It's going viral - the notion that faith is a practice; that belief in God doesn't actually commit the believer to... well, any belief; doesn't commit him or her to a belief about the existence of... well, anything. That was the wisdom of Michael McGhee a few days ago. Then, yesterday, there was Theo Hobson saying that Christianity is not like 'a conceptual system' that can 'explain huge aspects of reality'; it is a myth, though a 'true' myth. But, then again, though true, it 'comes into sharp, shocking conflict with reason'. He elaborates:
Faith is an attitude of unwarranted affirmation; it holds that all things are possible. Ultimately it means trust that the kingdom of God is coming, that the world will be transformed into some scarcely imaginable state of perfection. It is not a rationally defensible position to hold that all will somehow be well thanks to some sort of divine victory over evil and death. Christianity commits us to this embarrassing mythological language. In practical terms Christians do not have to reject science, but they have to speak in a way that starkly breaks the rules of reasonable discourse. Let's admit it.
So, a myth and against all rules of reason and not explaining huge aspects of reality, not even that Very Huge Aspect of Reality which religious belief purports to be centred upon.
And now, today, we have Andrew Brown, according to whom faith is 'a combination of self-discipline and hope in an uncertain future state'. Further:
This definition of "faith" has nothing to do with propositional truth, and quite right too. It is much closer to "trust".
No propositions involved, then; such as the proposition... well, that there's a God.
If I were a person of faith, I'd be worried by this kind of thing: defences of faith that basically give up on its central core, as not being rationally defensible; and by implication the open welcome - as in Hobson's choice (!) above - given to the pleasures of abandoning all reason.