What I have said thus far will be easily understood by some and will also posse some problems for those who are more vehemently materialistic. I would imagine that they, for no other reason than their secular dogma, would be against faith in any form, including the way in which I portrayed it here. I would think a majority of those in the anti-faith camp reject it because they do not understand its history, nor do I think that they have taken the time to understand it. For them, the stigma is too gross. They may only know the word to be associated with radical fundamentalists and religious terrorists. I’ve heard them say that, since these types of people hold faith it must be evil and rejected on all grounds.

So, they have gladly picked up their definitions from elementary readings such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and the like. These dogmatic definitions are not accurate to the literal and historical understanding of the word or the employment of the term used by many today. I will admit there are some champions of faith that harm its classical definition — obscuring it with their false understandings and misguided teachings. Luckily we live in the age of information, and all the claims made by any person can be checked and double-checked.

If you fall into the camp that rails against the idea of faith in the antiquated sense, I will urge you to give it a second look. You might be a little embarrassed to find that you have been employing the classical version of faith in large areas of your life. There are none among us who can avoid living by faith. The next time you visit the drive-through at your favorite fast food joint, remember that you have faith in the attendant. Faith that they will not hurt or poison you. Faith that they will do their job and treat you properly. This is the faith that the world runs on, the faith that is employed in every decision, and every interaction. The faith that you use in your daily life and the faith that is implied whenever you make your leap.