The Insufficiency of Faith

St. Augustine famously said "Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe." Such a beautiful quote regarding matters of faith, even if the advice contained therein is destructive. One often hears the virtues of faith proclaimed from the pulpit of many churches across America every Sunday, with exhortations for all believers to have faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible, and to not waver in the face of "the world's ways." However, the question I want to investigate is whether having faith alone in a religious context is actually a positive for humanity. Can the view be defended, and what are the implications of a world where faith alone rules? My claim is that faith, when applied to religious belief, is not a sufficient justification, and faith can actually harm the public discourse by insulating certain claims from rational and empirical evaluation where it is most desperately needed, instead replacing it with commands to "have faith." I will begin by outline a definition of faith, and then explain the problems with the position. I will conclude with a possible solution to the problem.

According to the Biblical definition, faith is defined as "...confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." This implies that faith is not about rationality at all. It is simply about basing your beliefs on wishful thinking, which is fallacious. The formal philosophical term for this belief is called fideism, which says that religious belief systems are not subject to rational evaluation. Empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and basic perceptual beliefs play absolutely no role in coming to believe in whatever particular religious tradition one chooses or is born into. Instead, faith is the only belief forming process that the believer is required and should use. To rely on reason would be a grave mistake, and a misunderstanding of faith, under this view. The problems with this view is that it forces religious belief into complete arbitrariness, does not allow for a change of mind when the evidence requires it, and discourages rational discourse among competing claims.

Under fideism, there is absolutely no way to determine which religion to follow. Should one be a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim? What usually occurs with this view is that people tend to end up whatever religion their parents were, and the parents are the religion their parents were. The rationality of the differing belief systems is simply not a factor. Faith is had in the one true religion, and the way believers know this is by faith in the particular religious text they have, and in that tradition's conception of God. Without any criteria to determine which religion to follow, it is an arbitrary choice when it comes determining which religious faith should be adhered to, and once the faith is accepted full-heartedly, there is no consideration of ever changing one's mind, regardless of the evidence.

For any rational person, beliefs must change as the evidence requires. When someone is young, the person has many beliefs that are completely false, such as superheros being real, or adults having an unlimited amount of money. Many children are also extremely trusting of people who are overly nice, and this can lead them into bad situations, such as being kidnapped. As a child grows older, she begins to understand that the world is much more complex than originally believed, and evidence has required a dramatic change in world view. The child doesn't simply say, "I have faith in certain beliefs about how the world works and human nature, and I will stay true to my faith." Instead, adjustments are made. Another example of evidence forcing a change in beliefs is when Copernicus discovered the earth was not the center of the universe. If people had not changed from a geocentric model, scientific knowledge would not have advanced to the level it is today.

Imagine, if in matters of public debate, people simply told each other "I have faith in my beliefs. I have no evidence for this faith, but I believe it strongly, and it would be wrong for me to compromise on my beliefs. And also, you are wrong in what you believe. I will use evidence to disprove you, but my beliefs are immune from evidence." There would be no technological advancements, such as the internet, heart surgery, and epilepsy. Mental disease would still be seen as demon possession, and homosexuals would never have a chance to be treated fairly in modern society. Sicknesses and early death would be seen an inevitable outcomes of God's perfect will, that human beings do not have the cognitive capacity to understand.

In a world where faith rules, there is a regression in human understanding. The Dark Ages were ruled by Christianity, and intellectualism was discouraged as a matter of religious duty to the Church. This is how many conservative Christian households are run today, and many Churches still encourage their followers to deny scientific findings and continue to discriminate against homosexuals. Conservative Christians are exhorted by their pastors to fight against gay marriage, fight for creationism in public schools, and deny that the globe is warming, because "God would never allow such a state of affairs to occur, for he loves his children." And this is all done because of faith in an ancient holy book that proscribes death to women who are not virgins on their wedding night and stoning to children who are disobedient to their parents.

Public debate must change. When conservative Christians insert that homosexuality is a choice, or that evolution did not occur, they insulate themselves from rational debate by continually insisting that their faith is what drives their beliefs. How can public debate ever progress when one side uses faith in a holy book as a "justification" for their beliefs, and another side presents objective, scientific evidence? The faith argument cannot be defeated unless people abandon the idea that religion is somehow special and immune from all rational criticism. Public debate, and the future of humanity, depends on people opening their minds to the idea that rational criticism and empirical evidence must be included in evaluating religious claims.

Truth seekers at all levels, from scientists to honest Christians, must openly attack the supernatural claims of the major religions of the Untied States in areas where faith and science conflict, and more non-believers should openly run for office. People are beginning to accept homosexuality because gays are bravely coming out and telling family and friends. It is much less hidden from public view than it once was, and non-belief can become this way too. Liberal Christians especially need to speak out, for faith is not a problem in matters where it does not conflict with recent findings, but only when it it attempts to hold back progress.

Conclusion

Faith in religious belief that insulates itself from rational criticism is harmful to society as a whole. Instead of making decisions based on the best available observations, opponents of scientific advancements use their ancient texts to justify their indefensible positions. If American society were to stop giving people who cannot intellectually defend themselves a platform to spread their propaganda, the entire intellectual advancement of society would be enhanced. Global warming could be combated, instead of denied. Embryonic stem cell research could eventually lead to major cues for many human ailments. And maybe, gay marriage would become legal all across the United States.