Series:
Essay #13:
Synopsis:
It and Thou
Faith 1- Believing in Belief
For faith to be real, it must be in a real person, someone worthy of faith whom I may not abandon
Here’s the moral: Real faith isn’t a tool and it isn’t evidence-based. Real faith is more than belief: I can believe in things like money and socialism, and anything else of instrumental value, but I can’t have faith in them. Why? Because real faith requires a worthy object, a Thou whom I may not abandon. Only a worthy person can be a worthy object of faith.
Now for the story. All beliefs are tools-- thus spake William James, the great American pragmatist. He said that a belief is true only if, when put to work in the material world, it leads to the expected consequences; and furthermore, the belief is true only to that extent and no more. Note: for a good read in philosophy, William James is your man.
A pragmatist judges a belief based on real-world outcomes that we verify by empirical observation. The basis for all belief must be empirical evidence, including the observations of others reported in, for example, scientific papers. This is the great moral commandment of science, and it’s an exclusive commandment: thou shalt believe solely in that which has empirical, scientific proof. No scientific proof? No belief for you!
Within the project of science, the moral commandment works great, because it enables many thousands of scientists over hundreds of years to gradually build more accurate maps to the material world. The commandment doesn’t work so great, though, for me in this life. In the words of William James,
“It is like those gambling and insurance rules based on probability, in which we secure ourselves against losses in detail by hedging on the total run. But this hedging philosophy requires that the long run should be there; and this makes it inapplicable to the question of religious faith as the latter comes home to the individual man. He plays the game of life not to escape losses, for he brings nothing with him to lose; he plays it for gains; and it is now or never with him, for the long run which exists for humanity, is not there for him. Let him doubt, believe, or deny, he runs his risk, and has the natural right to choose which one it shall be.” From Will to Believe, 1897, essay: Sentiment of Rationality ft.5.
An insurance underwriter might have the actuarial tables necessary to justify his actions, but I don’t. I need to act right now and I don’t have time to wait for the evidence. I take a leap of faith, evidence be damned. In brief, life requires more faith less evidence.
In Sentiment of Rationality, James gives an example of climbing in the Alps. Imagine the afternoon is waning and I’ve worked myself into a bad position, but if I stay put, I die. My only chance is to leap the abyss. Now imagine two states of mind: (1) I believe in my ability to make the leap, or (2) I don’t trust my ability because I lack prior evidence of it-- I’ve never been in this position before. This second is the scientific state of mind, which works great in the long run but not right now: faith alone will get me over the abyss. James says, “There are then cases where faith creates its own verification. Believe, and you shall be right, for you shall save yourself; doubt, and you shall again be right, for you shall perish. The only difference is that to believe is greatly to your advantage.”
Hence for James, faith is the confidence to act, and action creates its own pragmatic truth. I remember the great MMA fighter, Anderson Silva. He’d put his hands down then slip and weave around the opponent’s punches, and just when the opponent was over-extended… bam! Silva would knock him out. Silva’s absolute confidence psyched out the opponent even before the fight. Silva was unbeatable until… wham! he got knocked out while slipping and weaving. He lost that outer edge of confidence and was never the same.
You say, “OK, faith permits action, like having the confidence to win a fight. It sounds like you’re interested in the worldly fruits of faith, though, and that’s a shallow faith indeed.” You’re right. Modern faith is weak tea. That’s why we moderns talk of faith in things like Zen meditation and socialism, and that’s why we believe in belief itself. When I hear folks talk about faith nowadays, it seems we’re all pragmatists who say things like, “It’s good for them to believe in Christianity, you know, social glue and all that.” William James himself said that, medically speaking, prayer is the best technique to fall asleep fast. He wished he could have faith, if only to sleep better, but he had no one to pray to (Memories and Studies, 1911).
Does faith = belief? are they both just tools, only true to the extent they pay? No. Faith is higher than belief. I can believe in anything that pays, but I have faith in something worthy of faith. I believe in the health benefits of drinking water, but I have faith in my wife. When I say to my wife, “I have faith in you,” it means I put my heart in her hands, I trust her, and I may not leave her. That’s the difference. I’ll believe in anything that works, and when it stops working, I move on. But real faith has a real object, not just anything. Faith is real when it’s in something real, and more than just something real, but someone, and not just anyone, but someone who’s worthy. Real faith is in someone who’s worthy, and I can’t walk away.
In sum, faith must be in a sacred someone, a worthy end-in-himself who is beyond my use and whom I may not abandon. Faith is the trust and commitment of one free being in another free being, Thou to Thou. That’s it. Next essay: faith in God.