We’ve discussed love and hope, but what about the headliner, faith? I was criticized by a Christian that my view of faith was too limited. He said I had fallen victim to the “New Atheist” lie that all faith is blind faith. He said that, as I was influenced by this mistaken notion, it was no wonder I had thrown away my beliefs. This cheesed me a bit because I had clearly laid out the argument I used in abandoning those particular beliefs, and “New Atheist” rhetoric wasn’t on the list. What made his point even weaker is that the idea of faith being blind isn’t “New.” A long time ago, Mark Twain said, “Faith is believing something that you know ain’t true.” Worse, the Bible itself talks about walking “by faith, and not by sight,” and that “Faith is the conviction of things not seen.” So the idea of blind faith isn’t even “Atheist,” it’s biblical.
The Christian was right about one thing though, I believe that faith is not to be trusted. I’ll have nothing to do with faith. Faith is the “bad influence” your parents always warned you about. Faith is like the Great and Powerful Oz, intimidating you, browbeating you and even enslaving you, all the while discouraging you from peeking behind the curtain.
I know this sounds pretty harsh and I know some will bleat the old chestnuts about how everyone has faith in something. “You have faith that your car will start,” they say. “You wouldn’t even get out of bed unless you had faith that the floor would hold you.” “You have faith in science,” or, “You have to have faith in other people.
That’s actually a pretty good place to start. You see, I don’t have faith that my car will start. I’ve spent too many years on the lower end of middle class to believe that. Today I have a pretty nice car and I keep it well maintained. Today, I have a reasonable expectation that my car will start when I turn the key. It wasn’t always so. I used to drive cars that would give rattletraps a bad name and in those days there was never any guarantee that my car would start. Often it didn’t.
Today, I expect that my car will start based on many, many observations of successful starts. Faith isn’t required, just observations. And, what happens if my expectations fail? Intellectually, I have no problem with that. A failed start means that something has changed and I need to investigate and correct the problem if I want reliable starts again.
In a similar way, another person was arguing that he could only know that his wife loved him through faith. I replied that he needed some serious marriage counseling! I know my wife loves me by the way she lights up when I come into a room, by the things she does that let me know she was thinking of me when we are apart, by the way she draws me close to comfort me and to draw comfort from me. No faith is required because the evidence is compelling. I told him that if he had no evidence of his wife’s love, he’d better just pack it in.
See, people use the word “faith” in different ways. When referring to science or your car starting or someone’s love, faith really just means confidence or trust. Unfortunately, in religious circles, faith means knowing without evidence even beyond the need to question. Religious faith is touted as a source of knowledge. Somehow we don’t need evidence or good reasons if we know something by faith.
There is a clear difference between knowing for certain and just expecting something. That we use faith to describe both ideas clouds the issue and makes it difficult to discuss the fact that religious faith (accepting without evidence) is not a path to knowledge. All of these other uses for the word (your car will start, your spouse loves you) are just cheap ways to pad religious faith’s resume and make it look more important than it really is.
That’s what the man who needed faith to know his wife loved him was doing. I’m sure he had lots of tangible reasons to believe in his wife, but he wanted me to think that his religious faith was in the same category. It isn’t. Because of the confusion, I try not to use the word “faith” when I mean confidence, trust or expectation.
There are ideas that require faith—ideas like sin and salvation and karma—but they are all ideas that can’t stand up to the “reasonable expectations based on observation” standard. None of them have any useful value at all. Therefore, I’m comfortable just ignoring faith. It is meaningless. I can’t think of any life situation outside of religion that requires faith. If I’m sick, I don’t want a doctor who uses faith, I want one who uses knowledge. If my car is broken, I don’t want my mechanic to have faith, I want him to have expertise. I don’t want my accountant to “just believe” that the numbers are right. I want police and judges to use facts and evidence, not faith. I’d bet that you’re a lot like me in this regard.
So, am I an incorrigible malcontent? Have I no faith in my fellow man? Well, no, I don’t. What I have is reasonable expectations. People are generally pretty good about things, and even those who aren’t should be given a chance so that they can learn and grow. I know that people aren’t perfect, but I’m willing to risk being hurt. Why? Because when people are trusted and accepted they are capable of doing amazing, beautiful things. When observations show me that a certain person has no concern for others, or is not equipped to handle a task, or perhaps even harbors foul intentions, I am perfectly willing to place restrictions on my trust or even remove that person from my life.
Faith is an empty promise, a broken tool. Feel free to get on with your life. No faith is required.