Reading the title, I know that some here are saying something along the lines of "WTF??? How can someone have religion without faith? I've heard of spiritual people having faith but ascribing to no particular religion, but the other way around? That's impossible...isn't it?"
Actually, it isn't. Of course, to begin this discussion, we have to understand the nature of what I mean by "faith". One of the (many) definitions of the word "faith" in Webster's Dictionary is "the firm belief in something for which there is no proof". For this very reason, some have described faith as a gift that some have yet to recieve.
And yet, I stand here as someone who is deeply spiritual, very religious, and (in my own discription) a "hard-core" mystic. I also have no faith. Let's explore this paradox...
Reclaiming The Word "Religion"
In our modern culture, the word "religion" has aquired a bad reputation. Some religious entities, having wrapped themselves up in bureaucratic sterility or having become entangled in too much secular politics, have soured some on the very word. How often have you heard someone describe themselves as being "spiritual but not religious"? It's almost as if people assume that being religious is the same as being wrapped up in stale dogma, unable to evolve.
Of course, that's only because we see it so often. But religion doesn't have to be this way. Really, religion is simply the practical application of spirituality. Your spirituality forms (or is formed by) your beliefs, and your religion is simply how you express those spiritual beliefs. Let's say that you believe that a rigorous practice of daily meditation will bring you closer to Divinity. Your belief in meditating is your spirituality, and actually doing the meditation is your religion. Spirituality = philosophy or beliefs, and religion = practical application.
I think it's time to reclaim the word "religion" from those who would sour it's reputation. It's just too useful a concept to abandon.
Experiential Religion
The reason I can have religion without faith is because my religion, Witchcraft (Wicca) is what is known as an "experiential" religion. We have no holy book, no handed-down scriptures (the "Book of Shadows" an individual Witch keeps is more of a cookbook, a collection of rituals and mystical techniques that have proven useful to the individual, and their teachers, over the years). We have no written law (the Wiccan reed..."An it harm none, do what thou will"...is more of a general guide, as I pointed out in one of my past diaries), no central authority. We don't even have a unified theology (as 12 Witches a question about Divinity, and you may very well get 13 answers).
What do we have is personal experience. You see, Wicca is called "The Craft" for a reason...it's more than a philosophy or a belief structure. It's something one does...we do rituals, we do magick, we do mystical journeys to discover the nature of the Gods and Goddesses we work with. While Wicca has a contemplative element, we have many more active elements.
When one does things, one encounters certain experiences. These experiences are often subtle, or happen internally, which means we have to tackle the issue of:
What is real?
Many of the experiences one has in an experiential religion are subjective. In other words, they're not the kinds of things that can be meausred in a laboratory, or even verified by others who were present when the experiences were encountered. They're internal, and can take days, months, or even years to fully understand.
Which brings up the rationalist question "how do you know that the experiences were real, and not all in your mind?" That is something that each participant in an experiential religion has to decide for themselves. The threshold for deciding that something was indeed "real" is a personal one, and over time each person determines their own criteria. For me, being a creative person (I'm currently working on a novel), that threshold was a difficult one to determine. Also, my Virgo nature makes self-delusion an enemy to be vigilant of, and thus the entire question of subjective experiences having validity was not something I lept into. It took years of personal experience to learn to separate imagination from genuine mystical events, and I've only become comfortable with the whole idea of speaking of my experiences openly quite recently (check out my earlier posts...lots of opinion, plenty of theory, but little direct experience shared).
I believe that the question of validity is one that can be answered with a question: how did the experience effect you? DID it have an effect on you? For me, if something has had a "real" effect on you, then it was, indeed, real. (At this moment I'd like to geek-out and share a favourite Harry Potter quote. It's when Dumbledore, in the final book, says to Harry "Of course it's all in your mind, but that doesn't mean it's not real!") Some may say "that's not good enough", but what they're really saying is that it's not enough for them. Experiential religion tends to be individual religion, no matter what cultural framework you're operating within (in my case, Witchcraft), and one person's criteria may not meet up with another's. And that's OK...it doesn't have to.
This is the point that makes some unable to take up an experiential religion...they have a hard time accepting an internal event as having it's own, unmeasurable (at least scientifically) reality. Of course, being a bit of a science nerd, I'm always assuming that science will, someday, be able to measure these experiences, but not yet. (That's also why I draw clear lines between science and religion, calling on science to explain the "how's" and "when's" of the universe, and religion to supply the "why").
Taking Faith Out Of The Picture
So if faith is "the firm belief in something for which there is no proof", then I have no faith. I have experience, and experience brings it's own kind of proof. Everything I do in my religion is tied to my experiences...I don't have to take anything on faith.
Of course, this means that, in experiential religion, there's no room for dogmatic absolutism (I know some will say that statement is absolutist, but let's not get picky). If you have had experiences that lead you to believe that the Christian bible is the acyual word of God, then fine, it is...for you. But it may not be for another. To fully embrace experiential religion, religion without faith, one has to accept that they are forging their own path. You will not become a prophet for others. But you may develop a closer relationship with Divinity than you have ever had, and one that is unshakable. And that's not too bad, is it?
I know I will have more to say on this in the future...I may even write a book on it! But for now, I will leave it there.
Blessed Be,
Taliesin