In my previous article, we touched on what "faith" is all about and the dangers of the absence of it. In this sequel of my "Faith Trilogy," I would like to examine faith a little further. I have been asked many times: "What is faith TO YOU?" It should be an easy question for any Christian to answer, right? After all, if you know Scripture very well, you would know that (in the International Version Holy Bible) the word "faith," is seen roughly 10 to 16 times in the Old Testament alone (Exodus 21:8, Deuteronomy 32:51, Joshua 22:16, Judges 9:16 & 19, 1 Samuel 14:33, twice in 2 Chronicles 20:20, and Isaiah 7:9 & 26:2). Depending on which NIV you read, you can also find it in Genesis 15.6 and Habakkuk 2:4. Then, you get to the New Testament and it is seen roughly 15 to 20 times more often when compared to the Old Testament. However, as Christians, we should also know that faith isn't just "reading," it's "believing." So, here's a question for YOU... Is your faith a noun or a verb? "What in the world are you talking about?", you may be thinking. Let's go back to 7th grade English, shall we? A noun is: a person, place, or thing. A verb is: a word that shows action or a state of being. So, either you are DOING something or you ARE something. In terms of "Faith," we are talking about Transitive Verbs. A Transitive Verb has two characteristics. First, it is an "action verb," expressing a doable activity like: pray. Second, it must have a "Direct Object," which is something or someone who receives the "action of the verb." For example, David wrote a psalm in the Old Testament. "Wrote" is the Transitive Verb and "psalm" is the Direct Object... Okay, we can leave 7th grade and come back to the present... Again, I ask YOU, is your faith a noun or a verb? "What's the difference?", you may ask. Well, there's a bigger difference than you may realize...
I have observed that when Christians use the word "faith," they think of it primarily as a noun. Thus, she "has" or doesn't "have" faith. He defends "the faith." She’s worried she’ll "lose" her faith. Examples of faith as an object certainly appear in Scripture—something that is held (Hebrews 4:14), possessed (1 John 1:5), lost and found (Matthew 10:39, Luke 15:24 & 32), or received (1 Timothy 1:16). But why? Well, one of the biggest reasons is that you can take the word "faith" and put an adjective in front of it. Yes, let's go back to 7th grade English class again. An adjective is: a word the modifies or describes a noun (a person, place, or thing). Okay, class dismissed again... In this case, "faith" can be described as being "good" or "bad." Oh yes, there is not only such a thing as "good faith," but there's also such a thing as "bad faith." If you are a Believer, you may be thinking: "How could 'faith' be bad? I thought 'faith' was suppose to be good. What's the difference?" Well, let's look at the two separately.
The concept of Good Faith (Latin: bona fides, or bona fide for "in good faith") denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of he outcome of an action. Legally, the term "Good Faith" is applied to all kinds of transactions. So, what is Good Faith as a legal term? Legally, "Good Faith" is defined as: honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. This should be no surprise to anyone. But what about Bad Faith?
The concept of Bad Faith (Latin: mala fides) is double-mindedness or double-heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception. What is Bad Faith in as a legal term? Legally, "Bad Faith" is defined as: intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception. A person may hold beliefs in their mind even though they are directly contradicted by facts. These are beliefs held "in bad faith." But there is debate as to whether this self-deception is intentional or not. But what does it mean to be double-minded? Well, the term: double-minded comes from the Greek word: "dipsuchos," meaning “a person with two minds or souls." A double-minded person is restless and confused in his thoughts, his actions, and his behavior. Such a person is always in conflict with himself. One torn by such inner conflict can never lean with confidence on God and His gracious promises. Double-minded are people who are duplicitous. They are hypocritically cunning and deceitful. In fact, an example of duplicity is when a person has pretended to be someone who he or she is not. Proverbs 11:3 says: "The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity." Those who are double-minded do not have the faith spoken of in Hebrews 11:1 & 3, and thus, find it "impossible to please God." James 1:5-8 says: "If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do." A doubter is a double-minded person. Jesus had in mind such a person when He spoke of the one who tries to serve two masters. God will not grant His blessings upon those who are double-minded. As Jesus pointedly declared: "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13). God and the things of this world are of such opposite natures that it is impossible to love either one completely without hating the other. Those who try to love both will become unstable in all their ways. God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5 and 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:25, 5:9, 615, 32:21; Joshua 24:19; and Nahum 1:2) and will not accept a service that is divided with Satan. But here's one thing to keep in mind... Double-mindedness is not only a sin, but it is a choice. Anyone who chooses to be "partially in the world," also chooses to be without God's blessing; His grace, God's greatest gift. Titus 3:11 says: "You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned." Jesus Himself talked about deceitfulness when He referred to "seeds that fall and are sown among the thorns" as "someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful." in Matthew 13:22 and Mark 4:18-19. Hebrews 3:13 says: "But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called 'Today,' so none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness."
