There as been a great deal of discussion recently concerning faith. Numerous members here have expressed their scorn for those who adhere to any religious beliefs or hold some sort of faith in there being a supernatural entity and a purpose to life that extends beyond the laws of nature. I often think the critics are being too harsh in their judgements. Faith is not an object that can be selected from the shelf like a grocery item to place in a shopping trolley. You cannot choose faith; faith chooses you, just as you cannot choose to love or choose to hope. They are all as much a part of human nature as is the desire for life itself.
It is a shame that the three greatest virtues, have in a sense, been hijacked by Christianity. Scholars describe them as the ‘theological virtues’. St Paul in 1st Corinthians 13:13, writes very eloquently about them, though most of what he says concerns love. But I maintain, however, that they do not belong purely to the realms of theology. They are human characteristics. Their presence in all of us, to a greater or lesser extent, help define us as humans.
I have recently read, ‘The End of the Affair”, by Graham Greene. Greene, it is readily acknowledged, was one of the greatest English novelists of the 20th century. Like a number of great intellectuals, he was a convert to Catholicism. Many of his books deal with conflicts of faith. The End of the Affair, which is to some extent autobiographical, is no exception.
The protagonist is a writer by the name Maurice Bendrix. Through various means he learns some of the intimate thoughts of Sarah Miles, his former lover. In her diary he learns, how following a bomb landing on his house, (the novel is set during and after the War) she believes that Bendrix had been killed. Although a committed atheist, she makes a pact with a non-existent God, that if he returns to live, she will leave Bendrix and commit herself to believing in God. It is quite obviously an act of desperation born out of shocking circumstances. She has seen the body of her lover, whom she loves with all her soul, lying senseless under the rubble. In her mind, she knows that he is dead, though in reality she is mistaken. Bendrix recovers consciousness and goes to find her. She, upon seeing him alive and well, is horrified by the enormity of what she had vowed and leaves him. He is understandably confused by her behaviour though he has always dreaded that one day the love affair would end. His love turns to hate.
She too turns to hate, but hate for God. The only thing that God had done since the moment she discovered Him, is to forbid her from seeing the man she loves. She tries desperately to disprove His existence but is unable to do so. She is confused and miserable and becomes very ill. The more she fights against her growing belief in God, she even seeks help to achieve this, the more she comes to believe in Him. Eventually she begins to receive instruction from a Catholic priest.
In a letter written to Bendrix immediately before her death, Sarah describes her faith. She admits it is totally illogical. “One day I will meet you on the Common and then I won’t care a damn about Henry (her husband) or God or anything. But what is the good, Maurice? I believe there’s a God – I believe the whole bag of tricks, there’s nothing I don’t believe, they could subdivide the Trinity into a dozen parts and I’d believe. They could dig up records that proved Christ had been invented by Pilate to get himself promoted and I’d believe just the same. I’ve caught belief like a disease. I’ve fallen into belief like I fell in love.”
Her faith is an emotion. It is important to her as her love she has for Bendrix. It is as important to her as the hope that a mother has for her sick child. Sarah has to believe in a purpose, a reason, a cause, a denouement.
Once Bendrix discovers that he is still loved by Sarah, he tries desperately to win her back. Although she refuses contact with him, he longs for her to relent. Though his hope is more realistic than the hopes of many, in this instance it is rendered fruitless by her death.
It is a curious thing about human nature how so many of our hopes and dreams are completely unrealistic. Every week, millions of people all over the world buy lottery tickets in the vain hope of winning a fortune and securing their future. And to all intents and purposes it is a vain hope. The chances of winning are so vastly remote as to be nigh on impossible.
But where there is the remotest of possibilities, hope will exist. Thus it was an ostensibly vain hope that kept many Jews alive in the concentration camps, though they knew their deaths were a certainty. And it was hope that enabled Ernest Shackleton and his team, under extreme circumstances, to cross the southern ocean to fetch help. Much of what we hope for is demonstrably unobtainable, but it does not stop us from grasping. Hope provides us with ambition for ourselves and our children. Hope drives the entertainment industry and the celebrity culture that goes with it. After all, what is fantasy, but hope in another form? Reality shows are evidence of that.
I am sure that from time to time we all look at various couples we know and wonder how it is that one or the other, or even both, see anything that is worth loving in their partner. So many people appear to us to be totally unappealing and yet they manage to find someone who loves them. There is no logic that can explain, why, where and when love can exist.
Though love is universal, it is more apparent in some than in others. While all the world loves a lover, there are people who seem incapable of love and we deride them for it. We call them ‘a cold fish’ or a cynic. We may even say that they suffer from Aspergers or autism or go so far as to say they are psychopathic. Equally we are derogatory about people who despair; we despise them for it and call them faint-hearted cowards or quitters, while we admire those who inspire hope. In Churchill famous speech to the boys at Harrow he siad:
‘But for everyone, surely, what we have gone through in this period – I am addressing myself to the School – surely from this period of ten months this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. We stood all alone a year ago, and to many countries it seemed that our account was closed, we were finished. All this tradition of ours, our songs, our School history, this part of the history of this country, were gone and finished and liquidated..’
