Everyone Has Faith, Not Everyone Knows What In | Teen Ink

Everyone Has Faith, Not Everyone Knows What In

January 13, 2015
By Joshua Barber BRONZE, Northborough, Massachusetts
Joshua Barber BRONZE, Northborough, Massachusetts
1 article 0 photos 0 comments

What is Faith? Most people associate the word faith with religion - specifically christianity- because it is such a large aspect of what religion is. Confidence or trust in a person or thing is the exact definition but that still leaves a lot to question. Such as where does it come from and why do people choose to have faith.


Whether you conscientiously chose to have faith in something or not you have faith You have faith that the plane you’re stepping onto won’t crash. You have faith that the water you drink isn’t poisonous. Take the creation of the world for example  You can choose to believe to believe in God, another form or religion, or others might say science. The problem with that statement is that science is a religion. Most scientists prefer to not think of science as such because they would rather not be clumped with those “religious people” but if one simply looks into the definition of religion you will find they are some of the most devout in regard religious practices. Religion, a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects, is what science is in a nutshell. So back to the creation of the world. Christianity proposes that the world was created by God. Science has many incomplete theories such as the “Big Bang” and a more recent theory where advanced lifeforms from another universe created this universe (Sorta sounds like Gods to me). Whatever you believe in you put faith into that belief. In Christianity there is an idea of having great faith and essentially being able to put complete trust in God and to give your life over to him and where he leads you. In science there actually a lot of faith in the theories presented. Since some of these theories are incomplete scientists believe in them without complete proof (such as the theory of the creation of the universe). Scientists refer to this as theory as opposed to a law but in either case they believe in something they cannot totally prove. Now that you see that everyone has faith in many facets of life I would like to move to a more pressing matter concerning faith. The concept of salvation. In the U.S. today there are many mixed beliefs and complications enveloped in these beliefs concerning other religions and such but i’m not going to delve into that right now. The issue I would like to address is that of those who choose to “not have faith”. These are the people who would rather not worry about these matters and get on with life. Now I understand the thought process to one degree or another but the issue I have with that standing is that you have to have faith in one or the other. Science has proven micro-evolution to be true but they also teach that macro-evolution is true which is something they have not quite proven completely (I am also not saying to disbelieve science entirely because in many cases the bible and science coincide). To believe in God is also another great leap of faith where you have archeological evidence proving the bible to be true and historical evidence proving the prophecies in the bible to be true as well and therefore you then in turn believe that God is real and that heaven is real. You have to believe there is a God and therefore follow the christian lifestyle per se or you have to believe in science and therefore have faith that there isn’t a God and all of what you see around you was created by accident. The choice isn’t easy and both are truly great acts of faith. Frivolous as this whole idea is to some people it is an immensely important decision that has to be made. I hope that by showing you this you might consider looking further into this matter and coming to your own conclusion.  



Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 3 comments.


EscapeRope said...
on Feb. 18 2015 at 10:51 am
EscapeRope, Cavite, Other
0 articles 0 photos 36 comments
@Caleb.Andrews has said it all below. I'll just leave you a quote from Dan Barker, "Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing 'yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down. Amen!' If they did that, we would think that they are pretty insecure about it."

on Jan. 25 2015 at 9:33 pm
Caleb.Andrews, London, Other
0 articles 0 photos 27 comments

Favorite Quote:
Multi vad, putini pricep.

"Scientists refer to this as [sic] theory as opposed to a law but in either case they believe in something they cannot totally prove." No, it isn't a law, it's a theory. That's why it's called the Big Bang Theory. And scientists "believe" in it because it is the cosmological model that has the best explanatory power and that most accurately matches our observations. "The issue I would like to address is that of those who choose to “not have faith”. These are the people who would rather not worry about these matters and get on with life." No, those are the people who place empirical evidence on a higher pedestal than unwarranted beliefs. I would know; I'm one of them. "Now I understand the thought process to one degree or another but the issue I have with that standing is that you have to have faith in one or the other." That's an equivocation fallacy. "Science has proven micro-evolution to be true but they also teach that macro-evolution is true which is something they have not quite proven completely (I am also not saying to disbelieve science entirely because in many cases the bible and science coincide)" There is no "micro-" and "macroevolution;" there is only evolution. The only difference between the two is the time required for each to occur; the process is exactly the same. There is no division. And the Bible is not even close to scientifically accurate; I would request examples. "To believe in God is also another great leap of faith where you have archeological [sic] evidence proving the bible to be true and historical evidence proving the prophecies in the bible to be true as well and therefore you then in turn believe that God is real and that heaven is real" I doubt that such evidence exists; please cite it (I have searched, by the way, for such evidence and have not found it). And the latter half of your statement is a non-sequitur. "You have to believe there is a God and therefore follow the christian lifestyle per se or you have to believe in science and therefore have faith that there isn’t a God and all of what you see around you was created by accident" Science, being the study of the natural world, does not comment on the supernatural. And why must everything be an accident? I don't know whether it was, but if it were, so what? What's wrong with accidents? "The choice isn’t easy and both are truly great acts of faith" No. They are not, as I have explained. "I hope that by showing you this you might consider looking further into this matter and coming to your own conclusion" You have shown nothing in this article.

on Jan. 25 2015 at 9:32 pm
Caleb.Andrews, London, Other
0 articles 0 photos 27 comments

Favorite Quote:
Multi vad, putini pricep.

Your argument is one giant fallacy of equivocation, in that you use different definitions of the word "faith." "You have faith that the plane you’re stepping onto won’t crash" That is not religious faith; it is a belief based on evidence (i.e. past experience/gathered information), which religion is not (personal feelings, by the way, are not evidence). "The problem with that statement is that science is a religion" ; "Religion, a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects, is what science is in a nutshell" No. "Religion," as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is an "action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances." Science does not meet those criteria; it is not a religion. Nothing about the scientific method is religious; I would invite you to explain otherwise. "Science has many incomplete theories such as the 'Big Bang' and a more recent theory where advanced lifeforms from another universe created this universe (Sorta sounds like Gods to me)" Science does not declare itself to be dogmatically correct; it is open to all ideas that are supported by evidence. Yes, scientific theories are incomplete; that is because we are still learning, and we know that we do not know everything. It is both interesting and funny that you choose to attack that part of science because it is at the core of why science works. And the latter part of your statement is not a scientific consensus, so treating it as though it were is intellectually disingenuous. Moreover, those theoretical lifeforms are nothing like gods. "Whatever you believe in you put faith into that belief" Assuming the religious definition of faith, then that is incorrect; some beliefs are evidence-based, which mean that one must not have faith in them. Assuming a broader definition of faith that has nothing to do with religion, your argument is simply a non-sequitur. "In science there actually [sic] a lot of faith in the theories presented" See my above section. This statement is incorrect for the same reason as the previous. "Since some of these theories are incomplete scientists believe in them without complete proof (such as the theory of the creation of the universe)" Incomplete theories are signs that we are still learning; they are not signs of faith. I personally would be very wary of a theory that was said to be complete.