However, the downside to thinking about faith only as noun is that it can be viewed as a commodity one possesses. It becomes a static "thing" that, once acquired, is placed, even displayed in a prominent place in one’s life, often never to be touched again. Noun-faith assumptions reveal themselves when people are asked about their faith and they say that they "accepted Jesus in the 4th grade," or that that they’re qualified to teach Sunday school because they've "been a Christian for ten years." Programming also buys into these preconceived notions where more emphasis is placed on getting people "in" or counting conversions, never realizing that these same people leave the church because, in their own words, they've "outgrown it" or have "done their time." One-time conversions or the length of being a Christian doesn't necessarily speak to spiritual maturity. If you have done ministry more than a week, you know exactly what I mean. So, maybe faith is more than a noun. In fact, it is! It must be! Plus, we find many who say they have faith because they regularly attend a church. These people confuse religion with faith. Religion is: an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, moral values. Now, when they talk about this "organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views," does it say that it relates humanity to God, Jesus, grace, or salvation? No! What it does relate humanity to is "spirituality and, sometimes, moral values." Religion is man-defined, and therefore, is a manifestation of the flesh. So, you can be "religious," and not go to church. Spirituality is another term you have to be careful with. Some people can also confuse faith with spirituality. There are many "Religions" where you can be "Spiritual." Spirituality is: regard for one's inner-peace as opposed to material or worldly interests, which gives meaning to one's life and draws one to transcend oneself." Notice that in this definition, Spirituality deals a lot with "self." Yes, Spirituality is a broader concept than Religion, but it is also the personal and subjective dimension of Religion. Many spiritual traditions, accordingly, share a common spiritual theme: the "path," "work," "practice," or "tradition" of perceiving and internalizing one's "true" nature. A person can be "spiritual but not religious." So, you can be "spiritual," go to church, and still not have a relationship with Jesus. Someone who believes in God but follows Buddhism can be an example. In other words, he or she may believe in God but follow Buddhism to proper his or her spirituality. Anytime we speak of being "spiritual" or "spiritual maturity," it should mean that we are "Spirit-filled" or filled with the Holy Spirit. The moment you received Christ, the Holy Spirit not only came to indwell you, but He imparted to you eternal life; spiritual rebirth (John 3:5-7), causing you to be born anew as a Child of God (Matthew 5:9, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Galatians 3:26, 1 John 3:1-2, 5:19). A Christian who believes that they have a strong faith based upon their knowledge of the Bible or because of their Religious teachings or Spiritual practices, has a Faith that is a NOUN. It is someTHING that they feel that they HAVE. It is static, without action. It is Dead Faith (James 2:14, 2:20, 2:24, and 2:26). We see by these Scriptures that Faith MUST include ACTION. 2 Timothy 4:2 & 5 states that we are to be active in spreading the Word in the world. You cannot spread the Word only to other Christians. These people are already on their way towards Christ. We are to go into the world to spread the Word of God. This means to go outside the security of the Christian community and help our wayward fellow man. You must speak the Word to those who do not Know the Word of God (Mark 16:15-16 and Matthew 28:19-20).
Faith is also a verb, and as a verb is more associated with spiritual formation. It expresses believing and trusting in someone/something (John 3:16); is actively worked out (Philippians 2:12); is pursued (1 Timothy 6:11); and can be maturing (Hebrews 6:1). At its very elemental level, faith as a verb is not a just Christian thing, it’s a human thing that people act upon. Faith is the way human beings make sense of their world. People make meaning in order to connect and hold together the barrage of information they are continually learning and experiencing. This is a difficult task for two reasons. First, new information is constantly bombarding us as we live life, so there is continually more information we must juggle. Second, people need to find "epistemological equilibrium." In other words, if pieces of information they acquire don’t fit their current understanding, the human psyche is compelled to find a way to make them fit. People can’t live in epistemological disequilibrium. Life has to make sense. Faith, then, is like a vessel we "have," and also a container that "holds" our view of the world and our understandings of what is true, what is real, and what is right. This is affected by our developmental, sociological, and theological perspectives and affects the way we navigate our world. Every moment, things we know, learn, understand, or experience inform our "faithing vessel" that seeks to place knowledge and experiences in some coherent equilibrium. This process is called "assimilation," or making sense of new awareness. As mentioned in the last article, "people who've lost their beliefs, they're like empty vessels, more susceptible to having their lives taken over by forces bigger than themselves." (Father Kennedy, Premonition). Makes sense, would you say?
