Faith and Skepticism

It has been an old debate possibly still around just because we fail to comprehend the meaning of the word “Faith”.  Faith is roughly defined as an unconditional acceptance of a premise. Skepticism while at the opposite end is defined as viewing everything with a sense of doubt and lens of reason.  So when I say “I have faith in God!” – Skeptics jump up and say “Show me God!”  So while reams of arguments are exchanged between the two communities, we have barely reached anywhere close to a conclusion on any topic which involves Faith. The primary reason is in the definitions itself.  Faith has no reason and skepticism requires you to show a reason and
proof to stop the argument.

Now even on iland we see a lot of people writing on topics of faith and a whole bunch who rubbish or undermine those faiths. I personally think skeptics exist because of faith ;-) For with no ‘faith’, there is nothing to be skeptical about. When we understand everything, there is nothing to question. But that requires everyone to  know the reason behind everything. See that sentence – very challenging! As long as everyone does not know reason behind everything, faith loyalists and skeptics continue to waste time or make a living – based on what they do ;-)  Ok what is my point? I personally feel uncomfortable with the discussions on faith more so in their current form they are conducted, atleast most of them.

There are two key sentences left out in these discussions: something called “Healthy Skepticism” and “Open Faith”.  Two phrases which seemingly go against the beliefs both the communities hold about the definitions and are at the root of most wars or blog-abuse.

First the Skeptics: Even the greatest of scientific experiments of the world assume atleast one hypothesis as true. Without that, there can never be a result or a proof from the experiment. That hypothesis is his Faith. You can or should never question that faith for your entire experiment would be rendered useless if you do. So every human being, in my opinion, should hold one faith atleast. Otherwise the greatest rationalist can be reduced to a nuisance when questioned continuously and intelligently. Without faith, how do we live our normal lives? People have faith in the doctor and his knowledge – so if he says please amputate this leg, people willingly let go of their legs! So dear skeptics, Faith is a good thing.

Next the faith loyalists: When does a faith stop being a personal thing? I personally think it is only when your /our faith questions the next person’s right to holding his faith. Till that point you can hold any faith that you want. But Faith does not mean stagnation. It means growth based on strength of that belief. Faith on earth’s gravity gives you an opportunity to try jumping up. A great faith is one that gives a platform to stand on and constantly try new things beyond it. Faith is constantly built upon and that is how knowledge blooms.  Trying out new things is an outcome of that healthy skepticism. Without skepticism or questioning why, Faith stagnates. I believe a real ‘believer’ (only an English word!) is one who allows his Faith to be questioned for a question would make his Faith stronger or he would have an opportunity to adopt a ‘Faith’ that is stronger.

But what puzzled my already troubled mind is this instance reported in April from Texas – of a social group that believed in polygamy, Yearning for Zion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YFZ_Ranch . This group’s building was raided by police on charges of child abuse and close to 400 children taken away from their parents who believed in polygamy. The girls inside that church are married to multiple older men and are expected to bear children and live in a polygamous closed society. It is a seemingly inhuman situation to be in – and people world over rejoiced that the cult’s society was destroyed and disrupted.

But are we right in doing that? I might be treading the most controversial line here - but who are we to decide how a bunch of people live their lives? They have not stolen from homes or killed anyone with bombs, and then what gives us a right to invade their private living and decide how they should raise their kids? Who are we to decide that the living conditions inside that house are inhuman if the inmates themselves, rightly or wrongly, do not believe so? The people in that society believe that they are living their life as per God’s will. Who gives us a right to disrupt their belief – even if it is a false one? Can we do that with multiple polygamous tribes living in the African and South American forests?

Where should the Faith be asked to stop? And when can society intervene? This seemingly simple question has great ramifications, my friends, right from War in Iraq to Africa – be it a war to give someone independence or give a nation its democracy!