Faith

f, as Samuel Johnson said, "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel", then surely faith is the first refuge of the theist. Since Reason as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural in general, every theist must make the claim for knowledge of the supernatural though faith. However, the theist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability' Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence. The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none. Faith cannot be used as a tool to access knowledge because it is random. Faith-based assertions carry validity (sic) not because there is any criteria to back them up, but because a group of people deem it so, and by definition, faith asks that one does not question validity. If one is questioning their faith, it is considered that they are also losing their faith, not strengthening it. But who says that faith cannot be used as a tool to gather knowledge' Aren't there things in this world that fall under the heading of "mysterious" and thus must be believed simply because' While it is true that there are things that are mysterious, it is not true that they will always remain that way, nor is it true that simply believing in them from an unquestioning faith supports their validity. If this were the case, then anyone who had faith in the existence of leprechauns would have the same support of reality as those who profess a faith in the existence of gods. It is precisely our ability to reason that brings the mysterious to understanding-- one can have eternal faith in the sun rising and travelling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks. This brings us to the next level of the theists' argument, which is that truth is arbitrary in any event-- ultimately, one must have faith in one's knowledge, or ability to perceive knowledge in the first place. Rebutting the latter assertion is easy, because no one can claim with any hope of being taken seriously that there is ultimately no such thing as knowledge. The assertion itself contradicts its own premise, since if it's true, then it becomes knowledge, and the assertion dies. If it is not true, then it needn't be considered. The former assertion, that we must have faith in our knowledge, is not valid either but it doesn't self-destruct quite so easily. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with trust. The theist usually argues that we have faith in things all the time; for example, we have faith that gravity will keep us from flying off the planet, or we have faith in friends, or doctors, etc. We do not have faith in these things, we have trust in them, and we have trust in them as long as they continue to warrant that trust. This is known as Empiricism, that is, a Law of Logic (Identity, Excluded Middle, and Contradiction) -- which can be defined as a Law of Persistence of Evidence. Simply put, if A is A and Remains A and does not become B, then it is A. This is not to be confused with Induction, which states: "If a's are b's, then all a's are b's", meaning if something happens x number of times, one can presume it will behave so in the future. Induction presumes what will be based on what has been, while Empiricism (Persistence of Evidence) acknowledges what is based on what continues to be. Take for example, the starting of one's car. Each morning before work, a person goes out to the car and has "faith" that it will start. In fact, he is trusting it will start, and his trust is based on persistence of evidence, because if it doesn't start one morning, he is compelled not to sit there and keep trying forever based upon faith that it will soon start, but instead he is required to bring it to the mechanic and have it repaired, thus re-asserting his trust that it will start. The same can be applied to friends, lovers, and doctors, and in fact, any aspect of natural reality. Providing their actions fall under the Law of Persistence of Evidence, i.e., they continue to behave in a way that supports trust in them, they are trustworthy and that becomes a validation of knowledge. When they violate that Law and commit an act or behave in a way contradictory to the Law of Persistence of Evidence, then they are no longer trusted and the knowledge becomes suspect: We call this "losing trust". If gravity were to suddenly suspend its properties, it would no longer qualify as knowledge-- we would have been wrong about its reliability. There is no model to which we can compare the divine or supernatural sort of faith people have in gods with anything that exists in the natural world. Trust in the existence of gods does not come into play, since it is believed regardless of the actions or inactions of the beings in question. A visible god would go a long way toward convincing us of its' existence, but gods by definition do not make their presence known. Many apologists have grappled long and hard on the issue of faith, and ultimately none of them have worked out the inherent dilemma that faith is, in fact, the acceptance of assertions regardless of factual evidence. What they have done instead is focused on the possible versus the probable, and this has confused the issue to a degree that many philosophers, both theists and rationalists, can no longer define the difference. There has long been the argument that unless we have a totality of knowledge (i.e., omniscience), we cannot know for sure whether their is a god or not, or whether there are realms of existence other than our own. Are such things possible' Well, since we don't have omniscience, we are forced to say, "yes, they are possible." The question is not whether something as irrational as god is possible, but is it probable' Given the evidence of all of nature that surrounds us, the answer is no. George Smith, in his nearly-perfect "Atheism: The Case Against God" states that the existence of god is a logical impossibility and he is right as far as this existence (or dimension) goes. However, we cannot know with any degree of surety whether or not there are alternate planes of existence. Smith rightly rejects this assertion with the admonishment, "If there are these other planes of existence, then support such a claim." Of course, one cannot (although Tipler tries in his book "The Physics of Immortality"), and so the assertion of alternate planes of existence wherein a god is possible is struck down. This doesn't mean it's not possible, but that it's so improbable as to not warrant serious consideration. Further, since man is presently forever limited to natural existence, the future probability of discovering that there is an alternate existence wherein a god is in evidence is highly negligible. Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking. No matter how fervently one believes in an improbability or an outright contradiction, it will not suddenly spring into being merely because people wish it so. As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." Sidenote: Faith as it pertains to religions such as Christianity will be covered under "Religion" and "Revelation". Since faith is the cornerstone of theism, the topic will come up fairly often in different essays.