Still, how can you verbize "faith?" How do you to create it as a new verb by adding a suffix (such as -ize or -ing) to it as a noun? Could "faithing" mean "to practice a faith?" Could "faithize" mean "the process of causing or allowing someone to have or provide faith?" The truth is: English doesn't seem to have a verb form of the word "faith," and that may be responsible for most of the confusion. However, there's a movie called: "Australia," and one very important phrase in it is: "Just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean that's the way it should be." This is how I feel about the use of the word "faith" within our English grammar rules. Our language doesn't allow for it's use as a verb—and really it should. Faith is far more than a noun because, like love and trust, it is an action word. It cannot exist without action of some sort. "Using" or "having" faith is different because it's making faith itself appear passive and separate from the person, and it shouldn't be that way. It's like saying: "I have love for you," rather than "I love you." Or "I have trust in you," rather than "I trust you." They may mean the same thing on the surface, but on a deeper level, less so, in my opinion. If my wife said she "had love for me," it would not ring the same as if she said she "loves me." Think about it... You can "have love for" an animal or for a material thing. However, when she says she "loves me," it's showing intention on her part. If she said she "has love for me," it would appear more passive and distant, and not as personal. Nevertheless, words like "faithing" and "faithize" are no more than simple neologisms for the time being. But maybe there's another way to make "faith" a verb. Perhaps we should look past English grammar and look at it with an amalgamation of both Science and Philosophy. If we look at it through THIS perspective, making "faith" a verb will become much more interesting.
Science, as we've discussed in previous articles, is derived from the Latin word "scientia," meaning "knowledge." It is defined as: a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the Universe. Fundamentally, science can be characterized as a method of obtaining reliable (thought not infallible) knowledge about the Universe around us. This knowledge includes both descriptions of what happens and explanations of why it happens. My favorite of all the Natural Sciences is: Astronomy. It is derived from the words "astro-," from the Greek "astron" meaning "star," and "-nomy," from Greek "-nomia," related to "nomos " meaning "law" and "nemein" meaning "distribute." So, Astronomy is: the branch of science that denotes a specified area of knowledge dealing with celestial objects, outer space, and the physical universe as a whole and the laws governing it. Then, we have Philosophy. Philosophy is: is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with the nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. In other words, the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group. "Philo" means "love of," coming from the word "Philos" meaning "to love" or "love in the form of friendship." The Greek word: "σοφία," "sophia" means "wisdom." However, "philia" is one of the the Greek words for "love." "Philia" in Greek is "φιλία," meaning "friendship." Thus, the word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (Latin: philosohia), which literally means "love of wisdom" This is not to be confused with Philology, which is the study of the structure, historical development, and relationships of a language or languages. THIS word is derived the Latin philologia, and later entered from the Middle French philologie, in the sense of "love of literature." From from the Greek Φιλόλογος, philogogos, meaning "fond of learning and literature," the meaning of "fond of learning and literature" was narrowed to "the study of the historical development of languages." So, a philologist has a liking for words. To go a step further, among my favorite discipline of Philosophy is: Metaphysics. The assumption that the word means "beyond physics" is misleading. "Meta" is Greek for "'with, across, or after." "Mēta" in Latin means "the goal." Ironically, "meta" is Spanish, Portuguese, and Polish for "goal" and Italian for "destination." "Physica" is Latin for "physics." Put the two words together, you get "metaphysical" or "the goal of physics." This is why it was misread by Latin scholarists, who thought metaphysics meant "the science of what is beyond the physical." Metaphysics is actually derived from the Greek words: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ βιβλία," ta meta ta physika biblia," meaning "the book that follows the physics book." It was the way students referred to a specific book in the works of Aristotle, and it was a book on "First Philosophy." Andronicus of Rhodes, is thought to have placed the books on First Philosophy right after another work, "Physics." This line of Philosophy was also called: Aristotelianism. Metaphysics is: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space and the world that encompasses it. In other words, Metaphysics is the study of reality that is beyond the scientific or mathematical realms. The metaphysical issues most discussed are the existence of God, the soul, and the afterlife. If we remember from previous articles, God is: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as the source of all moral authority and the Creator, Designer, and Ruler of the Universe. God has been conceived as a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent." So, He created EVERYTHING, including us. He not composed of matter (or mass). He has a personal involvement with us. Remember all of the attributes that described God? He is Invisible (unable to be physically seen), Inaudible (unable to be physically heard), Intanible (unable to be physically touched or grasped), Incorporeal (immaterial), Omnificent (all-creating), Omniscient (all-knowing), Omnipotent (all-powerful), Omnipresent (present everywhere and always present), Omnibenevolent (all-loving and infinitely good), Perfect (free from faults or defects), Immutable (does not change), Eternal (existing forever, without end or beginning), Divine (supernal), Incomprehensible (not able to be fully known), Transcendent (outside space and time), possess Veracity (always truthful and Biblical inerrancy), and possess Aseity (having existence from no source other than Himself).
