The problem with faith is indicated by the fact that it allows a person to
believe *anything* that he can vaguely conceive of, totally without regard
for whether there is any basis in reality or not. It has essentially the
same reality-linkedness as does flipping a coin to answer the same questions
that faith is supposed to answer. That is, the problem with faith is that it
is as purely subjective as it is theoretically possible to get. There is no
empirical reason to believe that faith is even accidentally correct as often
as we would expect by pure chance. That is, we would probably do better by
taking a contrarian view of faith, and simply rejecting whatever most other
people have faith in, than by accepting whatever they have faith in, so
often to faith-based beliefs turn out to be wrong in the real world,
whenever they are tested. Of course, even contrarianism would only increase
one's chances of being right by a small percentage.
Ultimately, because there is no objective basis for faith itself (it is a
"method" of no actual method at all), and because it is empirically
demonstrable that most faith-beliefs are false, a rational person has to
reject faith.
Historically, faith has fared no better. Every major evil of human history
has been perpetrated on the basis of faith, without exception, as have been
most minor evils as well. It is not an accident that the Dark Ages were also
the period in European history in which faith was at its maximum. It was not
an accident that Hitler denounced reason and advocated "thought" and action
based on mindless passion. It was not an accident that Communism relied on
mindless repetition of slogans and the monstrously irrational ideas of Marx
(such as polylogism, or the belief that *logic* varied according to one's
economic class, and that, therefore, one need not judge the *rationality* of
one's arguments, but only needed to know the *class* of the speaker to
evaluate his arguments). All major wars are based on faith. Genocide is
based on faith. Racism, a form of genetic collectivism, is based on faith.
Slavery is based on faith. As Ayn Rand and others have pointed out so
eloquently, faith and force go hand in hand, because, when reason is no
longer available to resolve disputes, force is all that's left (or abject
surrender).
In recent times, more attempts have been made to reconcile faith and reason,
especially in the form of reconciling faith and science. It is true that
some scientists have been religious, but it is not true that this shows that
faith and science are compatible. They are not, but not because of disputes
over particular matters of facts (e.g., whether there really are moons
circling Jupiter, or even whether abiogenesis occurred or occurs). They are
incompatible because faith represents a rejection of *the* fundamental rule
of rational belief:
Believe all -- but *only* -- what you have rationally adequate
cognitive basis for thinking to be true -- and be very careful
about how easily and why you conclude that *do* you have
rationally adequate cognitive basis for a belief.
Faith, in its purest form, does not bother with cognition at all. It is
*purely* subjective. But, even in its impure forms, cognition only plays a
supporting role, mainly to rationalize beliefs held for non-rational
psychological reasons. Faith thus rejects this rule. This is about the only
thing that you can't believe on faith (if you try to believe it on faith,
the fact that you are accepting it on faith contradicts what you are
claiming to *believe*, so you do not *really* believe it, because you are
still operating on the belief in faith).
Because faith introduces erroneous beliefs into the mind and sets them in
the same "ecological niches" as might otherwise be occupied by rational
beliefs, the mind will try to use them as if they were rational beliefs.
Because they are false, or at least not well-founded, false conclusions will
follow. These false conclusions will lead to inappropriate actions, such as
serial murder, genocide, or (in the case of some men) trying to pee through
the opening in a toilet seat without getting any on the seat. :-)
In any case, I find it hard to see how anyone knowing anything about current
beliefs worldwide or popular beliefs historically, or who can even examine
his own beliefs introspectively, can believe that faith is a "rock."
Science is not a rock, either, of course. It's more like cartography, in
which we progressively improve the maps to reflect the latest information
about reality.
Philosophy is where the only rocks are. Something exists. You exist (if you
don't, I don't have to worry about you reading this and getting upset at my
presuming that you exist). What a thing is, *is* what it is. Etc.