People use the word “faith” interchangeably with “belief” but in actuality, faith is a special case of belief. The dictionary defines faith as a belief that is not based in proof. You can believe the sun will come up each day because there's a lot of evidence to suggest it will, such as past behavior, astronomical observations, knowledge of Newton's laws of motion, etc. On the other hand, you need faith to believe that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. Why? because the only evidence you have that it's true is subjective: mainly testimonials from Mohammed and his followers. Testimonials are, unfortunately a low-value form of evidence. People can misinterpret things, be dishonest, deluded or just plain wrong. Anyone that's ever been in a courtroom knows different witnesses can interpret the same event in drastically different manners. That's why courts require corroborating evidence. Virtue too, is a subjective concept. It's generally defined as moral excellence, righteousness and goodness - things that we humans assign values to. Some virtues we may think of as universal such as not killing other people (at least, not without good reason!), but are they really universal? Does a groundhog care about what we value? Or a stone? Or a universe? Still, we care and that's reason enough to have the concept and explore what is and what is not a virtue.
So, going back to the original question; is faith a virtue?
Almost everything in our culture screams that it is. Believe me, I have your best interests at heart. Trust me, I wouldn't steer you wrong. Take my word for it, I'm your father, Luke. If you can't trust a cop/priest/ your president, who can you trust? Vote for me. I have a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. 40 million Frenchmen can't be wrong. I love you so of course I'll respect you in the morning. All the time you hear things like “have faith in God, Love, Democracy, the president, Mankind or FILL-IN-THE BLANK and everything will turn out fine. You can find it as the underlying theme behind whole genres of fiction like those that make the Frankenstein assumption that There Are Things Man Was Not Meant To Know. Why? I dunno, but I believe it. Mad scientists don’t have faith, but I do.
Exhortations to have faith are everywhere. Of course, some say that, well, there are unworthy faiths, mistaken faiths, bad faiths and even evil faiths; but hey, you can’t have the right faith if you don’t have faith at all, right?
So; is it smart; is it wise, is it morally excellent, righteous and good to believe in things not based in good evidence? In other words, is faith a virtue?
You tell me.
Comments
Faith is a sure way of falling for a con. "Use these herbs, they'll cure cancer". "Take these pills, they'll make you better endowed". "Believe in God, and when you die, you'll go to Heaven". That's the best con ever. If you fall for it, you'll never realize you've been conned, 'cause when it's time to collect, you'll already be dead.
Let's not forget homeopathic medicines where the supposedly active ingredients have been so heavily diluted as to sometimes no longer even be present! Thinking this stuff works REALLY takes faith!
:)
Oh yeah, and what's the homeopathic value of human and animal waste, cause that's been in the water at one time too, though maybe not diluted as well as the toxins they use. Thank goodness for water filters.
I like this article. Culture puts "faith" up as a virtue, but it's not. Even in Christian Theology (my field) faith is not a virtue. Rather, it's the object of that faith that determines whether or not such faith is beneficial or morally praiseworthy. Cultural folk-religion that seeks to define faith generically is silly. And blind faith, contrary to popular belief, is something the Bible rejects utterly.
Thanks for an interesting read.
JMS
www.examiner.com/x-8276-Charlotte-Methodist-Examiner
Thanks James-Michael. I try to keep my essays upbeat, factionally-neutral and rancor-free. There's too much to celebrate in the world to focus overmuch on the parts we don't like or which divide us. Anyway, I can't argue with the "by their fruits ye shall know them" approach.
Hugh, perhaps we should talk sometime. I've been looking for a fellow examiner who might be interested in friendly, though pointed-if-necesary, dialogue on various topics that could then be joint-published by us. I did many such discussions via various online forums and always enjoyed talking cordially, yet passionately with those who disagree. If this is something that would interested you (as well as expose you to more readers here on the other coast!) contact me through my blog (gsdisciple.blogspot.com) and we can discuss it more. I'm a great debate-opponent because I never take it personally and always become friends with those I'm conversing with. :)
blessings,
JMS
Sometimes faith means trusting a person, sometimes it means trusting evidence. What do you think of this? www.examiner.com/x-26772-San-Francisco-Apologetics-Examiner~y2010m8d5-Faith-101--Do-we-need-less-faith-or-is-faith-strengthened-as-evidence-increases
It is one of the great difficulties of our language, and perhaps great benefits, that the meaning of words continue to shift. Becuase of this it is important to define what we mean by a word, in this case faith. Can I suggest that faith is our reaction to truth. If we decide a proposition to be true and decide to hold to that belief firmly we have faith in that proposition. For instance I may say; although I don't, "that CO2 levels are the cause of global warming". If I decide to hold firmly to this proposition and that I require no more proff, then, I have a faith in this proposition. This definition seems incomplete with out understanding "truth", what we do when something is true.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!