Oh Me of Little Faith

Some call me sentimental, others call me fanatical. But either way, once I find an area of interest it usually sticks with me permanently; a thread (or several) that weave together into a fabric of interrelated interests. For instance, amongst its many other associations, Halloween became special to me because it was an opportunity to see illusionists and escape artists on television. TV capitalized on Harry Houdini's Halloween death and aired the annual seance to contact him exposing youngsters like myself both to the unlikelihood of ghosts and, more importantly, the art of escapology.

One of the great escapologists and illusionists that thrilled me was The Amazing Randi. Sure the Pendragons had flash and speed and Lance Burton was flawless in his execution but Randi's confidence and matter-of-factness seemed more driven than mystical. I mean, how many guys older than my dad get chained up and put in boxes, self-liberating themselves all while rocking a Santa beard? As it turns out, Randi was more than amazing.

Following in Houdini's footsteps, James Randi took his knowledge of prestidigitation and sought to expose individuals who prey on the naive and poor with the same techniques he used to entertain. He now runs JREF, the James Randi Educational Fund (www.randi.org) and has published several books related to skepticism. If you go to www.youtube.com and search for 'james randi' you will come across video of him exposing spoon-bender Uri Geller including his legendary "Tonight Show" endeavour (Randi's book on Geller has suffered from well-deserved criticism). Likewise, you will find footage of Randi exposing faith healer Peter Popoff.

This crusade for truth lead to him writing a book about his experiences called -wait for it- FAITH HEALERS. I won't go into too many specifics about the book or its themes but I will explain why I made read two paragraphs of non-religious themes in a religious blog (although if you have read my first blog then you know I am writing about my religion, at least). Obviously he must explain what he means by faith healing as compared to other healing so he must define faith for his readers. It is from Randi's book I derive my usage of the word 'faith.'

Randi offers two kinds of faith: a) believing in something without evidence or data to support the claim and b) believing in something despite the fact that the evidence or data would demonstrate otherwise. An example would be a) "I believe that Coca Cola is consumed by extra terrestrials" b) "I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old."

Critics may call this an over-simplification but I have yet to come up with any matter of faith that does not fall into one of these two categories. Obviously it is easier to employ these usages on material things. It cannot be proved that laying of hands has any efficacy on healing when you seek medical treatment but people have faith that it helps (although a recent article in "Skeptic" describes tests that show there is no increase in efficacy with prayer and other acts of faith). It can be proved, however, that getting necessary medical treatment is far more effective than ONLY laying of hands would prefer this route. The point from these examples is: getting medical treatment is the most effective way to deal with injury or illness. And actually, that is the whole point.

I do not want or need faith. I have no interest in counting on things when I have no reason to. With hope, you may not know for certain what will happen but at least you know what you want to happen. When faith is unwavering you expect a result - in your favor - whether it is even possible or not. If I maintain my car, keep it fueled, turn the key the right way I have enough data from previous experiences to expect it to operate. I don't need faith in my car. I have a pretty good idea of what I am capable of physically, emotionally, and socially. I know my skill set and what it lacks. I don't need faith in myself because I have proven track record that I can look at and either reconsider my actions or gain confidence from. I gather no personal benefit, nor does the world, by making decisions with insufficient evidence. Imagine how even more irresponsible and backwards our court systems would be without the basic requirement that you have to prove your case; if criminal justice were a faith-based initiative. It is a simple point, if you cannot prove in 'x' why would I want to invest anything, personal energy, time, anything, in 'x.' Would you put money in a business you know nothing about? Or worse, would you invest in a business you know to be a sure loser (stay away from video stores, people)? Sorry, Jesus, but once again you got it wrong: a house built on a foundation on faith is about to get washed away.

I can understand the personal value that faith may have for some people. Homo sapiens are pattern seeking animals and will make up answers whether they have proof or not. We want explanations and it just drives us crazy when we don't have them. This has its positive effects: it motivates science and inquiry. It also means that we have a neurological predisposition to making things up. But me, well, I'm tired of makin' stuff up! It has become far more satisfying to me to only believe in things when I have verification of their existence.

When I consider faith I begin to think of its usuage by Chrisitanity. Frankly, I think that faith is one of the Church's self-perpetuating myths that require its adherents to continue to return, submit, and give. The oft-repeated phrase I heard in church growing up was "Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen" (Hebrews 11:1)" Once again the Bible misguides its readers. Faith is far from substantial - it, in fact, relys on individuals accepting unsubstantiated claims. And unseen things rarely can provide evidence - sorry God.

So what's my problem with faith? Perhaps it seems that a person without faith should be able to just let others hold on to what is important to them and let it go. They aren't hurting anybody by having faith are they? Maybe that would be fine if we were just pushing some sort of MIRACLE ON 34th STREET you-just-gotta-believe-in-something message. But it isn't. Focus on the Family's Josh McDowell writes horribly errant and deceitful books regarding the proof of Christianity's claims about Jesus (I should know, I've personally put MORE THAN A CARPENTER in stockings). In an attempt to convert others McDowell distastefully pulls together his favorite, cobbled together Gospel narrative and distorts and inaccurately reports history. Ironically, he makes up a bunch of 'evidence' in order for us to have nothing but a rational response to Jesus' divinity. The reader is then expected to follow the rest of it on faith and repent and be born again and son and so forth. It seems McDowell would want to make Jesus' story as unlikely and improbable as possible to increase the need for faith in God to make it true.

But I'm not sure that he cares. He lies to other believers in such a way that, unless they are genuinely interested in reading about biblical history and scholarship, they have no other course of action but to go along with his version of Christian history. I don't know if he believes, but his scriptures he reads say "the truth will set you free" but he blurs the line between fact and faith to push his own agenda.

James Randi, like Harry Houdini before him, wanted to entertain audiences and educate people. The accomplishments of both of these men are very real and well-documented. I do not have faith in them nor do I worship them; but their forthrightness and desire to expand on the physical and intellectual abilities of being a human is quite inspirational. Maybe having faith can, and does, help individuals get out of bed and set the world on fire (as my mom might say). I just want to make sure that I'm not the one getting burnt.

***Originally posted Saturday, December 09, 2006 ***