For roughly 98 percent of the last 2,500 years of Western intellectual history, Philosophy was considered "The Mother of all Knowledge." It generated most of the fields of research still with us today. This is why we continue to call one of our highest degrees Ph.D.’s, namely "philosophy doctorates" or "Doctor of Philosophy." What's more, even though Science and Philosophy are different approaches to understanding, Science and Philosophy do at times overlap. So, the next question is: can we put Science and Philosophy "TOGETHER?" Can Philosophy develop by itself, without the support of Science? Can Science "work" without Philosophy? Has Science reached such a level of theoretical thought that it no longer needs Philosophy? Or is the connection between Philosophy and Science so mutual that it is characterized by their ever deepening interaction? The truth is: Science and Philosophy have always learned from each other. Philosophy tirelessly draws from scientific discoveries fresh strength, material for broad generalizations; while to the Sciences, it imparts the world-view and methodological impulses of its universal principles. Now, some people think that Science has reached such a level of theoretical thought that it no longer needs Philosophy. But any scientist (particularly theoreticians) know in their hearts that their creative activity is closely linked with Philosophy and that without serious knowledge of philosophical culture, the results of that activity cannot become theoretically effective. As a whole, Philosophy and Sciences are equal partners assisting creative thoughts in its explorations to attain generalizing truths. So, how would we verbize "faith" by studying it? What would we call it?
Generally, Theology or the Philosophy of Religion comes to mind for most people, but it's also a common misconception. Theology is: the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths. In some contexts, theology is pursued as an academic discipline without formal affiliation to any particular church (i.e. though individual members of staff may well have affiliations to different churches), and without ministerial training being a central part of their purpose. Theology comes from the from Greek θεός "theo-" meaning "god" and -λογία, -logy, meaning "study of." The word: "theology" comes from two Greek words that combined (Latin: "studium dei Deus," theologia, "reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity"), meaning “the study of God." Indeed, within the discipline of Christian systematic theology, theology is the specific sub-discipline that tries to give an account of the nature of God—the "doctrine of God"—and thus is a kind of study of God. Understood in this way, theology is an academic discipline with a specific subject matter, much like Biology (the study of life), or Psychology (the study of the mind or soul), or Anthropology (the study of humans and culture)—though the methods and subject matter of theology are considerably different from these other academic disciplines. Christian theology is simply an attempt to understand God as He is revealed in the Bible. No theology will ever fully explain God and His ways because God is infinitely and eternally higher than we are. The study of theology, then, is nothing more than digging into God’s Word to discover what He has revealed about Himself. When we do this, we come to know Him as Creator of all things, the Designer of all things, Sustainer of all things, and Judge of all things. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End of all things. To study theology is to get to know God in order that we may glorify Him through our love and obedience. Notice the progression here: we must get to know Him before we can love Him, and we must love Him before we can desire to obey Him. As a byproduct, our lives are immeasurably enriched by the comfort and hope He imparts to those who know, love, and obey Him. Poor theology and a superficial, inaccurate understanding of God will only make our lives worse, instead of bringing the comfort and hope we long for. Knowing about God is crucially important. But don't confuse the Philosophy of Religion with Theology. The Philosophy of Religion is: the philosophical study of religious beliefs, religious doctrines, religious arguments and religious history. The line between Theology and the Philosophy of Religion isn't always sharp because they share so much in common, but the primary difference is that Theology tends to be apologetical in nature, committed to the defense of particular religious positions, whereas Philosophy of Religion is committed to the investigation of religion itself rather than the truth of any particular religion. Theology is concerned with the study of God, recommending the best religious practices, how our religion should shape our life, and so on. Philosophy of Religion is concerned with much the same issues, but where Theology uses religious works, like the Holy Bible, as it's authority, philosophy likes to use reason as the ultimate authority.
