Recently, I've had an inordinate number of conversations regarding faith. Well, it would be more accurate to say that I've received a series of admonishments re: the fact that I still possess any faith more than I've had real conversations about it. A conversation would imply that there was a dialogue and what I'm referring to usually just consists of people telling me that were I more enlightened or researched, I would have dispensed with my faith a long time ago. I have a heart condition and some have actually suggested that my heart is responsible for my "irrational" belief. I've been labeled a medical zebra… a fanciful little term…because my condition does not prescribe to the rules that have been attributed to it by modern medicine. So yes, you could say this has made me all the more unwilling to cast off my faith in favor of a science that fails to explain the breadth of my physicality…but it also clearly demonstrates that our failure to understand something in its entirety cannot negate its existence. Needless to say, the suggestion that my faulty heart is responsible for my faith is just as stupid as it is insulting. While I can, on a certain level, understand those who might want, for whatever reason, to dispense with faith…I cannot comprehend why their choice to throw it off has to bring my judgment into question. I think my ability to empathize with such a view is a testament to my possession of the very rationality I have been told I am lacking.
Why does my belief in something others don't prescribe to have to ultimately equate to some kind of deficiency? What is a genuine understanding of something anyway? My personal experience has shown me that we cannot concluded that the present course of human evolution of knowledge is only to be gained from ordinary science.
And I have to ask...is it not the very nature of man to believe?
As I'm writing this, I'm realizing that faith isn't something you ever have to defend. It is a profound knowing you have within you that cannot always be explained or necessarily understood. And despite the ineffable quality of faith, I think modern scientific methodology and spirituality can be in complete accord. All we need to do is look at the process of how we go about knowing with any certainty. Our knowing is usually independent of whatever thing we are investigating. Knowledge of something presupposes knowledge of the self doing the task. So….it would make sense that knowledge of god, or faith, or whatever you want to call it, is ultimately a question of self knowledge.
Immanuel Kant believed that our ability to know is inextricably bound up with the way our senses are organized. Kant maintained that concepts without perception are empty and any perception other than the physical world is not known to ordinary consciousness. The stress here should be on ordinary consciousness. I believe that when we think, or have a concept of spirituality, we are already participating in a world where the concepts themselves are not derived from sense experience. The idea of a straight line of thought does not come from the physical world…which can be perfect and absolute chaos. We are able to recognize a straight progression of things because the idea, a nonphysical thing, lives within us. I think concepts do not necessarily come from seeing the physical world but more from how that outside world informs a sort of seeing within us. Artists understand this feeling/phenomena…wherein concepts and inspiration arise seemingly out of thin air. Tapping into our intuition means that we are in essence contacting a sort of supersensory world. Yes, when we perceive sensible objects our senses provide input from the sensible world…but is it not the concept that allows us to know what we are seeing? Our activity, which usually goes unnoticed, consists in the addition of the concept. This is what we call thinking. Higher reflective thinking obviously requires searching for concepts but so, too, does simple seeing.
If we can grasp thinking by means of itself…we have to ask the question of whether or not we could also grasp anything else through it…aka faith. I think faith is a consciousness where, in the act of knowing, the concept and the percept are one. I should make clear that I don't believe that faith can only unfold within us through the strict adherence to a given set of rules outlined by some establishment, nor am I willing to root my faith in the belief that anyone was born into sin. I think of faith more as the germination of this inner phenomenon of knowledge…and how you obtain this knowledge is up to you. Whether you subscribe to a specific institutionalized method of beliefs, conform to a doctrine that tells you bad deeds result in eternal damnation, or dance around trees, your practice should be your own.
I think the most important thing is not whether or not we believe in the same thing…it's whether or not we have faith. I think faith is necessary for our soul. When we have no faith, be it in god, or this earth, or love, or other people…we shrivel up inside and something in ourselves, in our potential, goes to waste. Faith may be imperceptible via ordinary consciousness but it's effects on our selves isn't. Faith is invigorating. Faith, as I perceive it, is living in a undeniable state of grace.
And I know, with absolute certainty, that without such grace, my life would most certainly be incomplete.