On a Life of Faith, Truth, Neurosis and Secularism

As established in the first essay, “On Faith,” faith is not the same as knowledge. Knowledge is that which can be objectively demonstrated to be a fact, and faith is a belief. Theists insist that faith is something more than a mere superstitious notion, so faith must be something other than an irrational belief which is the definition of a superstition. By default and necessity then, faith must be a rational belief. One would be engaging in folly if one were to argue that faith can be an irrational belief but not a superstition.

With this understanding of faith, it is clear that, if one desires to live a life of faith, then one must strive to purge one’s self of irrational thoughts and constantly pursue beliefs that are rational. This means that a life of faith is a philosophical life. It is a life in which one strives to find the truth about God, man, nature and the relationship between them. And, where the truth is uncertain, the faithful must adopt beliefs that are the most probable and consistent with what we currently know to be true. In short, the life of faith is a life in quest of the truth. But, if one is to live a life in pursuit of the truth, then one must be able to recognize the truth when they see it.

For the faithful, there are three qualities of the truth that are listed as follows:

• The truth is the reality of what “is.”
  
• The truth is absolute and unchanging.
  
• The truth is not contingent on man’s understanding for its existence
  

The truth is the reality of what “is.” Philosophy (Philo Sophia: the brotherly love of wisdom), is principally concerned with the truth about what is real; it derives from natural philosophy which focused itself on the reality of God, man and nature. There are other sorts of truths that don't necessarily relate to reality. For example, there are theoretical forms of geometry and mathematics (i.e. non-Euclidian geometry) that are based on axiomatic assumptions that may not actually exist in nature. They are just worlds that exist in the imagination of some very creative persons. And, many of their geometric and mathematical truths may not exist in nature. But, the life of faith is only concerned with what we can know to be real.

The truth is absolute and unchanging. For example, 1 + 1 always equals 2. It will never equal 3 or some other number.

The truth is not contingent on man’s understanding for its existence For example, until recent history, the fossilized bones found around the world were not known to from dinosaurs. The Chinese made soup from them thinking they were the bones of dragons. The ancient Greeks found fossilized bones which resulted in legends of ogres and griffins. It wasn't until 1824 when William Buckland described the bones of the Megalosaurs was the first dinosaur identified. This was even before the word "dinosaur" had been coined by Sir Richard Owen in 1841. The existence of dinosaurs in our ancient history would still be true even if man had never discovered them. Dinosaurs didn't magically come into existence at the moment of discovery. So, the truth about the existence of dinosaurs didn't rely on man's understanding. They existed in the past even when we had no knowedlge of them. Science is always refining our understanding of nature, so man’s understanding of nature changes and evolves, but the truth about nature never changes. Only our understanding of nature changes.

A life of faith requires courage and a commitment to intellectual honesty. All of us have been born into a culture or cultures that teach us certain assumptions about God, man and nature. This conventional wisdom can be very difficult and frightening to abandon when one finds elements of it are irrational. For example, a theist living a life of faith may find that certain beliefs they thought were essential for their immortality and salvation are irrational; if this happens, then they find themselves faced with the frightening dilemma of choosing between the comfort and emotional security of keeping a long-held but irrational belief that they are convinced, by habit of thought and social reinforcement, is valuable, or discarding the irrational belief as the useless superstition that it is. They may be faced with abandoning a belief that others around them assert is essential to their Salvation. One’s friends and neighbors may even claim that to abandon such a belief could result in eternal damnation in a fiery pit in hell.

But, the truly faithful must have the courage of conviction to abandon all irrational beliefs or they will fall into a life of neurosis (more on neurosis is forthcoming).

When faced with this dilemma, I would suggest that the theist consider the following: Protestants subscribe to St. Mathew’s assertion that Salvation is a gift from God--that God grants Grace to those that live a life of faith. Who do you suppose has the stronger faith? One who only believes the dogmatic ideas that his church members and other people around them will validate? Or, one who boldly embraces reason with the firm conviction that God knows their choice to embrace reason is grounded in a conviction and courage that He knows their heart and intentions are good and pure and trusts in that belief regardless of what those around them say? If St. Mathew is correct, then who do you suppose will be first in line for their gift of Grace?

It should be noted that I am not an apologist for protestant beliefs. I offer this only for rhetorical purposes. And, for my Mormon friends and family members who, at this point, invariable jump up and shout, “Faith without works is dead!,” I would like to point out that the reverse (works without faith) is a pointless waste of time (I choose not to elaborate further on works with or without faith. It is directed only toward Mormons, and any true Mormon understands my point).

This is a work in progress. Final draft will be completed this weekend. Check back please.