So, the question remains: what would we call it? Faithology? That would make sense due to the fact that the suffix "-logy" means "A branch of learning; a study of a particular subject." But actually, Faithology is a word. It would be easy to say that Faithology was "The systematic scientific study of faith as a means of experience existence;" "The science of faith;" or "Science and faith combined." But actually Faithology is described as the comprehensive encyclopedia for world religions and beliefs. It is defined as: a concept which unites all Faiths under one notion: That we are all equals in the sight of God, and that we are all worshiping the same Almighty Creator of the Universe. Faithology is suppose to balance Evolutionism with Creationism. Sounds kind of secularized, doesn't it? What about Faithography? The suffix "-graphy" (from the Greek -graphiā, from graphein, meaning "to write") means "denoting a process or form of drawing, writing, representing, recording, describing, or an art or science concerned with such a process." What about Faithometry? The suffix "-metry" (from Old French: -metrie, Latin: -metria, Greek: metron, meaning "measure") means "art, process, or science of measurment." What about Faithonomy? The suffx "-onomy" means "a system of rules or laws, or body of knowledge of a particular subject." What about Faithosophy? The suffix "-sohy" is derived from the Greek word: "σοφία," "sophia," meaning "wisdom," from "sophos," meaning "wise," indicating knowledge or an intellectual system. Writings? Measurements? Rules and Laws? Intellectual systems? Doesn't seem to fit into "faith" at all, does it? But perhaps there is a way of making "faith" a verb with adding suffixes to the word. By making "faith" something you study, you're more or less making "faith" into a noun. However, if we were to make "faith" something you OBSERVE, rather than something you study, then we might be getting somewhere. So, perhaps we can make "faith" a verb not by making it a subject, but by making it an occurrence; by making it an event that can be discerned; by making it an individual instance of subjective and conscious experience involving qualia. In other words, we can make "faith" into a verb not by making it a discipline, but by making it a "phenomenon." Now, generally, when one thinks of a phenomenon, one would think of a circumstance that was extraordinary. I guess it should be no surprise, since the adjective "Phenomenal" means: unusually prodigious or exceptional. But actually, a phenomenon is an event that's not extraordinary, but ordinary. So, what IS a phenomenon, exactly?
Well, for starters, let's look at it's etymology. The word: "Phenomenon" is derived from the Greek Verb φαίνειν , phainein, meaning "to show, shine, appear, to be manifest (or manifest itself")." A phenomenon is defined as: any observable object, occurrence, event, circumstance, or fact that are often (but not always), understood as "appearances" or "experiences" and are perceptible and perceived by the senses. A phenomenon is characterized as being a thing or event that can be shown for accuracy. And not only can it be proven true but substantial evidence can support it. Birth is a phenomenon. Death is a phenomenon. A meteor shower is a phenomenon. Price rise is a phenomenon. Mental illness is a phenomenon. An annual parade is a phenomenon. The crash of an airplane is a phenomenon. The fact that women wear high-heeled shoes is a phenomenon. Lightening splits the air at supersonic speed, which is the audible phenomenon that results in what is called: "Thunder." So, phenomena are things that we have observed and can observe. However, this term usually refers to GENERAL observations as opposed to SPECIFIC ones.
Let's first look at phenomena in a scientific point of view... The fact that person is both under stress and depressed is not a phenomenon, but the fact that there is a statistical relationship between stress and depression is. Similarly, the fact that a baby begins smiling regularly at about two months of age is not a phenomenon, but the fact that babies generally begin smiling at around two months is. Notice that both of these examples involve a phenomenon that has been replicated many times. That is, many studies have shown the relationship between stress and depression and many studies have shown that babies begin smiling at around two months. This is part of what makes them phenomena (which are also often called "effects"). On the other hand, imagine that one researcher does a study showing a positive relationship between receiving an allowance as a child and being financially responsible as an adult, and a second researcher does a study showing a negative relationship. Given just these two studies, we would probably not want to promote either result to the status of "phenomenon." We would simply have two conflicting results awaiting further research. Don't confuse this with a hypothesis. A hypothesis is simply an educated guess. So, a phenomenon is the observable occurrence and a hypothesis is the educated guess of why this observable occurrence (i.e. the phenomenon) happens. The scientist's hypothesis will be tested over and over again. If the scientist is lucky and their hypothesis is correct, it will then qualify to be called: a theory. A theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that has stood the test of time. In this case, theories are interpretations or explanations of phenomena. For example, even if we know that there is a statistical relationship between stress and depression, we still need an explanation for this relationship. Does the stress cause the depression? If so, how? Similarly, even if we know that babies begin to smile at about two months of age, we still need an explanation for this phenomenon. Why two months as opposed to two weeks, or six months, or whatever? What is going on inside the baby or in the baby’s environment to make this happen? That is where the hypotheses come in. You make an educated guess of why stress and depression are positively correlated. You make an educated guess on why babies begin to smile at two months of age. If your hypothesis is shown to be correct over and over again (and stands the test of time), then you will have a theory (i.e. your interpretation or explanation for a phenomenon). An extremely important principle is that for any phenomenon, there are multiple plausible theories. This is always true, yet it is a difficult idea for many people to grasp. Imagine that we find that people who received monetary allowances as children are more financially responsible as adults. There are many plausible explanations for this result. One is that children who receive allowances somehow learn from experience how to handle money. Another is that financially responsible parents are more likely to give their children allowances, and the children learn to be financially responsible by observing the parents directly. Yet another is that children who demonstrate early that they are responsible people are more likely to be given allowances by their parents. So, additional problems can arise. First, in many situations, there is one theory that springs immediately to most people’s minds. This is nothing wrong with this, except that people often confuse such intuitively plausible theories with the phenomena that they are meant to explain. For example, once