Faith is, of course, at the very heart of all religious belief.
We use the term "faith" as though it had a definite meaning we all shared and understood. Almost as though the meaning were self-evident. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the context of Christian theism, faith can have extremely diverse meanings. The Faith entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Faith (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), makes this point:
"One of the striking and intriguing facts about theorizing in this area … is that people have offered radically different accounts of what faith is – to such an extent that there remains disagreement even about the basic ontological category to which faith belongs."
For those inclined toward scholarly writing, I highly recommend the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia. It deals with the various models of faith specifically in the context of Christian theism. It's one of the best things I've read and is remarkably "plain English" as philosophical writing goes (which isn't to say it's easy going, but the essential points aren't difficult to grasp).
Having at least some understanding of what you mean by faith would be useful, wouldn't it? Understanding the way others may be using the term might help avoid confusion and misunderstandings, eh?
We all know Hebrews 11:1 – "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If this were an entirely clear and unambiguous definition, lengthy discussions like the one in the Stanford Encyclopedia would be unnecessary.
The substance of things hoped for? What does that mean? The evidence of things not seen? Faith is evidence?
I used to simply equate faith with trust. The Stanford Encyclopedia acknowledges this: "At its most general ‘faith’ means much the same as ‘trust’."
I even wrote articles in this vein. If I choose to climb a 30-foot wooden ladder, I can't know for sure it won't collapse under me, Based on its condition and appearance of sturdiness, however, I can "have faith" it won't. Faith in God, I used to say, is just a higher version of such trust.
I now realize this isn't adequate. Religious faith is something more than the trust I place in a ladder. Religious faith is in a different ontological category. The failure to recognize this is the source of much confusion.
I then adopted this definition: "Faith is living as though my convictions were true while accepting they might not be." I like this much better. It's more in line with what Hebrews 11:1 is talking about when it refers to things "hoped for" and things "not seen."
Faith in God is not like trust in a ladder. It's fundamentally (ontologically) different.
I have no doubt the ladder exists. Its existence can be objectively known. I can examine it to my heart's content before deciding to trust it. If it's a name-brand metal ladder I just bought at Home Depot, my leap of faith will be miniscule. Not so with God. Religious faith is in a fundamentally different category that Hebrews 11:1 captures with its reference to things hoped for and not seen.
New Atheists like Richard Dawkins claim religious faith is mindless and blind. Some Christians view it almost this way. They "simply trust" in God, the Bible and the whole Christian ball of wax. Nothing can shake their faith – no philosophical or theological argument, no body of experiential or scientific evidence, literally nothing. They are proud of what strikes nonbelievers like Dawkins as mindless, blind and even delusional.
And yet, these Christians would strongly disagree their faith is mindless or blind. They have an internal assurance that the object of their trust – the God of Christianity – is real and trustworthy. This is what famed Christian epistemologist Alvin Plantinga is talking about with his Reformed Epistemology. He insists Christian belief can be justified on the basis of nothing more than the sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) we all share and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. Not everyone agrees, but this is one legitimate model of faith.
This highlights one key distinction between Christian faith and faith in something like a ladder. As the Stanford Encyclopedia says, "In the Christian context, faith is understood both as a gift of God and also as requiring a human response of assent and trust, so that their faith is something with respect to which people are both receptive and active." In Christian faith, God is a participant. This is why Christian faith is ontologically different from faith in a ladder - it's a different animal.
The O'Darby definition above could be understood as eliminating the role of God. It could be understood to mean that I simply reach a sufficient level of conviction in the reality of God – through my own experience, observation, study, reflection and intuition – that I'm willing to say, "OK, I'm going to live as though this were true even though it might not be."
I'll admit, my understanding of faith was pretty close to this when I formulated the above definition. However, I now realize that defining faith solely in terms of my own convictions isn't sufficient. It would reduce Christian faith to just a higher version of faith in a ladder. Real Christian faith, I now accept, must include God as a participant. There is some element of it being a gift of God as Ephesians 2:8 suggests ("For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"). This element of faith being a gift of God is something every believer experiences.
I happen to think a faith that is based on strong, well-informed convictions and a recognition of the role of God (i.e., sensus divinitatis and internal witness of the Holy Spirit) is likely to be the deepest and most able to withstand life's challenges, but it's certainly not the only type of faith.
The Stanford Encyclopedia suggests there are various components to all models of Christian faith. Things like an affective component, this being a feeling of assurance or trust (not in the abstract but in God as the object). Another is a cognitive (knowledge) component, which may be the gift of God or the type of convictions of which I speak (or both). A third is a belief component. The various models of faith interpret and apply the components differently – hence the lengthy discussion in the Stanford Encyclopedia.
The overarching point is that when we speak of faith we're not all speaking the same language. I think it's important to understand what you mean when you speak of faith as well as how others' understanding may differ. I thus encourage you to read the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia because it deals specifically with faith in the Christian context and is quite readable as philosophical writing goes. If you're not inclined to do this, I'd encourage you to at least give some thought to what the term faith really means to you.
A final point is that I do believe some element of uncertainty is inherent in religious faith. Many Christians resist this. They insist they know God is real and have no doubt whatsoever. They confidently assure me that if I admit to uncertainty I've never met Jesus and have no real faith. With this perspective, where is the faith? Why does Hebrews 11:1 speak of things hoped for and not seen rather than things known?
Are these Christians really saying they know the God of Christianity exists in the same way I know a ladder does? Yes, I think they basically are - but I also think they're not being honest with themselves or with God.
This inner knowing that some Christians speak of is, I believe, simply a very strong conviction or level of assurance that may well be a gift of God. To claim it as knowledge would be to eliminate the role of faith that is at the very heart of religious belief. Faith is a response to uncertainty, not the elimination of uncertainty. As the great Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard wrote, faith is "holding on to the objective uncertainty with infinite passion” while venturing “out over 70,000 fathoms of water."
