"Faith" was not, originally, a religious concept. Pre-Christian derivatives include Anglo-Norman "Fed" and Latin "Fides" but are even much earlier than these recorded words. Related, more explicitly, to "loyalty" and applied in various forms to military allegiances and nationalistic demands as an emotionally invasive process, "faith" was (and is) used in the secular/ political world to psychologically undermine individuality and to promote group adherence as defined by those in control. The term "faith" was usurped by religions (but most specifically in the last 2000 years, forms of Christianity and Islam) in an attempt to align people's relationships with gods, to demand blind belief (as defined by those in control of religions), and to do this without specific, defined and clear reasoning.
As stated, examples of non-religious militaristic/nationalistic use of "faith" abound in history (early Egyptian militarism, and Roman "world" domination suffice, but very old Chinese records during its unification offer many more examples), but are widely extant at this time, particularly in the United States since 9/11 where the resurgence of militarism and nationalism have resulted in the re-appearance of the proudly overt emotional response, "my country right or wrong." However, the reinforcement of this unquestioning militaristic/nationalistic attitude through the growth, expansion and intertwining of evangelical/charismatic Christian fundamentalism has made it often difficult to differentiate between non-religious political/secular "faith" and religious "faith" in this country.
The American stance in this expansion of unquestioning loyalty through "faith" demand (particularly by political and religious extremists), is presented as a dire national need to balance and oppose the imagined growth of Islamic power as evinced in such books as, "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance," (2005) Ed. Robert Spencer, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, and in the sanctification of soldiers and military/political action in the Middle East, emphasized in the recent political party national conventions.
The American Heritage Dictionary (3rd Ed) defines "Faith" as: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence," (P 656). It has become patently clear that religions' weakest arguments for their existence, growth and continuation are found in their attempts to define and justify "faith" as a reason for belief.
From Aquinas (religious truths are either those of reason OR of faith), through Kierkegaard, "faith" is an illusion as evasive as a mirage. "Faith" looks enticing from a distance, but is simply a loose expanse of formless sand when reached for.
Kierkegaard's ideas are important in this explication and are described thus by Michael Martin in his "The Case Against Christianity;" '....faith as Kierkegaard conceives of it can be condemned on ethical grounds. It is dangerous to be guided by blind, passionate faith, yet this is precisely what Kierkegaard recommends. His knight of faith is simply a fanatic. Indeed, his model of a knight of faith is Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son, Isaac. We know from history the incalculable harm that can be done by fanaticism. Indeed, Walter Kaufmann was certainly correct when he called fanaticism "...one of the scourges of humanity." ('From Shakespeare to Existentialism', [1959] Doubleday, Garden City, NY, P 178)'.
Because of the usurpation of "faith" from its militaristic/nationalistic roots by religions, its formlessness is, unfortunately, more than an a mere illusion - it has become an expansion of Kierkegaard's knight. It is a threat to mankind and the future. In Christianity the merger of "faith" with a belief in the depictions of the apocalypse of the Revelations of St. John the Divine has gone far beyond even the horror of the subordination of the individual to the mass as in "my country right or wrong." It has become an integral part of the belief of the need for the destruction of the world. In Islam a similarly propagated (indeed demanded) violent blind "faith" in Allah promises a heavenly repertoire of rewards to those who die fighting for Him.
Religious "faith", like secular/political "faith", is not only the weakest link in the justification chain of the demand for belief and/or loyalty, it insists on an unreasoned adherence to a series of depicted events that can only be destructive.
Finally and clearly, the continuum between secular/political and religious "faith" and its subsequent violent commonalities do not justify the existence of any deities as described by the holy texts. They simply demand illogical human allegiance to human visions of horror and fanatical (even in their most insipid forms) allusions to very human power and control. ©
As stated, examples of non-religious militaristic/nationalistic use of "faith" abound in history (early Egyptian militarism, and Roman "world" domination suffice, but very old Chinese records during its unification offer many more examples), but are widely extant at this time, particularly in the United States since 9/11 where the resurgence of militarism and nationalism have resulted in the re-appearance of the proudly overt emotional response, "my country right or wrong." However, the reinforcement of this unquestioning militaristic/nationalistic attitude through the growth, expansion and intertwining of evangelical/charismatic Christian fundamentalism has made it often difficult to differentiate between non-religious political/secular "faith" and religious "faith" in this country.
The American stance in this expansion of unquestioning loyalty through "faith" demand (particularly by political and religious extremists), is presented as a dire national need to balance and oppose the imagined growth of Islamic power as evinced in such books as, "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance," (2005) Ed. Robert Spencer, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, and in the sanctification of soldiers and military/political action in the Middle East, emphasized in the recent political party national conventions.
The American Heritage Dictionary (3rd Ed) defines "Faith" as: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence," (P 656). It has become patently clear that religions' weakest arguments for their existence, growth and continuation are found in their attempts to define and justify "faith" as a reason for belief.
From Aquinas (religious truths are either those of reason OR of faith), through Kierkegaard, "faith" is an illusion as evasive as a mirage. "Faith" looks enticing from a distance, but is simply a loose expanse of formless sand when reached for.
Kierkegaard's ideas are important in this explication and are described thus by Michael Martin in his "The Case Against Christianity;" '....faith as Kierkegaard conceives of it can be condemned on ethical grounds. It is dangerous to be guided by blind, passionate faith, yet this is precisely what Kierkegaard recommends. His knight of faith is simply a fanatic. Indeed, his model of a knight of faith is Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son, Isaac. We know from history the incalculable harm that can be done by fanaticism. Indeed, Walter Kaufmann was certainly correct when he called fanaticism "...one of the scourges of humanity." ('From Shakespeare to Existentialism', [1959] Doubleday, Garden City, NY, P 178)'.
Because of the usurpation of "faith" from its militaristic/nationalistic roots by religions, its formlessness is, unfortunately, more than an a mere illusion - it has become an expansion of Kierkegaard's knight. It is a threat to mankind and the future. In Christianity the merger of "faith" with a belief in the depictions of the apocalypse of the Revelations of St. John the Divine has gone far beyond even the horror of the subordination of the individual to the mass as in "my country right or wrong." It has become an integral part of the belief of the need for the destruction of the world. In Islam a similarly propagated (indeed demanded) violent blind "faith" in Allah promises a heavenly repertoire of rewards to those who die fighting for Him.
Religious "faith", like secular/political "faith", is not only the weakest link in the justification chain of the demand for belief and/or loyalty, it insists on an unreasoned adherence to a series of depicted events that can only be destructive.
Finally and clearly, the continuum between secular/political and religious "faith" and its subsequent violent commonalities do not justify the existence of any deities as described by the holy texts. They simply demand illogical human allegiance to human visions of horror and fanatical (even in their most insipid forms) allusions to very human power and control. ©