people hears that childhood allowances and financial responsibility are related, they are likely to think they heard that children who receive allowances learn from this experience to be financially responsible adults. One problem with this is that the most intuitively plausible theory is not always correct. A second problem is that once a person assumes that one theory is true, it becomes difficult for that person to see that there are other plausible alternatives. Obviously, if we fail to see most of the plausible alternative theories, then our chances of having a complete explanation of our phenomenon are not very good. It is also the case that in many situations, there are multiple correct theories. So, even if you have a theory and you have some good empirical support for it, you may only have part of the explanation for your phenomenon. Consider the phenomenon of unrealistic optimism: people tend to judge themselves to be at lower risk for negative events (e.g., being hurt in a car crash) than are their peers. Researchers have suggested various theories to explain this including 1) that people judge themselves at lower risk than others to protect their egos, 2) that people judge themselves at lower risk because they overestimate the degree to which they (compared to others) can control the events in question, and 3) that people focus on themselves and fail to think sufficiently about others when making their risk judgments. At this point, you will not be surprised to hear that all three of these theories appear to capture a piece of the overall puzzle. There appears to be no one reason that people exhibit unrealistic optimism. This is sometimes referred to as Multiple Causation: the same phenomenon has multiple contributing causes. It seems safe to say that in psychology, multiple causation is the rule rather than the exception. There are also TYPES of phenomena.
However, to look at "faith" as a phenomenon, it's difficult to look at it scientifically. It seems to me that it is because when people think of "faith," they're thinking of "belief in God" or even so far as "proving God's existence." However, scientists are hung up on empirical knowledge. That's why so many of them (not all but many) insist that we have no info about God, you can't verify God and so forth. But neither faith or God can be the subject of empirical data because faith and God are not given the in sense of empirical data. That's because faith and God are not just another object along side objects in Creation. Faith and God are not just things, they are the basis of reality. That's like a Marine Biologist saying: "They assigned me to study this thing called: 'water,' but I can't find any water." Why? Because it never dawns on him or her that it's all around him or her, the medium in which he or she lives and he or she is always looking through it. He or she can't see the water because he or she is looking through it. That's sort of the case with faith and God because they are the basis of reality, the ground of Being. "In Him we live and move and have our being." When we try to look at God and see Him directly, we look through Him because, in a sense, He's the medium in which we live. The only answer to this is to search for something else. We don't look for empirical evidence of God, we look for a "co-determinate." That is, we look for the signature of God, or to use a Derridian term the "trace of God." It's like the aura of a Neutrino (a subatomic particle similar to an Electron, but with no electric charge). We can't photograph Neutrinos directly, but we have photographed their auras that are the reaction of Neutrinos with other partials. When you see that aura, you know you have one. But the trace of God has to be the result of a subjective or intersubjective understanding. So, rather than subject God to empirical means, we need allow the sense data to determine the categories under which we organize our thinking about God. The way the scientists want to do it is: to demand certain things, and those things require sense data and that sense data is preconceived to belong in certain categories and to rule out other sense data. Thus, they wind up asking for probability of miracles when, in fact, by definition, a miracle cannot be probable. So, they rule out any kind of miracle based upon the preconceived category of "things that do not happen because we don't observe them so they are too improbable." Whereas in reality, since miracles are things that are impossible, but happen anyway because some higher law overrides that of probability, they are just arbitrarily crossing out the category of the possible and arbitrarily arranging their understanding of the universe to exclude the SN, then demanding that, well there's no evidence for it (because we have filed all the evidence under the preconceived category of "that which does not happen."). As I indicated in my last article, Baker's Dictionary of the Bible defines a miracle as: "an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God." It goes on to add that a miracle occurs to show that the power behind it is not limited to the laws of matter or mind as it interrupts fixed natural laws. It is an event not ascribable to human power or the Laws of Nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural. The term: "supernatural" refers to something "unable to be explained by Science or the Laws of Nature, and relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe." So, the term "supernatural" applies quite accurately. But notice that it doesn't say that supernatural BREAKS Laws of Nature, it only says that it goes beyond it. Does something have to break a natural law for it to be a miracle? C.S. Lewis defines a "miracle" in his work by the same name as an interference with nature by a supernatural power. Obviously, to interfere with natural law may not necessarily mean to break the natural law. In fact, nature and "supernature" become interlocked after a miracle occurs and nature carries on according to the change wrought by that event. Let's use a Science example: Galileo's Law of Inertia (Newton's First Law of Motion) states an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction, unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. What is an unbalanced force? Well, first off, a force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. This is an influence that produces a change in an object's motion or state of rest. The force itself is called: a Vector Quantity. A Vector Quantity is: a quantity that has both magnitude (The measurement of the amount of an applied force) and direction (the path that an object takes when it moves). An object is said to be acted upon by an unbalanced force only when there is an individual force that is not being balanced by a force of equal magnitude and in the opposite direction. It's very interesting that a common word used for "miracle" in the New Testament can also be translated "sign." A miracle is a sign that God uses to point to Himself. According to "Systematic Theology, chapter 52," a miracle is a less common kind of God's activity in which he arouses people's awe and wonder and bears witness to Himself. This definition does not say that a miracle is a different kind of working by God, but only that it is a less common way of God's working, and that it is done so as to arouse people's surprise.
