If I only had Faith...
At the heart of this discussion is the definition of the word faith. Once this word was looked at with admiration and respect, but lately the culture has distorted this notion and many recognize the word to mean something completely opposite to what it once was. If you type "faith definition" into Google, you can practically see the skid marks of the alarmingly sudden shift between the two definitions provided:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
The first definition often has an underlying basis for this trust. The second definition clearly spells out a belief without (or even in spite of) such proof. While many would look approvingly at someone who claimed this first manner of faith in a particular person or object, the moment someone tries to apply it to a question of a religious nature, we perform connotative Aikido and suddenly this quality seem foolish. But when you think about it, this move doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. As discussed (often) in prior posts, all religions make claims on the nature of world. When you claim faith in a particular religion, what you're really saying is that you believe those claims to be true. For that reason, these claims should have a logical support and grounding in our surroundings. Otherwise, you end up having a misguided faith or even believing in something that goes counter to what we all experience everyday. Now I hope we all agree that this manner of faith is unreasonable, but when talking about spiritual matters most people will only have this definition in mind. Some would even promote this definition as a virtue. If you try to engage in a meaningful conversation while this is running through someone's head, you've already lost. In light of this, I prefer to use the "trust" when talking about what I believe as it holds closer to the original position more clearly (and also illustrates a traditional biblical view of the term). In fact when we use the word in the second way, we often make a distinction by qualifying it with the addition of the word "blind." This should be a clear indication that original meaning has been distorted. Despite this fact however, many people still believe that a blind faith is all that's needed.
Running on Blind Faith
So what happens if we continue to see faith as merely believing what we want or hope is true without any support for this manner of blind fervor. To illustrate just how dangerous this can be, let's go back to the frozen lake above. Let's say there are a total of two possible scenarios with two possible forms of faith. The first scenario will be someone who sees the frozen lake and walks out onto a sheet of ice that's well frozen, thick and solid. Now imagine if this person has checked the temperature, tested the ice and even visits this lake every winter without falling into the icy waters. This person would then have good reasons to "trust" that the ice will support him. This is a good example of the first definition of the word faith. Now suppose another person takes the modern definition and blindly walks out onto the ice without any prior knowledge or checking of the surface. What happens? Well, nothing really. He ends up being just as safe and supported as the first individual. He's perfectly okay in spite of his blind faith.
Onto the second scenario. What if the ice is too thin and can't support the full weight of a person? Well, if someone blindly walks out onto the lake with a blind faith in it, the obvious outcome is an ensuing swim in the freezing water. But what happens when this person claims a solid and noteworthy "faith" in the ice? What if they just hope and believe and convince themselves with all their heart that the ice will support them? They may really like the idea that the ice can support them. They may even just be going out onto the ice for the sake of curiosity. They may possibly see "ice walking" as a great experience that everyone should try, at least once. What happens when someone with a fervently hoped for "faith" (as illustrated by number 2 above) steps out onto the ice? Simple answer, they fall. Ultimately, it won't matter how much they hope or like the idea of a solid sheet of ice. Reality will always catch up in the end. It's for this reason that what you place you're faith in is ultimately the most important factor.
Frozen feet?
At this point you may be thinking "Well the safest option here would be not to go out onto the ice at all." In the scenarios presented above, I would agree with that. If we are unsure or don't have sufficient reasons to believe the ice is solid, it makes sense to not go out onto the lake and risk the potential danger. When you engage in this manner of agnosticism, you try to play it safe by not testing the water. You may not even care about faith and claim that it's not important to you. If you're standing on a shore looking at the ice, this actually makes a lot of sense. But the major problem with such a stance comes when you realize that we're not on the shoreline. We are all already on the ice. You're in this world and playing the metaphysical game whether you like it or not. If you're on the ice already, the real question then becomes "Is the ice you're on a solid patch or a brittle one?
Like the grounding problem, we return to this notion that we all have to base our lives on something. That something should be carefully considered given what's at stake. It could be that we're all on thin ice and just waiting to fall into nothing. It could be that everyone is on a solid sheet of ice and will end up fine in the end no matter what type of faith was placed on the surface. But what if that wasn't the case? What if there was only a single safe spot on the whole lake that you could stand? Wouldn't you want to know where that safe spot was and get there quick before it was too late?
In the end, it doesn't matter how much you might want to believe in a particular religion if that religion is in actuality thin ice. You can hold to it all you want but you're still not going to be safe. Likewise, you could be blindly following a worldview with a good foundation and just be lucky enough to be on solid ground, but that seems like a poor way to respect such a faith. You could throw your hands in the air and say that it's not important and give your life to chance. I would strongly recommend against this as it's an extremely dangerous route to take. So go ahead and check out your feet to see what it is you're trusting in. In an area of such importance, you should have some pretty solid reasons for believing the way you do. Much like Pascal's Wager, this illustration is not necessarily a case for the legitimacy of any one particular claim, but rather an attempt to bring to the foreground the severity of what's at stake. We should examine carefully the various worldviews in order to find out what's true, not merely what we like. If we are on shaky ground, it could collapse at any time. Why wouldn't you look for the safe place to stand? Even more importantly, if we do find a safe patch, wouldn't we want to help everyone else see that they can be safe also? The more we can understand this worldview, the more we can place our trust (faith) in it as the truth and help other people to see the reason for the hope we have within us before they fall. 1 Peter 3:15
Today's Recommendations
Faith is Not Wishing - Greg Koukl
Since it would be impossible for me to adequately cover that concept of faith and what a biblical view of it should be, I'm going to refer you to someone much more qualified. Check out this great resource by Greg.
Recommended Listening
Is the Bible a Science Book? - Straight Thinking Podcast, RTB
Not entirely relevant to the topic at hand, but it does address some previously covered topics about how one should and should not read the Bible in regards to scientific discoveries.
Recommended Research
Reasonable Faith Q&A #298 - William Lane Craig
A short look at Pascal's Wager by Dr. Craig. Again, maybe not exactly on topic, but still worth the read. Especially if you've never looked at Pascal's Wager before.
Today's Challenge
See if you can find or even come up with on your own a different (and probably better) illustration for the importance of what you believe in. Take it to test with friends and family and see if it makes sense to others. Good Luck!
No comments:
Post a Comment