christians use the word "faith" a lot. It's one of the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Unfortunately, I have that list memorized.
I lived by the fruits of the spirit as a teenager. There were a lot of rules given by the church about who I should be, but fewer rules in the bible, at least ones that made sense. But this was a list I could get behind: character traits I could work on developing that would make me both a good candidate for heaven, and a good wife and mother.
Anyway, in a recent interview I gave, the interviewer asked me to explain my current theological stance, since I had identified myself as an exvangelical. I explained that I prefer "agnostic," although it certainly wouldn't offend me if someone called me atheist. And when he asked me why I had chosen agnostic over atheist, I found myself surprised by my own response. I said something along the lines of, "Well, if you think about it, atheism requires just as much faith as christianity. christians must have unshakeable faith that god exists; atheists have to have just as much faith that god doesn't exist. Neither is provable."
And then I said, to my own surprise: "Ultimately, I just try to stay as far away from faith as possible."
I was surprised because of how true it was.
If I can't have faith in god, I also can't have faith in no god.
Do I think the christian god exists? Obviously not. But atheism requires the belief that "No god exists," which is also something I can't confidently commit to. Especially when you look at the broad expanse of the word "god." It's been used in so many ways over the millennia. Even the bible says, "you shall have no other gods before me" which implies the presence of other gods—and whether they are actual or made up or metaphorical doesn't really matter. It still falls under the definition of "god." Not to mention, plenty of people use the term "god" to mean something like "universal consciousness" which... isn't impossible, as far as I can see.
You know how they say that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference? I think the same is true of christianity. The opposite of christianity is not atheism—it's agnosticism.
Ask a christian how they know their god is the True god, as opposed to, for example, Allah or Zeus or Ra, and inevitably they will get around to saying, "I have faith."
That is not a thing I have.
And I never will have it—not in the christian god, not in the muslim god, not in any of the myriad gods who have risen and fallen throughout history. Nor even in the lack of god. I don't even have faith in physics! Damn physicists keep changing our understanding of the foundational framework of the universe! It's great, don't get me wrong. But definitely worth holding onto a little disbelief, even in things that are supposedly True.
After I said I stayed as far away from faith as possible, the interviewer then said to me, "Well, you must have some faith in something. How else do you ride in airplanes?"
But the thing is, I don't need faith to ride in airplanes. I have my understanding of physics. I have the evidence of mine own eyes. I have a mind that I can use to understand to the best of my ability. It's not perfect. But it is better than nothing, which is all christianity has.
You could make the argument that I must have faith in something, because that's just what it means to be human, and I can't know everything about everything all the time. I wouldn't disagree with you.
I'd stay solidly somewhere in the bounds of "maybe."
Perhaps some version of faith in something is an inevitable part of life.
But I definitely don't have to have blind faith. I don't have to have stupid faith. I don't have to have immoral faith.
I do not have to have faith in a god who never deigned to honor me with his presence, nor logic, nor reason, nor answers.
I do not have to have faith in a god who in one moment condemns entire cities to death, and in the next professes his profound love for humans.
I do not have to have faith in a god who lets children die for no fucking reason, and forces women to bear the children of their rapists, and who would chop a woman into pieces because of the sins of men.
Who would command a man to kill a child to prove his "faith."
I do not have to have faith. Faith is taught, learned. And it can be unlearned.
Ultimately, I may never be able to fully reject every modicum of faith. But this isn't about having a black and white answer. It's about an approach to life. Anytime I stumble across a bubble of faith hiding away somewhere in my brain, I beat it with a stick (aka knowledge), until either it disintegrates, or turns into a fuzzy cloud of "I don't know and that's okay."
It's okay to not know. It's okay to be wrong. But I don't have to give in to faith either. Instead, I can accept the gray area. I don't need faith. I simply need to be willing to continually learn, and willing to admit that I might be wrong.
"This is a question I do not have an answer for," I will say. "But I have made this choice anyway. I might be wrong. But it's okay."