Oh, to have faith in…. chairs?
September 10, 2008
So yesterday in my Religion and Politics class we had a rousing discussion that started with Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s stance on abortion and ended- for some inexplicable reason- about having faith in chairs. Yes, chairs. Those of us who have been churched for even a brief bit of our lives most likely have heard the expression “like having faith in a chair” before. Most of us have heard it before; do we know how exactly sitting in a chair can be likened to having faith in God? Can it even be likened to having faith in God?
I bring the matter up not because the defense of this metaphor (or perhaps it’s a simile) is important to me. The definition and understanding of what defines faith, however, is important to me. I guess I also bring it up for reasons of apologetics: a guy in my class used the expression to illustrate his discussion of faith. Two of the people opposed to his viewpoint were quick to point out: “that’s not faith.”
Oh?
There are myriad definitions of faith. I’m gonna go all cliche on you and give you Mr. Webster’s first:
Man, Webster is so lame. When I looked this up I had no idea this definition was going to be so particular to issues of religion. I guess when you say to your friend that you have “faith in them” as a means of encouragement then your really not using the correct diction, according to Webster. Pffh. Anyways, that aside let’s take what it has given us and test the chair metaphor against it. Allegiance to a duty or person? No. Fidelity to one’s promises? No. Sincerity of intentions… huh? No. Loyalty to God? No. Belief in doctrines of religion? No. Firm belief in something where there is no proof? Perhaps! Finally, something to sink my teeth into.
It’s really according to what kind of proof we’re talking about here. Are we talking about circumstantial or direct evidence?
Perhaps we should take this opportunity to introduce some other definitions of faith.
The Bible in the Book of Hebrews describes faith as the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen. Apologist Lee Strobel sees faith as “a step of trust we take in the same direction the evidence is pointing. It’s important that our trust is based on a rational understanding of what the evidence is in support of what we believe.”
Let’s take these definitions as well as the dictionary’s point that faith is belief in something to which there is no proof.
First, Mr. Webster:
If I walk into a classroom and see a chair sitting there, my automatic assumption is that the chair has enough structural integrity to hold my weight. This is plausible evidence many would be hard-pressed to debate you with. However, if you want to get right down to it, it’s only circumstantial evidence and the basis of past experience with said chairs can be disproved. How? Well, when you walk into that room, who’s to say the chair hasn’t been changed with another that is incapable of holding the weight of a human being? What if the welder, when working with the metal joints of the chair had a bad day and made a bad patch? What if you sit down in it and the seat is merely resting atop the legs and not firmly attached to it? When you sit down in that chair, you most likely do not take the time to examine its structural integrity. Therefore, when you first sit down in the chair you sit down without proof that it can hold you up. Without direct proof that is.
The same can be said about the Hebrews definition. It is with great hope that we place our faith in that chair. We have not seen it hold up another human being. We can only speculate that it will do the same for us based on past experiences with objects that resemble chairs.
Likewise, the same is true of Christianity. God has created the world where we have to look to find Him. It is the things we hope for, not the things that we see that make us believe. If God wants us to truly love Him He had to create the world where we did not have direct evidence of him. We do, however, have plenty of circumstantial evidence. If God were to clearly write on the side of Half Dome in Yosemite National Park that a.) He exists and b.) He created the world in such a particular fashion, it would leave no room for faith (which is a timely subject to speak of, given the firing up of the Large Hadron Collider today, which is supposed to emulate what scientists speculate the first few moments of a Big Bang would be like). We would be mindless drones who could no more deny God than we could our nose in front of our eyes. That leaves no room for love, and that leaves no room for faith.
Now, Mr. Strobel says faith is taking a step in the way the evidence is pointing. “But Dan, you just said there is no direct evidence…”
I know. But I think what Mr. Strobel means in terms of a general faith in God is in reference to circumstantial evidence. Is it less credible than direct evidence (like in a courtroom)? I don’t think so. I think it’s God’s beautiful way of revealing part of Himself to us. To tie it back in with the chair, we do have evidence that the chair will hold us up based on previous life experiences with sitting in similar chairs. We know what they’re there for, we know what they do. We take a step in the direction of this evidence and put our faith in the chair that we’re about to sit down in without examining the direct evidence of its structure.
Well, I’m glad I can ramble so long about a chair…
Why do we need religion?
September 6, 2008
Many of our non-religious friends would have us ponder the possibilty that Earth would be a far better place without religion. This is an interesting point. At the surface, it seems to have some genuine merit, given such historical atrocities such as the Crusades, 9/11, the Salem Witch Trails, and the bombings of abortion clinics, all of which were carried out in the name of religion.
But there is one critical error these individuals make in asserting this claim. They cite crimes propagated in the name of religion as evidence that religion is a terrible institution, but what they forget is that human beings are not perfect, infallible beings. We are indeed capable of making mistakes, which does not unfortunately exclude atrocities on the global scale. Granted, there is no plausible excuse for such events which transpired throughout history.
What we often forget is the incredible good that comes from religion. As a born again Christian, I say this in a purely rational way. Putting my personal beliefs aside, I see the good in not only Christianity, but also other religions such as Islam and Buddhism. Do I agree with their theology? Absolutely not. But the humanitarian aid that comes from other world religions (such as Islam) as well as the personal virtues advocated by them (such as Buddhism) are truly great things.
Allow me to- in a biased fashion- take my own faith, Christianity, and list contemporary examples of the good that comes from it:
First, there are the non-profit organizations. To list all of these would likely take me years on end. I’m probably not even exaggerating there. Here’s some of the more popular examples (as derived from the non-partisan www.one.org):
|
The thing is- these only constitute very minute number of organizations that are formed around only one issue from one religion. Imagine if we were to pull together all organizations from all religions that deal with all issues.
I guess my question to those earlier is: can we afford to live free of religion?
I think not.
