Via Twitter, @TheOnlyRealSage asked me if I have any words on lost faith or hope.  To start with, we need to understand what these words mean.  Faith is often used interchangeably with belief or trust.  In such cases, to lose your faith in someone would mean a loss of trust or belief in their words or actions.  Another use of “lost faith” is in a wider spiritual sense and means to become disillusioned with a particular view.  In this light, Faith is the acceptance of an explanation for something that has no other reasoning that satisfies you.  When you begin to doubt this explanation, you lose acceptance and eventually you’re left with no satisfactory answers.

The problem with faith in a specific system or religion is these are generally static, meaning they have little room for change.  Yet answers must change as our understanding of the world changes.  Anything unable to reasonably grow with our awareness will often bring us into direct conflict between our faith and our understanding.  While it may be possible to make enough justifications in our minds to reconcile these differences, it’s often that we have to let go of old answers that simply no longer work for us.

I am one of those that consider Science a faith.  Science is filled with “best guesses” that explain the unknown.  They say that 96% of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy.  Nobody has ever actually been able to detect an actual dark matter particle, but they believe them to exist because of the way their gravity affects light.  Another theory says that everything is made up of vibrating “strings” but these are too small for us to observe right now.  These parts of science are called “theories” and basically are explanations that, if accepted, are done so with some level of faith.

I like Science, it brings us fun stuff like computers and the Internet.  Other faiths in the past also brought us good things.  Sure, they brought bad things too, but I don’t need to point out the multitude of bad things science has brought along with the positive.  But for me I recognize that eventually a new understanding of the world that will advance us even further will come to be.  Every other faith in the past has been replaced over time.  A classic zealot of Science would say that this too would be science, because only through the scientific method can we know the universe.  As a child I was told that only through Christ could I know God.  Same thing, different words.

So if every answer out there has become outdated by doubt or simply doesn’t set with you in a satisfactory manner, you have lost all faith.  It can be a very uncomfortable position because you now have no answers concerning the unknown.  As a philosophical Taoist, my solution is to have my faith be that things will be what they will be.  No matter what religions or sciences tell us, things will always be what they are.  The only thing that changes is our understanding of them.

When an answer fails, the world hasn’t changed.  It’s the constant.  This is what I accept.  Then I can accept that all other perceptions, beliefs, answers, religions, sciences can be wrong and need to change or be set aside as I explore new understanding.

Faith is a journey.  A journey we each walk our entire lifetime.  It’s very personal.  It’s about you or me and our own understanding of the world, of the universe, of all things physical and spiritual.  Make your faith about finding answers rather than following them, and you will never be lost.

Growing up, I heard it said that some people have “book smarts” but no “common sense”.  This meant that some people, although highly educated, seemed lost concerning the simple things.  This is a long standing observation.  The Daodejing has some  similar statements:

“The wise one does not know many things; He who knows many things is not wise.”

“The more knowledge you seek, the less you will understand.”

I don’t think this means that wisdom and education are mutually exclusive.  It is however, the tendency of an educated person to rely more heavily on their education than their intuition.  When you learn things, new doors open for you but at the same time, often other doors close.  It’s not because they have to, it’s because we choose to let them.

The child stops believing in fairies, unicorns, ghosts, devils, angels, gods; as he replaces them with facts, equations, formulas, methodologies, explanations.  The simple things become more complicated as they are examined, classified, and broken down into parts and procedures.

I have nothing against knowledge.  I fully embrace technology and enjoy the wondrous things we can do.  Science has brought us some amazing things.  Yet like most things we do, these too come with costs.

I’ll skip over the obvious costs to the environment our scientific advances have waged and speak to a more social one.  A new intolerance.  I shouldn’t say “new”, but perhaps “evolved” would be more fitting.  What we once knew as religious intolerance has become scientific intolerance.

Those people who still cling to ideas that require “faith” alone which cannot be proven or dis-proven by the scientific method are often ridiculed for their “hokey” or “backwards” beliefs.  They are seen as uneducated or even intellectually inferior.

It’s almost a passing of the torch from one belief system to the next.   I do mean belief system, too.  I have had conversations with some of the more hardcore intellectuals who adamantly deny that science is a “belief” system.  It’s a methodology that is substantiated by empirical evidence and verifiable through repeatable experimentation.  I agreed with him, but then I asked, “Do you, or do you not believe the conclusions reached scientifically?”