We sing songs of love and hope. We write poetry and tell tales. We admire those great virtues and talk about them with pride and conviction. In a secular environment they are acceptable topics of conversation. Why, therefore, is faith unacceptable? Is it so difficult to acknowledge that millions of people need faith in order to face the struggle of their lives and justify their existence. The huge void created by an absence of faith is too frightening for them to deal with. Is it fair to deride those who believe in something different to what we believe ourselves? One might just as well make fun of somebody for marrying the person they have. Imagine an acquaintance saying, ‘My goodness, your husband/wife is ugly/stupid. How on earth can you be in the same room as him/her, let alone the same bed?’ Few of us respect a person who at the first sign of difficulty says, ‘it’s all over mate, the Krauts/Poms have got us by the short and curlies, we have lost the war/Ashes. Let’s surrender now.’
I grant you that a zealot who shoves his faith in your face is extremely irritating, but so is a lovesick girl who bores for England about some spotty youth or a fame-seeking no-hoper who tortures a guitar in the room upstairs. But outside of the church, mosque or synagogue, should we not show the same amount of respect and understanding for someone who has faith as we do for someone who loves or is filled with hope?
Boadicea's Chariot 
I wrote this a few days ago but was not sure whether or not I would publish it. But then I thought, why not? It is Sunday and there is so much love in the air on this God’s day. I fear though that the visit by His Holiness, the Pope, to Britain has raised temperatures somewhat.
Well that was succinct. Does that mean that you attach more value to love and hope than you do to faith despite the fact that they are both equally irrational emotions, or do you lump all three in the same dustbin?
Yes, you mean you dump them all in the same dustbin. I am sure Boadicea will be thrilled to hear it. Your relationship with her is a purely pragmatic one.
My genius is not appreciated. I am an eagle surrounded by turkeys.
Sipu, those who deride others for their faith are in the minority, and a pretty small one, but one should not confuse faith with belonging to a church. A fall away from the church(s) is not the same as a decline in spirituality. The numbers seeking spiritual understanding has increased, but fewer are seeking it within the established churches.
An excess of faith, love and hope all render the possessor into the category of crashing bore and to be avoided like the plague.
A modicum of any of such attributes held and kept in private is a very different affair.
Personally I find the ‘wearing on the sleeve’ of any strong emotion, vulgar, crass and tedious to others.
A modern phenomenon that signally fails to improve society.
Tomk I think that belonging to a church makes the whole spiritual exercise more intelligible. What I find so tedious these days are the people who do not belong to any of the recognised faiths but claim to have their own unique beliefs. There needs to be an intellectual effort to form one’s own belief but when one questions the people in some detail about what is they believe in, one soon realises that all intellectual rigour is lacking. With a formal religion, the beliefs and dogmas have already been created and one just accepts them. All the intellectual rationalisation has already been done by people far clever and over a much longer period. Why reinvent the wheel? If you cannot accept the faith you were born into, creating your own is idiotic. I accept that formal religious belief is irrational, but informal belief is insane. So, if you want to believe in something, choose a recognised religion.
Hi CO, I tend to agree with you. I am not the sentimental type myself. I do not like needless suffering, but apart from that, I think emotion is overrated. A hot meal, a stiff drink and a good shag are far more appealing.
Simply accepting requires little intellectual effort, that is why the churches are most successful with the uneducated peoples of the world. Personally, I am content to live in wonder. Certainly there are few priests that I would recognise as superior intellects.
I agree that it requires little intellectual effort. That is the point. Do not reinvent the wheel. My objection is people who think they can do better than the established faiths. I cant speak for the Anglican faith, but there are some seriously bright priests around, especially amongst the Jesuits. Or there used to be. There are a few fools around as well, I grant you.
sipu. No 13!
Laughed my head off, thank you for the entertainment.
Re intellectual effort, I expend a great deal of thought whilst gardening, I rarely share the results as a matter of principle, a. most won’t/don’t understand the reasoning and b. too many sheeple into PC ‘received wisdom’ only.
It all gets to the casting pearls before swine routine and becomes tedious. It is bad news when one starts enjoying one’s ennui! Right royal rocky road to all sorts of mental problems!
Not my scene, I do not ‘do’ dramas anymore than you do.
I know what you mean about casting pearls. Incidentally, I came across the word, recently, and though it is probably somewhat contrived, I immediately thought of you. Omphaloskepsis. I must to bed. Good night.
Personally I do not believe in any supreme being. IF others want to that is fine by me. after all I may be wrong and a god may exist.
But as I have stated many a time it is not religion that is a killer but the zealots of the faiths who demand that their will and teachings are the only way. Amongst these I include Muslim fanatics, Catholics who dote on every word the pope says, the loony brigade in the US who insist we have been here 6000 years, Jehovah’s witness who let people die rather than accept transfusions and the list goes on.
It is not religion that is bad but mans interpretation of it to gain power and money. All the fuss over this man form Rome visiting the UK and being told he is gods representative on earth, Who said so? Other men did, powerful men in Rome voted him in in a political way to gain power and favour.
