or evidence you see in nature, or even a belief that God and the supernatural are part of what makes life worth living, etc. don't be afraid to share that too. It's not proof, but proof can't ever be provided, so it's not worth worrying about in this debate. Answer honestly, and answer joyfully. Answer with the love of Christ.