Believing in the Power of Belief
Do you believe in faith?
What is faith anyway? We know the common descriptions and definitions. According to Paul in Hebrews 11:1, faith is “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” It’s a good way to explain what faith is.
According to The American Heritage® Dictionary, faith is “confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.” This is also an accurate description of what faith is.
But, some might argue faith simply means believing in the “imaginary.” This argument might even verge on accusing those who have faith as being delusional. To believe in something with no tangible or physically measurable proof could be construed by the materially-minded to be a mental defect — and often is.
However, the sheer number of people who believe and have faith in “God,” and the social acceptance of religion in general, alludes to a deeper and more realistic aspect to faith than some are comfortable admitting. To be honest and realistic, faith permeates everything we do — most especially in scientific contexts. For example, accepted scientific theories such as the Atomic Theory. We generally accept the notion of positive, negative, and neutral particles as the basic composition of matter, and that these basic structures cannot be created or destroyed, because the theory has yet to have been disproved. However, even within the community of Atomic Theory “believers,” there are factions who work diligently to dig deeper, understand further, and break down the specific components of the “belief” — i.e. quantum physics, which is successfully unraveling the particular aspects of positive, negative, and neutral forces on an even more basic level.
In terms of belief, quantum physics is simply theory adapted to another theory — valid only in the sense that the theories have yet to be disproved. So, is belief in God, or faith in a spiritual sense any different? Belief in something unproven, compounded by theories, which are by definition unproven. Just as in scientific theory, the lack of tangible and physical proof regarding spiritual faith is not necessarily a boundary. The argument that something is not “true” by virtue of lack of proof is a hypocritical position by those who argue science above spirituality. Spiritual faith is in the same vein — what has not been disproved remains valid as a basis for further investigation.
However, just as the Atomic Theory seems to hold true, it is arguable that placing faith in spiritual forces seems to be a valid point. Are events that occur beyond statistical logic simply coincidence, even when those coincidences happen at a pace far outside of statistical probability? Is it possible that a single person in the adrenaline rush of a crisis can single-handed lift a vehicle weighing thousands of pounds off someone? Is it possible that someone who is facing an immeasurable financial burden has someone mysteriously and anonymously cover the shortfall just in the nick of time? Is it possible that someone can suddenly and “miraculously” overcome a chronic illness? Is it possible that someone could look intently at a tornado and redirect its path? Is it possible that someone could literally walk on top of water?
According to many myriad accounts, faith provides for things that could never statistically be accounted for. Faith gives human beings strengths and abilities they never knew existed. Faith empowers people to do things they never thought possible. Faith is what inspires people to achieve the impossible. Faith is what makes the human being separate from the animal — faith in our prowess, faith in our logic, faith in our determination, faith in our love.
Faith is the amazing attribute of the human condition, and a force to be reckoned with.
Do you believe in faith?
RSS, Atom, more...
2009/02/20 04:32 -0700Z
It’s nice to see you posting again, Tim, after what seems like a long abstention. I’d almost taken a vow of not arguing, of being supportive instead. But I’m a little surprised that you equate belief in quantum theory with belief in God. The mature belief in God, as opposed to the Sunday-school acceptance of what’s taught, is tempered by a lifetime of experience and introspection. This is hardly the case with quantum theory unless you are a physicist.
“According to many myriad accounts” does nothing for me. I don’t read your blog for a summary of what other people are alleged to think and say, Tim, I read it to find out what you think and say.
It may be as you say that “Faith is what makes the human being separate from the animal — faith in our prowess, faith in our logic, faith in our determination, faith in our love.”
However, since you are attempting to be inclusive here, and not argue one side (for example the Christian side)—and that is presumably why you drag quantum theory into it, to demonstrate the generality of your argument—then it would be necessary to add that faith (by your definition) is also what makes the human being insanely fanatical, stupidly obstinate and sometimes worthy of being hunted down like a berserk animal.
It is (misplaced) faith that makes the gambler lose everything at the casino, resulting in ruin for his family.
I think that the generous inclusivity of your case bites you on the rear end, Tim, and needs to be reformulated.
2009/02/20 23:42 -0700Z
Thanks for noticing, Vincent. I have been extraordinarily busy — a good thing in terms of productivity, but not so much for this site. For that, I will apologize. I think often of posting, but then get distracted with other pressing matters. I hope to rectify the lack of frequency.
I’m not sure I follow how the comparison of quantum physics and God is disjointed — I guess I assumed it would naturally follow that someone on a sincere quest to understand through belief would be committed to the goal. So, for the particular nuances of quantum physics to be relevant only to a quantum physicist would equate, so far as I am concerned, with a person devoted to understanding spirituality on a cognitive level being privy to the particular nuances, which would likely be missed by, as you say, the “Sunday school” devotee.