Religion, or mans interpretation of it, has killed more people on this planet than anything else, right down to the Aztecs who pulled out living hearts, or the Greeks who sacrificed to the gods. And still it goes on.
Now now sipu, we all know that the omphalos of our world is in my vegetable garden, we cannot (the royal we)tolerate any scepticism on that subject whatsoever!
All disbelievers will be composted.
Rick, were you a follower of Anne Hutchinson, an early colonial Anabaptist, you would have everyone being their own ‘God’s representative on earth’, how about that?
The colonial administrators of the Theocratic State of Massachusetts weren’t too impressed either!!!
Note to pseu, we don’t actually need a Wiki definition, please spare us!
I am an agnostic. That seems to me to be the most logical position since no one seems to be able to prove either the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. What I am certain of is that if there is a supreme being worthy of respect he/she/it has to be a great deal better than any human, and certainly a great deal better than most of the established religions depict him/her/it.
The established religions require the suspension of logic, unquestioning obedience to men who call themselves ‘God’s representatives’ and adherence to petty regulations. They provide unthinking people with a sense of self-righteousness and a certainty of ‘salvation’. Established religions are, in my opinion, dangerous – they provide an excuse for people to behave in exactly the way they want because their God told them so.
Christina ???
Wrong blog, Christina!
Yikes, little intellectual effort?
Too many examples to quote but Sipu, you are right, Jesuits and indeed Roman Catholics are really well worth a read. I have no idea why, but there are more “intellectuals” who subscribe to this belief than any other.
pseu-omphaloskepsis!
Nice post sipu
There has indeed been scorn here aimed at people of faith, often referred to as ‘godbotherers’, to be honest I’ve yet to see anybody being bothered by a pro-religion post on theses pages.
I’ve read the various comments and posts which you refer to and cringe, we have a lot of people of different faiths who read these pages (some are listed as authors.) It’s as though atheism has become a religion.
Boa, you seem to be like the cricket betting crowd, taking Pascal’s Wager which offers a zillion to one on a win and very low stakes. Worth a punt and nothing to lose. If that counts as agnosticism, why not? 🙂
Soutie, I’m glad you raised that – #26. In fact I think the god-botherers, in particular the Godfather in Rome, would like to believe that not accepting their claptrap constitutes being a religion, when in fact it is no more than simple disbelief without a liturgy or any kind of creed.
Hi Araminta, what I meant was that if one takes an ‘off the shelf religion’ such as Catholicism, the doctrine is already there. One does not have to go and invent explanations for the unknown and rules on how to lead one’s life. When I discuss their faith with some of the more whacky people I come across, I find that nothing hangs together. Of course one has to, for argument’s sake, accept the initial premise that there is a greater being, but having done that it is very difficult to find any consistency or logic. Fairy tales are fiction, but the fantasy involved is usually consistent. You can’t mix Sleeping Beauty with aspects of Rip van Winkle intermingled with Jack and the Beanstalk. To invent your own faith requires a lot of intellectual effort.
Hi Soutie, thanks. Yes I agree, the anti-religious bigotry is every bit as irritating and small minded as religious bigotry. I see today that the Telegraph has compared Richard Dawkins to Ian Paisley. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/jennymccartney/8010999/Papal-visit-Is-Richard-Dawkins-turning-into-Ian-Paisley.html
I wrote about my own feelings on Dawkins some time ago.
http://bearsy.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/richard-dawkins-loses-the-plot/
Sipu, R Dawkins Esq is a self-selected rep for atheism and not typical. His motives are financial, I’m sure.
Sipu, there’s the rub -“accept the initial premise that there is a greater being”. That’s why ‘faith’ strikes me a empty. If the best you can do is use words like ‘greater being’, your creed is essentially arbitrary. The whole edifice of Christendom is built on the ideas of people who have done just that: “invent(ed) your own faith.” It’s been a very profitable enterprise in terms of influence but now its fundamental basis is being questioned.
Janus, I have little doubt that you are not without some intellect though I confess to being dismayed by the ruthless efficiency with you manage to disguise that faculty.
Sipu, I’m waiting for you to challenge it akshully. Where does intellect enter religion, pray?
Janus, I do not say this to insult you. I know you do not like ad hominem and nor do I. The thing is I really do think you are very stupid and discussion with you is a waste of time.
Hi Sipu.
Your comment #29. Thank you for the clarification. I understand what you mean.
But just to say, I find the whole subject of religion fascinating, particularly from a historical and philosophical point of view.
I cannot understand the scorn which Soutie mentions at all. I love churches, I enjoy the feeling of community, the paintings and music. But I have been brought up to appreciate these things.
I cannot in all honesty say I believe in God, but I believe a spiritual dimension is an essential part of our humanity.
Hi Araminta, I don’t believe either but I am grateful for my Catholic upbringing. Despite what others say, I think religion is a civilising influence and I believe a world without it would actually be a worse place. The fact, is I don’t believe the world will ever lose religion. It is too essential to too many people. Just as love and hope are essential. Bearsy says love makes sense for procreation. Animals do not fall in love. One does not need love to procreate. Faith is part of human nature as love and hope are. Some have more than others.
I’m relieved to know that. If you agreed with me, I’d be very worried about my sanity.