Ascension / Photo: Joanna Vaughan
Having faith means being able to sometimes sit with the uncomfortable questions.
The whole of history of philosophy, religion, science, mathematics, has the same root, the same mind – the same itch. You may scratch yourself one way, somebody else may do it differently, but the itch has to be understood. The itch is the belief that existence is not a mystery. – Osho
BNT editor Ian MacKenzie offered me this quote recently, and ever since I heard it, the words have been marinating in my mind.
At first, it seemed to me that Osho was dismissing all endeavors of discovery as pointless, saying that no matter what we do we will never understand life. Ian explained it in a different way: that while we can know some things, many of the pursuits in life are simply a means to wash our minds from the uncertainty that comes with not knowing or understanding something.
Since the conversation was concerning faith, I naturally tried to understand the quote in light of my Christian perspective. What if Christianity (or every other faith) is, more than anything, a search for comfort? A search for a sense of assuredness. Something to hold on to.
Some people would even go so far as to say it’s a crutch.
There are many that take their “faith” at face value without exploring the deeper contexts, and ignoring the hard questions. However, the more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that this isn’t entirely true for the Christian faith.
A Question Of Doubt
Photo: SMN
While faith assures us of many things, it also opens up a whole new world of questions, uncertainty, and doubt. Having faith requires a level of comfort with being uncomfortable. It requires knowing that you don’t know everything.
From what is typically seen in today’s world, this may seem counter-intuitive. There are many people who seem remarkably comfortable in their faith. In fact, they are so confident, they feel compelled to tell you and everyone else how right they are.
They’re the ones that end any actual topic of spiritual conversation by becoming angry and asserting their argument with, “Well, God told me so, so I’m right.” How do you argue with that?
Donald Miller has a great quote about humility and faith in “Searching for God Knows What”:
If you ask me, the way to tell if a person knows God for real, I mean knows the real God, is that they will fear Him. They wouldn’t go around making absurd political assertions and drop God’s name like an ace card, and they wouldn’t’ be making absurd statements about how God wants you to be rich and how if you send in some money to the ministry God will bless you.
It seems if your really knew the God who understand the physics of our existence, you would operate a little more cautiously, a little more compassionately, a little less like you are the center of the universe.
Too many times people use religion to justify themselves in areas of doubt. Instead of admitting they don’t know all the answers they put up a facade, and refuse to be honest with themselves and others.
The Mystery of Faith
I’ll be honest. When I read the Bible I don’t understand everything in it all the time. There are some confusing parts:
Photo: radiant guy
- The concept of a trinity
- An omniscient, omnipotent, and ever-existent being
- The coexistence of a perfectly loving God with the reality of so much evil in the world.
There are areas that are simply hard for me to wrap my mind around. You know what? That’s okay. The Bible actually states that we “cannot understand the activity of God, who does all things.”
That’s not to say I think God is completely mysterious and there’s no way we can ever know anything about Him. I do believe there are some characteristics of God that we can know through his revelation in the Bible and his creation.
I’ve become aware that honestly I don’t know some things and I’m okay with not knowing some things. I’m simply coming to terms with some of my human limitations.
How does a finite mind comprehend something infinite? I have problems comprehending numbers when they get too big. If I can’t understand the concept of 1 trillion (12 zeros by the way), how am I supposed to understand how big “infinite” is?
Perhaps an even bigger question: if we COULD know everything about God and completely understand all of his facets, WOULD that God even be one worthy of worship?
The Unpredictable Is Divine
Part of faith is learning to be comfortable with the uncertainty that comes with life. If life were predictable, it wouldn’t just be boring, but pointless.
The Divine as seen in nature / Photo: moonjazz
There would be no surprises and nobody would ever pick a bad stock on Wall Street. In John Ortberg book “Faith & Doubt,” he recalls a musician friend telling him “If I refuse to sing a word or play a note until I’m certain of perfection, there will never be music.”
The same is true in faith. If you wait until you know everything about life and spirituality, you miss out on the great journey that faith is. It’s dirty and messy. You fall down. You screw up. But you learn. That’s part of faith. That’s part of life. It’s a discovery.
The truth is that I can make a very good case why I believe there is a God. I’m not sure I can logically prove Him beyond a shadow of a doubt, and sometimes I’m not even sure he’s there, but that’s where faith comes in.
