Ask Rockridge: O Ye of Little Faith

We were recently asked how we would respond to the following letter to the editor, which was published in The New York Times:

"Paul Krugman says Democrats need to make it clear they value faith. Is everyone caving into this religious nonsense? What is faith but believing in something without any evidence? Why should Democrats value that? Formidable as the task may seem at present, the long-term need is to persuade Americans that having evidence for your beliefs is a good idea."

— Peter Singer, Princeton professor of ethics, letter to the editor, The New York Times, Nov. 8, 2004

I have never been attracted to organized religion and do not define myself as a person of faith. But I am intensely interested in this question of the intersection of faith and politics. What follows reflects my personal view on this sensitive issue, one that is generally shared at Rockridge, but which may not square with the views of some of our readers. I will answer the question not from the point of view of the Democratic Party but with reference to progressive attitudes. I hope that it will inspire a spirited and respectful conversation, to which I will continue to weigh in.

Faith is a contested concept. Peter Singer's 2004 letter presents one understanding. He believes that religious faith is superstitious "nonsense," weak-mindedness. He posits that we should only value beliefs supported by evidence. This objectivist, rationalist approach seems to assume that people do or even can form their beliefs in a purely conscious, rational and fact-based way.

As we have written, our minds don't work the way Singer's position suggests. Cognitive scientists estimate that 98% of our "thinking" occurs below the level of consciousness. Our opinions and beliefs derive from a wide range of factors that have little to do with "evidence." They come largely from our embodied experiences and the messages we hear often enough to be instantiated in our brains. It doesn't matter whether they are "true" or supported by evidence. They comprise our world view.

How many of our progressive values and ideas are supported by evidence? On what evidence do we base our adherence to the values of empathy, fairness, justice, and equality? What evidence supports our faith in our ability to make a better world?

There are other views. One is that faith is an affirmation of the positive possibilities of life -- without evidence. Another is that faith is holding certain things -- like the natural world -- sacred. Still another view of faith is the moral conviction that some things are greater than the individual, whether it's a higher being or a sense of awe and connection with the world and the beings in it.

Granted, faith can lead to intolerance and much worse. Religious faith has been used to justify war, torture, political oppression, and genocide, to oppose reproductive rights and the freedom to marry, to deny evolution, and to promote authoritarianism. Religion can lead to a form of tribalism, separating rather than connecting people. But should we blame faith, or the triumph of the baser instincts within individuals?

Faith has been the primary inspiration for some of our greatest leaders. Mahatma Gandhi's religious faith was central to his political and social philosophy. In fact, Gandhi credited his faith for his political courage: "Only he can take great resolves who has indomitable faith in God and has fear in God." His faith extended beyond God: "Non-violence requires a double faith, faith in God and also faith in man." One might ask which of these faiths required a greater suspension of evidence-based thinking.

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. drew inspiration from Gandhi. Like Gandhi, he understood his mission in religious terms. The values that propelled him to the leadership of the Civil Rights Movement were inseparable from his faith. In his famous 1963 "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," in which he responded to critics of his campaign of non-violent resistance, he said:

"I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their 'thus saith the Lord' far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid."

Five years later, on the very eve of his assassination, he said in an eerily prescient speech:

"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

Progressives are bound together by values. We believe in acting empathetically and with responsibility. We value cooperation and community. We model nurturance. We promote inclusion over exclusivity. We exalt the attitude of "we are in this together" over "look out for number one." Like Gandhi and King, we keep the faith that we can make the world a better place. If some of those who share our values and beliefs happen to tie them to their religious faith, why should other progressives look askance? Why shouldn't secular progressives embrace the countless thousands of religious progressives in this country? Who are we to say that secular teachings represent the only legitimate path to progressive attitudes? And ultimately, doesn't turning our backs to people of faith amount to the very intolerance that we decry?

If I were to convene a progressive caucus, and if King and Gandhi were still alive, they would be at the top of my invitation list, along with the Dalai Lama and the likes of the Rev. Jim Wallis and Rabbi Michael Lerner. And I would ask none of them to check their faith at the door.

Bruce Budner
The Rockridge Institute