Notes on Faith

NOTES ON FAITH

In his Dictionary of Philosophy, Peter Angeles offers as two definitions of "faith" among others: "belief in something despite the evidence against it" and "belief in something even though there is an absence of evidence for it."  http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa110.htm

In general to believe something (eg proposition X) is to think it to be true.  We generally come to believe something for a reason, that is we think we have evidence for the belief (that is for thinking something is true). And we generally agree that we believe things because of reason. Very few people when asked why they believe something would say “Oh, no reason” and really mean it. Developing our beliefs based on some kind of reasoning is the natural way in which humans come to form their beliefs.  If our beliefs about the world did not concur with what we observed of the natural world then as a means of instructing us to behave in ways to enhance our survival they would be useless. 

I think we have to define “faith” as a type of belief that THE BELIEVER ADMITS is not based reason. Otherwise we have these absurd debates about the definition of faith such as I’ve selected from this blog http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa110.htm

.....However, all criticism in this vein flows from a fundamental mistake as to the nature of Christian faith. As J. Gresham Machen boldly put the matter in his book, What is Faith?, "we believe that Christianity flourishes not in the darkness, but in the light." Machen wrote that "one of the means which the Spirit will use" to bring a revival of the Christian religion "is an awakening of the intellect." He fervently resisted "the false and disastrous opposition which has been set up between knowledge and faith," arguing that "at no point is faith independent of the knowledge upon which it is logically based." Reflecting upon the famous Biblical remark about faith in Hebrews 11:1 ("the evidence of things not seen"), Machen declared: "Faith need not be too humble or too apologetic before the bar of reason; Christian faith is a thoroughly reasonable thing."[4]

AND...

The Christian religion does not pit "faith" against reason, evidence or (above all) truth.

AND...

Christian faith does not aim to affirm what is absurd, reveling in irrationality. Such a thought misconstrues the nature of faith as it is presented by the Bible. The Christian notion of faith - unlike most other religions - is not an arbitrary leap of emotion, a blind stab of commitment, a placing of the intellect on hold. For the Christian, faith (or belief) is well-grounded.

If “faith is well-grounded” then lets call it “reason”.  If “at no point is faith independent of the knowledge upon which it is logically based" then lets call it “reason”. If “faith” is not pitted against reason, then why have two words, “reason” and “faith”. I think to be fair we have to say that faith is a belief without reason, otherwise we could dispense with the word altogether. 

Now I know that there will be a chorus of dissent amongst people of so-called “faith” at this point for, as noted above, most people are unhappy about the notion that they might hold their beliefs for no reason. And in fact, most people don’t (hold their beliefs without reason). It follows thus that there is really very little “faith” out there, but a lot of beliefs that are held simply for bad reasons.

Burqa Banning

The French are propsing to ban burqa wearing in their country. The burqa is the full, face-covering, Muslim veil, worn only by women, and thought by many to represent the subjugation of Muslim women by men. Christopher Hitchens wrote this piece in support of the ban: http://www.slate.com/id/2253493/

I wrote this response to his article on the Project Reason site:

http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/in_your_face_french_attempts_to_outlaw_the_burqa_strike_a_blow_for_the_righ/#c5729

In thinking about the issue afresh I am trying to clarify my thoughts. Let me state clearly that I understand that it's most likely that women are made to wear the burqa in many communities, in fear of the repercussions which would be handed out by men.

At the moment I can think of three arguments made in support of the burqa ban and I'll address them as I go.

1. Women are forced to wear it on pain of death or torture. Whilst I overwhelmingly agree this is the case, our laws should be made to address the 'forcing' part of it, not the end result of the force (the wearing of the veil). Hitchens states, with no hint of irony, "...they are attempting to lift a ban: a ban on the right of women to choose their own dress...". This would be fine unless a woman chose to wear a burqa, in which case she would be banned from choosing her own dress! It might be the case that some men in another order might require their women to go out in public dressed in their (the men's) previous day's unwashed footy gear, on pain of death or torture(obscure example I know...). Clearly we wouldn't ban footy gear, but we would investigate how we could prevent some humans from making other humans do and wear things that they do not want to.

2. It poses an unacceptable security risk. This is a reasonable point but would easily be addressed by requiring veil-wearers to adhere to existing laws and conventions governing any face-covering garment in certain situations. I agree strongly that no religious considerations could be invoked that would exempt a women from this standard.

3. It flies in the face of accepted Western values such as openess, and the ability to interact with someone fully by observing their face along with other elements of their conversation; or as Hitchens says "the right of all citizens to look one another in the face". Again I accept and understand this point - there are few better examples of the cultural divide between Muslims and, lets say for brevity, the "west" than this confronting piece of material. One could go as far as saying it is socially divisive in the sense that it entrenches a nearly insurmountable "us and them" mentality. We are on a slippery slope though if we start to approve laws that discriminate against a minority of people because their ways make the rest of us uncomfortable.

Are there other arguments in favour of banning the burqa? If I find some I'll address them here.