If we make decisions based on the notion that our thoughts, words and actions will have kammic consequences in the future
, and if we base that on "well the Buddha has been correct about so many other
things, maybe he is right about this one, too - maybe the sutta recorders have
indeed accurately handed down this doctrine. I'm not 100% certain yet, not having seen it directly, but I had better live my life as though it were,
and make decisions accordingly" - then yes, we are exercising a measure of what I would call informed faith.
Not blind. Based on my experience of the Dhamma working for me thus far, and on the fact that men and women of great virtue. calm and insight (various advanced practitioners I have met over the years) also
live their lives as though the law of kamma
& rebirth according to kamma
is real (whether or not they have seen it in operation directly
as yet). I don't feel like a supertitious ninny for this.
So if I (or some others I suspect) take issue with Harris, it is on this idea: that we could completely
dispense with faith, and still be practising the Dhamma. I'm not so sure about that (unless one has higher powers and has directly seen the faring-on of beings according to kamma - not many have done so nowdays afaik).
I sense that this flows from the modern-day subconscious deification of science as the highest authority in matters of truth. While science does have it's place and usefulness, there are some questions it cannot answer - and maybe never will. I'm not saying throw out science, no; I'm just pointing out a prejudice that might be influencing
Harris' view on faith (ie, seeing it as totally