In our Age of Reason, this isn’t a popular stance. Everything has to be testable. Everything has to have a concrete, logical reason or some sort of rationale behind it. I’m not against reason, I just wonder sometimes if we’ve fallen in love with the concept of reason and logic.
We judge so much by reason even though we’re not completely rational beings. Most of the decisions we make are not rational. We’re emotional human beings, not simply logic machines.
We judge so much by reason even though we’re not completely rational beings.
As Osho says, life is incredibly mysterious. God and faith are infinitely more complex than we can comprehend, and to think that we can understand the universe, its complexity and meaning in its entirety seems arrogant at best.
Like most things in life, it comes down to balance. Some things in life can be explained. Others can’t. The secret is learning to be at ease with that which can’t be known while simultaneously searching for an understanding of what can be.
What do you think about faith versus reason? Share your thoughts below.
About the Author
Related Posts
12 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
I like this a lot:
The same is true in faith. If you wait until you know everything about life and spirituality, you miss out on the great journey that faith is. It’s dirty and messy. You fall down. You screw up. But you learn. That’s part of faith. That’s part of life. It’s a discovery.
Hit the nail square on the head.
↵ -
This is a topic dear to my heart and, ahem, soul. I grew up orthodox Jewish and even spent a year studying at an ultra-orthodox women’s seminary in Jerusalem before eventually turning onto my own path.
I’ve met people who hold all kinds of strength of faith. The ones who profess to know it all bore me. It’s those people who have that ability to see both sides of the argument who are most interesting and who seem to have the clearest view of faith and God.
I feel similarly about people who are equally know-it-allish when it comes to their lack of belief. Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), for example, makes me nutty with his assertions that you’re either an athiest or an idiot (I paraphrase of course).
Seems to me that science is as equally based on belief as religion. After all, no one has absolute proof of the existence of an atom. We base it on what we observe second hand.
↵ -
Your Dawkins paraphrase made me laugh
It’s good that people are passionate about what they believe, but I’ve never found that calling potential converts “idiots” (or some equivalent) is a good way to make people want to listen to you
↵ -
“Faith is the ability to not panic.” ~ Anon.
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. The good news is, you are under no obligation to make sense of it.
↵ -
Thanks Lola!
I like your quote:
“…to apply earthly judgment in trying to prove His existence seems illogical to me when in fact the very reason we breathe and function like we do is a testament to a much higher power.”
It’s interesting that we’re so surprised when we attempt to break down God to something we can classify, and we’re come to realize that we’re unable to do so.
↵ -
“There are many people who seem remarkably comfortable in their faith. In fact, they are so confident, they feel compelled to tell you and everyone else how right they are.”
One of my favorite quotes in the article. Now, I believe there is right vs wrong in the Bible, but people go about it in wrong ways. Sometimes they are flat out wrong. Compassion is not found, and then why would people want to follow Jesus?
Overall, great article!
↵ -
I agree that it’s ridiculous when people place so much faith in science and human logic that they definitively claim to know all the answers. No one does, and probably no one will any time soon. But is the Christian argument for why God exists any more convincing than the scientistic argument for why there is no god? I think both beliefs are equally impossible to prove.
When it comes down to it, people are generally going to believe what they do based on how their background has shaped them and the necessities of their emotions. That’s why Muslims can unequivocally know that Allah is the real god, or that Hindus can be so sure of the existence of millions of gods, or that Christians can believe in the Trinity as the only way – their parents or cultures conditioned them to believe what they do. The vast majority of followers of any given religion believe because that’s what their parents taught them – and that is a good enough reason for me to not believe in something.
So I would say that when we don’t have all the answers or explanation for something, we should refrain from placing our entire faith in it – whether it be science, or God. Since our fundamental idea of God or existence usually comes from our microcultures, we should instead cast aside the dogma of our backgrounds and start from nothing, allowing whatever is real to reveal itself to us. Yes, that means accepting the fact that you won’t ever really know how everything fits together, and it might mean accepting a life with little relative meaning. But it’s better than placing faith in something because that’s what you’ve been conditioned to do.
I went more in depth on this on my blog a couple months ago if you want to check it out. http://jordanelwell.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/5/
↵ -
Jordan-
I’m torn by your post. I agree with some of the statements you make, but there are others where I’m not so sure.Your first paragraph I get but I think you may have missed the point of the article. I’m not postulating REASON vs. FAITH. I’m all for reason, but there comes a point where reason can’t explain things. It is in those places, where I believe faith comes in. They’re complementary, not oppositional forces.