Now, let's look at "faith" as a phenomenon philosophically... We all want to know the truth about the world and about ourselves. We all want to know what is the nature of reality and what is our place in it. Science has proven to be quite reliable and has made much progress in allowing us to understand the world and ourselves, and progress continues to be made every day. However, there are some who argue that there are important areas of life that must be partially outside the domain of Science because they are known from personal experience, and thus, cannot be known objectively. The argument is that the nature of consciousness and other personal experiences (such as a sense of morality) can only be fully understood subjectively, but are nonetheless quite real examples of knowledge. The domain of science is limited to methodology that can form objective knowledge, but because of having Subjective knowledge that cannot be known objectively, then this is beyond the reach of science. Sure, scientific Objective knowledge does have benefits over Subjective knowledge in that it can be shared amongst many people. Subjective knowledge, on the other hand, by definition can only be known by the one who experiences it. "Faith" is one of those types of Subjective experiences. Do all people experience "faith" exactly the same way? Absolutely not! Not everyone shows the same type or level of "faith," because everyone experiences it differently; unique to the individual; Subjectively. So, could "faith" be considered a "phenomenon?" Philosophically, yes, it can. In fact, it is a common misconception that science and "faith" have to be at war, so to speak. In fact, Believers (such as I) and people with various levels of scientific expertise see no reason for contradiction between science and faith. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict "faith." So, if "faith" can be verbized by being a "phenomenon," is there such a thing as "studying phenomena?" Yes, there is! There is such a thing as Phenomenology. But what is it?
Phenomenology is the study of subjective experience and the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness. It is the study of appearances in the way in which they appear to us. So, phenomenology is not Science, but a Philosophy. Phenomenology as a discipline is distinct from but related to other key disciplines in Philosophy (such as Ontology, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Logic, Aesthetics, and Ethics). The discipline of phenomenology is defined by its domain of study, its methods, and its main results. How is phenomenology distinguished from, and related to, other fields in philosophy? Consider then these elementary definitions of field:
- Ontology is the study of beings or their being — what is.
- Metaphysics is the study of the most general aspects of reality — how it is.
- Epistemology is the study of knowledge — how we know.
- Logic is the study of valid reasoning — how to reason.
- Ethics is the study of right and wrong — how we should act.
- Aesthetics is the study of beauty and nature — how we see things.
- Phenomenology is the study of our experience — how we experience.
The domains of study in these five fields are clearly different, and they seem to call for different methods of study. Phenomenology studies structures of conscious experience as experienced from the first-person point of view, along with relevant conditions of experience. You see, we all experience various types of experience including perception, imagination, thought, emotion, desire, volition, and action. Thus, the domain of phenomenology is the range of experiences including these types (among others). Conscious experiences have a unique feature: we experience them, we live through them or perform them. Other things in the world we may observe and engage. But we do not experience them, in the sense of living through or performing them. Phenomenology plays a role leading to discussions of bad faith. It has a role in ethics by an analyses of the structure of will, valuing, happiness, and care for others (in empathy and sympathy). A person who is not lying to himself is authentic. "Authenticity" is being faithful to internal rather than external ideas. This not to be confused with Phenomenography. Phenomenography is a qualitative research methodology, within the interpretivist paradigm, that investigates the qualitatively different ways in which people experience something or think about something. It initially emerged from an empirical rather than a theoretical or philosophical basis. Phenomenography's ontological assumptions are subjectivist: the world exists and different people construe it in different ways and from a non-dualist viewpoint (i.e. there is only one world, one that is ours, and one that people experience in many different ways). Phenomenography's research object has the character of knowledge; therefore its ontological assumptions are also epistemological assumptions. So, what is the difference between Phenomonology and Phenomenography? Well, both phenomenography and phenomenology have human experience as their object; however, phenomenology is a philosophical method in which the philosopher is engaged in investigating his own experiences. Phenomenographers, on the other hand, adopt an empirical orientation and they investigate the experiences of others. The focus of interpretive phenomenology is upon the essence of the phenomenon, whereas the focus of phenomenography is upon the essence of the experiences and the subsequent perceptions of the phenomenon.