Science is a system through which conclusions about the universe and ourselves can be reached.  Those who subscribe to this system often do so to the exclusion of all other systems.  To them, science is the only system which can provide the answers and any other method is incorrect.  Sound familiar?

Did I mention that I like science?  It’s beautiful, intricate, sometimes mysterious, sometimes frustrating but has helped us build things and advance our society in so many ways…both helpful and harmful.  Of course this same description can probably fit with most popular religions at some point in history.

Despite all their similarities, it’s their differences we focus on.  Which can mean only one thing.  It’s not religious intolerance or scientific intolerance.  It’s just plain old intolerance in general.  Religion and science don’t have to be a “this or that” choice.  A man of science can pray or meditate.  A spiritual person can recognize that life evolves.

We don’t have to make a choice between wisdom and knowledge.  No belief system has all the answers.  In fact, most belief systems  change over time.  Yes, even science has evolved.  So follow your interests, follow what feels right and makes you happy.  Become a physicist that’s also spiritual.  Find the answers that fit you, not the answers that someone else tries to fit on you.

Do that, and then be content that your neighbor has done the same.  Even if your answers don’t match.

A friend and I were discussing religions (as I had been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins), and he, like Richard, sees religion as nothing more than superstition formed by lack of knowing the real truth, which is science.

Throughout history, our religions have changed and adapted as our awareness and understandings also changed.  We have gone from worshiping the sun and moon and seasons to worshiping beings that control the sun and moon and seasons.  We have had pantheons that oversee almost every detail in our lives to singular omniscient deities that are seen as eternal parental figures.

Every step of the way, we were quite certain that our beliefs were sound and real.  They were, too, for the time we had them.  I suggested to my friend that science could simply be the current evolution of the belief system.

Of course he was put aback by even the slightest comparison between his correct and tested understanding of the world and absolutely fictitious view help by those of “faith”.

“Even that is similar,” I noted.

“How so?”

“Is science and the scientific method the one path to knowing the truth about ourselves and the universe we live in?”

“Yes.”

“Isn’t  that rather like the religious person who believes their deity is the source of truth?”

“Absolutely not.  Science is based on observation, repeating, testing, verifying.  The conclusions of science are proven.”

“Is proven a constant?  Can something proven and accepted scientifically ever again be questioned?”

“Of course.  That is why science differs from religion.  As discoveries are made that change our understandings, science incorporates the new knowledge.”

“So as a scientist, one should admit that everything we believe to be true is only believed to be true because it’s the limit of our current awareness.”

He considered this a moment then nodded in agreement.

“Which means that even the methods we use to measure and prove things may be subject to question.”

“I suppose so, but the method of observation and testing is a constant for science.  We can always question our conclusions based on new information becoming available, but any new conclusions must be arrived at through the same process.”

“How do you know it’s a constant?”

“Well, it just is. It’s the best way to study anything.”

“So you must presume the scientific method is the correct path to fully understanding the universe, since the method obviously cannot prove itself.”

Again a slight pause. “Yes.”

“It seems to me that the method of science is the same as deity.  It provides for you what God provides for someone else.”

“What is that?”

“Belief.  Answers.  You believe in science as the absolute, unquestionable path to understanding.  All other manners of arriving at the truth are archaic, superstitious or due to inadequate education.  You have faith in the scientific method because to your way of thought, it is the only intelligent process and it provides conclusions that you  and others can observe and verify.”

“Believing in a god cannot be compared to science.  You read Richard’s book.  How can you possibly not understand this?”

“To me, arguing that one’s own belief system, which is ultimately based on some aspect that cannot be proven and requires faith, is more correct than a separate one with the same qualifications seems a bit silly.  I personally don’t have anything against science.  I really enjoy all of the positive things It has allowed us to achieve through the faithful study if It.

However the existence of one way of perceiving does not exclude all other ways of perceiving.  In fact, a time may come when there might very well be a way of thinking that completely changes how we view the universe and science will be perceived as a hokey superstition.  Just as we once thought the sun was pulled across the sky by the gods in a celestial chariot, so too one day will things such as our explanations of gravity, time and space be seen as unenlightened.”

“There’s a lot more probability that the scientific method is true than there is a probability of there being a god.”

“Really?  This probability is based on what calculations?  Scientific ones, hmm?”

He just grinned, shook his head and through up his hands as if he had given up trying to get his point across.  Of course, I have seen this reaction from religious friends trying to talk me into accepting their belief system was superior.  He is just one of the faithful.

Happily I might add, and that’s really what matters isn’t it?