In that same tone, the reference to “myriad accounts” isn’t as a news reporter collects and regurgitates the accounts of other people. It was more a point that faith permeates culture and conscience — a sort of universal experience.
And, I suppose I didn’t quite capture what I was trying to get across — but that’s not surprising, since I’m not much of a writer. I tend to “shoot from the hip” with these posts, which is just a reflection of who and what I am in life right now.
Here we are again with the parsing of words — I think “faith” in the context I’m approaching could summarily be defined as the “absence of doubt.” Meaning, a proactive movement based on purpose, desire, and intent, without the forbearance of weighing consequences or probabilities. Faith as a course of action, rather than a system of belief.
Apparently what I described in the post gave rise to your sensibilities of the negative aspects of impulsiveness: “insanely fanatical, stupidly obstinate and sometimes worthy of being hunted down like a berserk animal … the gambler lose everything at the casino, resulting in ruin for his family.”
To my reasoning, faith is outside these realms — these are all conditions requiring calculation and predetermination, although they are all impulsive or addiction-derived behaviors. To a point, fanaticism is not the absence of doubt, but rather an often long-contrived reasoning that results in a volcano-burst of emotion. I suppose being stupidly obstinate could be a result of lack of thought, but most likely is based in a lack of intent to pursue reason. Sometimes humans go berserk, but I’m not sure that really has anything to do with faith rather than a lack of intent to pursue reason, either. A gambler, quite contrarily, goes through an intense reasoning process prior to the impulse — and it’s that build-up of intensity compounded with the “release” or the “rush” of “going all in,” as it were, that distinguishes this behavior from faith.
While it wouldn’t be the first time my words came ’round to bite me (after all I have been wrong once or twice before), I think my description of faith as a course of action is appropriate. Faith may be in a similar vein to impulsiveness or thoughtlessness, but the underlying difference is in reasoned intent. I’m assuming that spiritual faith is girded with the intent of doing “good” or doing something “positive.” Then again, it’s entirely possible to use this powerful force of faith to further selfish or derogatory intent, too — but that starts to get murky in relation to what I’m trying to express in the post.
Faith — or belief with the absence of doubt — empowers the human being beyond the confines of logic or calculable opposition. It’s the power in “be here now” mentality, and it plays an important role in spiritual development.
2009/02/21 00:49 -0700Z
Thanks for coming back on my objections. Funnily enough, I don’t think we are any further forward; for faith is generally understood as the absence of doubt. In real life, Dostoyevsky was a compulsive gambler in a period of his life. He found redemption in the Russian Orthodox Church (at the risk of over-simplifying). His character Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment illustrates an aspect of the negative aspects of compulsiveness, as of course do suicide bombers today who could not act as they do without an absence of doubt.
I think what we see here is something positive, which you describe as “empowering the human being beyond the confines of logic or calculable opposition” etc. For presumably doctrinal or merely cultural reasons, you call it faith, where “faith” in your mind is something positive. All I am saying is that there is a flip side to faith which can be monstrously dark. You have objected to that.
I suggest the way out is to concentrate on that positive empowering thing without giving it that label.
It is indeed a problem of parsing, as you call it. I can imagine a language in which chocolate Easter eggs are referred to as “bombs” because of their shape, in a part of the world where the effects of bombs are virtually unknown. The speakers of that language have no problem with the word “bomb”.
That is how I see the word faith. I know perfectly well that you mean something positive by it. But the religion created by St Paul has a lot to answer for as well.
2009/02/21 02:40 -0700Z
“Funnily enough, I don’t think we are any further forward.”
Hah! I think if we aren’t stepping backward, that is a “step” in the right direction. :)
I’ll be direct in saying I know nothing of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Being that, on a holiday back in November, I stumbled early one morning upon an arcane translated copy of Homer’s Iliad amongst the token books in the resort we stayed in and found myself highly captivated by the depth of the story, even while struggling to become fluent in the flow of the precarious language… it may be well I pick up a copy of Crime and Punishment to better understand what you mean by the reference.
Admittedly, I am not much of a reader — I tend to preoccupy myself with activity, and have another tendency to view “reading” as an activity with little effective purpose. Of course, reading is certainly beneficial… but I find myself, in my situation, spending most of my “reading” time devoted to exploring the next great achievement in XHTML, CSS, or PHP design simplicity for the purposes of aligning web pages to be accessible and appealing both to humans and current heuristic algorithms. Oh well. That is what it is.
We may not be further forward, but at least we are in agreement as it seems to me — faith is a powerful aspect of the human condition, which serves a great benefit when the intent behind it is a positive one. We also are in agreement that faith can be implemented in “monstrously dark” ways. I have objected to dark uses on principle, but agree wholeheartedly that those means most certainly exist.