My own reaction is to agree that what we Christians believe is very hard to believe. We believe that God exists, a personal, loving God who loves into being all that is and us humans too. God loves us so much that he has sent his only Son to lead us into a communion with our God that transports us beyond all our imaginings. Jesus Christ, Son of God, has promised us eternal life. And all this was accomplished by the most unbelievable act of costly love. Furthermore, Jesus Christ has established us as a community through which he works for our salvation and the salvation of the whole human race. Our God in Christ is with us, and the Spirit of God urges us on, as we journey towards what God has in store for us. All this—and so much more when we tease out the detail—is so astonishing that it is no wonder that others marvel that we can believe it. Jean-Paul Sartre, the existentialist philosopher of the mid-twentieth century — stated that it was all "Too beautiful to be true." But we then remind ourselves of a few facts about the phenomenon of Christian faith. Faith is a gift, one of the three supernatural virtues. Like hope and charity, faith is not from our human resources, it is from God. Faith is described as "belief in things unseen"—it is not based on evidence. But is not a belief that offends our reason, either. Our reason is a God-given endowment that is fundamental to our personhood, and we must never accept anything that we find irrational. Christian faith is liberating; it strengthens us; it gives meaning and hope; it makes life worth living. We have only to ask ourselves, as we perhaps have been asked by others: "What would I do if I were to discover that it is all false—too beautiful to be true?" Well, I, personally, have to answers for that. The first one is an answer that the Apostle Paul gave his reply when he was writing about the resurrection of Jesus. He said in 1 Corinthians 15:16-19 that: "For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile;you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." In The Voice translation, it says that if "the Anointed One" did not rise, then our faith is "worth less than yesterday’s garbage," Wow! So, what's the Apostle Paul saying here? Well, to help us appreciate Christ’s victory over the grave, let’s consider what the outcome of life and death would be WITHOUT the Resurrection. First of all, Jesus would still be dead. That means our faith in Him would be worthless, and our message to the world would be a lie. Not only that, but Jesus Himself would be proved a liar since He claimed that He would rise from the dead. There would be no forgiveness of sins, no possibility of reconciliation with God, and no hope of Heaven. None! Even the Believers who have died throughout history would have perished, and we would have no hope of reunion with our loved ones. Without the Resurrection, everyone’s destiny after death would be Hell; eternal torment. Yeah, that would make us Believers "first-class fools, deserving everyone's pity." In fact, EVERYONE should be pitied because without the Resurrection, NOBODY would or could be saved. So, after considering how hopeless we would be without a resurrection, we can rejoice all the more in the greatness of our Salvation. Why? Because if you were to read on to 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, you would see that our Savior lives, our sins are forgiven, death has been defeated, and Believers in Christ have assurance of eternity in Heaven. It is a promise to all people who have a relationship with Christ (Mark 3:31-35 & Matthew 12:46-50). The people who trust in Christ are born again into his family (John 1:12 & 3:7). So, all people who belong to God’s family have the benefit of this wonderful promise. And second, let's look at this in the sense of Pascal's Wager, which argues that even if there is strong evidence against the existence God, it is still better to believe in Him. I't's been explained and sometimes made difficult to understand, but it's really not hard at all. It basically states that if you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss); but if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation). So, to put it simply, if this is no God; if there is no life after death, what did I lose other than my biological life? The end of biological life means the end of consciousness, right? I will have no awareness that I ever existed, right? So, in what way will I be disappointed if I die and there is no God? The answer is simple. There will be no disappointment because there will be no consciousness, and thus, no awareness of me being incorrect in my beliefs while I was alive. I will have lost NOTHING. But if there IS an afterlife, I will have gained EVERYTHING as a Believer. So, if you're not really sure one way or the other, it is better to "believe" or have "faith."
All in all, faith is not so much held, grasped, or found, it is simply experienced; it is a reality whose presence I sense whenever I take life seriously and faithfully. According to Merriam Webster, the use of the word "faith" as a Transitive Verb meaning: belief or trust is archaic. The use of the word "faith" as a Transitive Verb may be awkward, but using faith as a verb gives a new perspective on faith and its opposite (i.e. doubt), which can be used as an Abstract Noun or an Action Verb. You see, when "doubt" is a noun, it is simply an idea. It may exist, but its presence gives us the choice to trust and to believe in God. It is when "doubt" becomes a verb — that there is a problem. Consider your doubts. Don’t let them become verbs. Let them remain nouns. And even though it’s archaic, let "faith" be a verb. Let yourself hear your voice say: "I believe God." "I trust God."... "I faith God."
No comments:
Post a Comment