This morning I'm pondering the notion of "faith," which I define as believing that one knows "the truth" about something (or more likely in spiritual circles, every- thing), in the absence of any kind of demonstrable proof of that "truth."
While much has been said to glorify the notion of "faith" in human history, what I'm thinkin' about this morning over my coffee is that the way that the "faithful" *demonstrate* this quality that they glorify does not appear to me to be all that glorious. Just the opposite, in fact. My thesis is that if someone *really* had faith in the "truth" they believe in, nothing that anyone else could possibly say about it should affect them. "Line on water," and all that. "The truth," perceived by those who claim to know it, should be strong enough to stand on its own, despite any challenge or scoffing. And the "faithful" should equally be able to stand on their own, unaffected by either the challenges or the scoffers. But that's not how it seems to work out. How it seems to work out, looking at both human history and FFL history, is that when a "truth" that the faithful claim to believe in fully is challenged or scoffed at, the faithful tend to react as if they are cripples whose crutch has just been kicked out from under them by...uh... the kind of person who would kick a crutch out from under a cripple. What I'm suggesting is that this oh-so-predictable reaction on the part of the faithful demonstrates more of the reality of the nature of faith than they realize. Act like a cripple whose crutch has been kicked out from under you, and you reveal the "crutch nature" of the faith you claim to believe in so fully. React to an atheist denying the existence of the imaginary friend you call God by becoming angry or upset or by feel- ing that you have to demonize the diss-er? This demonstrates weakness IMO, not strength. React to someone not buying that the perfect guru you believe is quite as perfect as you are by getting all defensive about it? Again, weakness, not strength. And most tellingly, react to someone poking fun at the things you take seriously by getting even more serious? Duh...weakness, not strength. It's the last reaction that is most revealing IMO in terms of faith and walking the walk of it -- the lack of a sense of humor about the things one has "faith" in. The people I've run into on this planet who best demonstrate faith are the ones (like Christian philosopher G.K. Chesterton) who 1) are *aware* that the nature of their faith is that they believe something they can never prove, 2) are *aware* that this makes them a little odd or laughable in the eyes of people who are more proof-oriented, and 3) are willing to laugh along with these people if they scoff -- at the "truth" being challenged, and at themselves. THAT, to me, is a good demonstration of faith, and one that would tend to demonstrate its value. But to *lose* it in the face of scoffers and critics? To feel that one has to "defend" the faith one claims to feel so strongly? To feel that one has to lash out at and demon- ize the scoffers as "crutch kickers?" That strikes me as a sure-fire method of demonstrating that the "faith" you equate with "truth" is anything but, and more akin *to* a crutch than it is a viable belief system. There is a quote I found the other day in a post by some- one who, in the past, has tended to react...uh...badly to people challenging his faith, and his notion of what constitutes "truth." No matter how ironic the source of the quote may be, I really liked the quote, so I'll steal it and pass it along: "Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing." - William James Want to demonstrate the value of faith? Learn to laugh in the face of challenges to it.