Bombs, indeed. Those creme-filled Easter eggs are bombs of capitalism atop what used to be a spiritual holiday, as well as they are endocrine-cardiovascular bombs. The only refined sugar I get these days are most frequently (and sparingly) in the bottom of a cup of morning coffee. The amount of sugar and caffeine humans are encouraged to consume these days, I see as a legal form of heroin or coca. However, my view in this matter is completely unrelated to the purpose of this site.
I’ll leave this reply with one last “pseudo-argument:” I agree that the religion has much to answer for. However, does the swimming pool(s) Michael Phelps won Olympic gold medals in have to answer for Phelps’ being caught red-handed imbibing in illicit drug use? Obviously, my point in this analogy is: the religion is not to blame, but the purveyors of misdeeds and misconceptions.
2009/02/21 13:41 -0700Z
Faith and trust is the reason for many of the ill’s in our lives today. I belive it is far to plain that we can put our faith and trust in many things that only promote discord in our lives. We chase material things to a fault. I belive we can put any name to the power of the source but it is just that. The source of all things. The universe is 98 percent energy and 2 percent matter. If we strive to belive in and live in positve (good) energy then we all would be better off. There is way to much negitive in our lives. There maybe something to Peace,Love and Hippy Beads line of thought.
2009/02/21 22:33 -0700Z
@blabla: Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. As you say, faith assuredly can be and sometimes is misplaced — but I am not convinced misplaced faith is at the root of societal ills. Rather, a lack of faith and a preference to reliance on rationalization is more likely to be a major contributing factor in social discord. And “peace, love, and hippy beads” are, as far as I can tell, quite in line with the “be here now” philosophy and thus in tune with what living a life of faith is mostly about.
2009/02/25 19:49 -0700Z
It seems to me that faith certainly isn’t complete certainty or an absence of doubt. Otherwise we’d speak of knowledge and not faith or belief.
A friend of mine said something to me the other day that relates to your topic: “Beliefs divide people. Faith unites people.”
2009/02/28 00:09 -0700Z
To me, faith is simply another, deeper kind of “knowing”–not coming from the so-called “rational mind”, but from a spiritual dimension that is, to me, more real than the physical. Faith can be firmly based on our own experience on that level, as well as what others share with us.
We don’t generally speak of spiritual experiences as “knowledge”, simply because two persons may not experience that reality in the same way. But each individual has their own direct knowledge of the spiritual world, and this can be a basis for certainty, just like physical experiences can.
Our common experience of spirit is what I think of as “faith”, which can be shared regardless of “belief”.
2009/02/28 02:36 -0700Z
I like your answer very much, Firebird. All the same, “faith” has for me become a taboo word in this context, partly because it has been hijacked for other purposes, especially here in this other Anglo-Saxon English-speaking country England, where “faith” has become the latest euphemism for “religion” - I can’t think why. So we have “faith schools” (Church of England, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish). And then there is the Prince of Wales (Charles) who, reflecting on the traditional title of Defender of the Faith applied to the reigning monarch has said he would prefer to be Defender of the Faiths in a multi-faith country.
I also see a potential contradiction in what you say. (a) each individual person has their own direct knowledge of the spiritual world (b)our common experience of spirit is what I think of as faith.
I think my problem is mostly with (b). Since the individual has a direct knowledge, how can we do other than guess that it is a common experience?
Still, it’s a guess worth making. And it holds better when left as a silent surmise, because (to parody Paul’s quote) I believe that “Verbal expressions often divide people. Unspoken direct knowledge unites people.”
2009/02/28 11:53 -0700Z
Vincent, you put your finger on the problem. To me, it is a matter of “faith” that we have a common spiritual experience. I can feel this when I am in a place of worship or having a conversation with someone about spiritual matters. The challenge is in finding common ground without clashing with beliefs on which we disagree. Generally I feel positive about doing this, and surprised how often it is possible. Except in most churches I am wise to keep my mouth shut!
And unfortunately, in the U.S., too, “faith” has also become a word with negative connotations. Like the word, “Christian”…
2009/02/28 11:58 -0700Z
By the way, check out the posting times of all the comments on this page… Explain it as you wish…I have my own theories–
none of which involve “coincidence”!
2009/03/01 17:10 -0700Z
Hi there,
Are you familiar with Buddhist teacher Sharon Salzburg’s book, “Faith”? Considering that Buddhists in general do not encourage faith, it is a paradigm-shifting read for one and all. You might really enjoy it. Very interspiritual, by the way.
And I love what Firebird above says. Yes, indeed, this is our common ground. With and through faith, we can perceive our inter-beingness and move into greater Oneness by appreciating our mutual (though uniquely different) experiences of the Divine.
Be well!
2009/03/18 06:15 -0700Z
@firebird: Wow…. that’s creepy!
@jan: Thanks for the reference. I’ll look it up if I get the chance.
2009/03/18 06:19 -0700Z
@firebird: I just looked at the code, and for some reason, I typo’d the date format for the comment timestamp. I never noticed it before, so I’m considering just leaving it that way!