You go on to say-
“The vast majority of followers of any given religion believe because that’s what their parents taught them – and that is a good enough reason for me to not believe in something.”
This sounds a lot like the frustration I mentioned in the article with the people who answer everything with “GOD TOLD ME SO!.” Just because you have people in every belief system that take the religion at face-value does not mean there isn’t something deeper there and must be rejected completely.In your last paragraph confuses me. Here’s why:
“So I would say that when we don’t have all the answers or explanation for something, we should refrain from placing our entire faith in it – whether it be science, or God.”
If you’re refraining from putting your entire faith in something, then you’re not having faith in whatever that may be. If I’m jumping out of a burning building, and I have faith that the firefighters trampoline will sustain me, I can say that all I want but until I actually jump and DEMONSTRATE that I have faith in it, will I actually know if it can or not. That’s what I was referring to when I said “The same is true with life. You fall down. You screw up. But you learn. That’s part of faith. That’s part of life. It’s a discovery.” You figure out what’s real and what’s not by actively figuring it out.When you say that we should “cast aside the dogma of our backgrounds and start from nothing.” I agree, we can become accustomed to thinking like we always have, but I don’t think the correct approach is to get rid of it completely. Rather, I would argue, it is to see the whole picture more completely. Here’s an analogy: You’re grew up in house where everybody calls things blue. Mine called it red. One day, talking to you, I realize the things I call red, you call blue. It’s does me no good to say, well EVERYBODY that sees red only see red because they grew up like that and the best thing for me to do is not to recognize color at all. Instead of discovering millions of other colors besides red and millions of shades of red, you live in a colorless world. You miss out on the point. Instead of banishing red, we need to figure out what really is red and that may involve me learning that something I used to call red, is in fact blue. Yes, many times our worldviews are “tainted” by our background. But you don’t throw it out completely. You keep what’s true and you keep an open mind as you discover truth. So i but when you say that we should allow “whatever is real to reveal itself to us” I disagree. i believe we have a more active role in discovering what’s real or what’s truth. Sure gravity displays that it’s real to us (if you drop something, it’s going to fall to the ground). But it doesn’t reveal itself to us that it falls at 9.8m/s2. The deeper truth, we have to investigate.
I don’t believe you should believe see the world as red (something you were conditioned to), and maybe seeing the world without color (“accepting a life with little relative meaning”) is better but I think the best option is in realizing how many colors there are and living a life where you’re able see them all.
↵ -
Good article Joel, but I agree with Jordan more.
Firstly, your use of God in the masculine; I’m surprised Christine hasn’t pulled you up on that! I believe the monotheistic religions, although they may have had good origins, have been used through their interpretations to control large amounts of people, and especially women. If the male prophets and propagandists had portrayed a female god I’d be more inclined to believe in them, but a god in their own image who believes women should be subservient is a bit convenient!!
I’m an agnostic pantheistic pagan, and want to believe in something, whether it’s a heaven or reincarnation, but I don’t know, and don’t think I will ever know.
I think faith can be a filler for our frustation at our inability to know everything about ourselves, life and the world; and what happens when we die.
↵ -
“I believe the monotheistic religions, although they may have had good origins, have been used through their interpretations to control large amounts of people, and especially women.”
I think that statement can be used for every single religion, belief system, political party ever. There are always ideals, but humans are inherently imperfect and we always find a way to screw things up :-/.
As for the bible teaching that women should be subservient, I know many people have taught that, but that’s not what the Bible says at all. I’m assuming you referencing: Ephesians where they say “wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” People get outraged with that verse and forget to read the rest of the passage. He goes on to direct the husbands to “Love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” The implication here is that the husbands should love their wives sacrificially. He also says that “husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.”
You can read the full passage (if you dare) – http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:22-33&version=NIV
There are different roles for each sex, but the women aren’t painted as slaves to do whatever the men bid them too. They both have distinct roles, but equal partners that are supposed to be trying to continually out-serve the other out of love for each other. In that time Christianity was actually a lot more empowering to women than the cultural norm.
↵ -
Thanks Joel, nice additional information. I was referring more to how religious texts have been interpreted and abused in general, but point taken.
↵
