Truth, Religion, and Faith

All religions make truth claims. To be an honest proponent of a religion one should at minimum believe in its fundamental truth assertions. Hindus, for example, believe in reincarnation. Buddhists believe that Nirvana is the goal of life. Islam believes that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. Jews believe in one God whose laws should be obeyed. Christians believe in a triune God, the authority of the Bible, and the unfolding of God’s Providence in history. To claim membership in a religion when one rejects its fundamental beliefs signals confusion at best and dishonesty at worst.

The doctrinal dimension of faith refers to a religion’s body of beliefs. Catholics, for example, talk about “the deposit of faith” to refer to the truths revealed through Christ and the Church’s role in safekeeping those truths. Buddhists advocate for faith in the Three Jewels (the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha), which lead to the goal of enlightenment, or Nirvana. Others, whether Christian or not, often speak about “my faith” or “our faith,” which are shorthand expressions for “what I/we believe about God, morality, and the meaning of life.”

Faith also has a psychological dimension. The psychological influences on faith are complex and obscure:

When I say “willing nature,” I do not mean only such deliberate volitions as may have set up habits of belief that we cannot now escape from, – I mean all such factors of belief as fear and hope, prejudice and passion, imitation and partisanship, the circumpressure of our caste and set. As a matter of fact we find ourselves believing, we hardly know how or why.1

Psychologically, faith may vary from weak to strong, reflecting one's degree of confidence in a religion's truth claims. Even though religious prayers and dogmas typically use either-or language (e.g., "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and Earth"), belief in practice is dimensional, varying from aggressive disbelief to fervent belief. Thus, two people in a Christian church may recite the Nicene Creed together. One recites it prayerfully, with deep faith that it speaks truth; another recites it mechanically, distracted by thoughts and images from his/her day-to-day world. The former's faith, on a rating scale of 1-10, might be a 9, the latter's a 4.

Whatever its strength, faith doesn't assure virtue or knowledge. In the preceding example, the former may be guilt-ridden and full of spiritual pride and resentment; the latter may be a person of moderately good will and good deeds who thinks little about the faith that s/he weakly professes on Sundays. Moreover, the person with weak faith may know more about the religion’s body of beliefs than the person with strong faith.

Faith also has a trust dimension, which is associated with the phrase, “faith in.” For Christians, faith may mean “putting your trust in God and having confidence that he will fulfill his promises.”2 Christians may also have faith in religious authorities, such as the Bible, a minister, or a pope. Buddhists and Hindus may have faith in a guru as a wise teacher. Jews may have faith in the Torah or the wisdom of a rabbi. An atheist may have faith in the power of scientific method to increase our understanding of nature. Thus, the trust dimension of faith may refer to people, organizations, and concepts, as well as God.

"Faith in" (e.g., faith in Jesus) presupposes "faith that." For example, one must have faith that certain aspects of Jesus’s life and message are true before one can have faith in him. Hence, although a strong faith in Jesus may make for a rich, relationship-oriented religious life that has little need for theology, the theology—the set of truth claims—is there, whether wanted or not, whether understood or not. Without the truth claims, whether explicit or implicit, faith in Jesus would be no different from faith in one’s teacher or football coach.

One can approach the truth of a religious belief system philosophically, evaluating it according to reason and evidence. This approach may demonstrate that certain religious belief systems are incoherent or contradictory given their own presuppositions. Some, for example, have argued that many eastern new religious movements in the West are bastardizations of the Hinduism on which they claim to rest.3

Even when dealing with internally coherent religious belief systems, the philosophical approach comes up short because proving the truth or falsehood of so many fundamental assumptions is either impossible or inconclusive. Christianity, for example, rests on the assumption that Jesus was crucified and then rose from the dead. This is an empirical assertion that, though testable in theory, is not testable in any feasible, practical sense. One believes the assertion—weakly to strongly—or one disbelieves it—weakly to strongly—or one genuinely does not have an opinion about it. One can accumulate reasons to support or reject the Jesus hypothesis, but one cannot disprove, prove, or demonstrate the hypothesis scientifically or logically.4

Some people reject all religions because they cannot be confirmed philosophically or scientifically. Richard Dawkins, for example, views faith as "blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence."5 British mathematician and Christian apologist John Lennox rejects this view of faith, arguing that

faith conceived as a belief that lacks warrant is very different from faith conceived as a belief that has warrant. . . .the use of the adjective “blind” to describe “faith” indicates that faith is not necessarily, or always, or indeed normally, blind. . . . We all know how to distinguish between blind faith and evidence-based faith. We are well aware that faith is only justified if there is evidence to back it up.6

Many beliefs not normally associated with religion also rest on faith, most notably the philosophical materialism that has dominated contemporary culture for many decades. Philosophical materialism says that matter is the fundamental substance and that life and consciousness result from complex configurations of matter, what we could metaphorically call the coordinated "dance" of “tiny things." As I write, a myriad of mental processes take place in what I call "my mind": focused attention on the ideas I am struggling to express, digestive sensations, a growing sense of fatigue, etc. Philosophical materialism says that it ought to be possible, given sufficient technological sophistication, to scan my body, record the patterns made by the myriad of tiny things that "are" me, and produce another "me"—indeed, produce hundreds, thousands, or millions of other "me's"— someplace else and/or at some other time. Another "me" "born" in front of a laptop computer with all my memories, all my habits, and the conviction that he is a particular person born at a particular time and place—a conviction that is false, for his construction was completed minutes ago.

This scenario would have been considered laughably preposterous a few decades ago. But today we can point to a number of popular movies based on the belief that consciousness is made of "things," e.g., Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “The Sixth Day.” This belief is further reinforced by advances in artificial intelligence, which some think will lead to a new cyber race that will displace humans.

Does this mean that we are on the brink of constructing self-conscious entities? Hardly! No more than we were on the brink of creating new species when I was a boy reading about the irradiation of fruit flies. After six decades, these efforts produced a lot of deformed fruit flies, not new species. Looking back, I would have to agree with Yogi Berra, “the future ain’t what it used to be.” So, I suspect that 50 years from now the future won’t shine as brightly as some expect it to today. Nature sets limits on human arrogance.

What, then, sustains the belief that consciousness is made of "things"? Faith! Scientific materialism, like a religion, makes fundamental truth claims, such as that only matter-energy exists. When subjected to rational and empirical evaluation, these beliefs, like those of religion, are not conclusively demonstrated. Indeed, one could argue that the fundamental truth claims of scientific materialism are as far-fetched as many put forth by religions. Yet millions of people believe these claims with varying levels of confidence. None can "prove" his faith. Moreover, compelling scientific arguments, e.g., the fine-tuning of the universe, challenge the materialist’s faith.7

The philosophical analysis of belief systems can tell us if a system is internally consistent and coherent, but it cannot convincingly demonstrate that it is true; otherwise there wouldn’t be so much disagreement among philosophers. Those who already have faith in a system may think that they can prove certain fundamental beliefs (e.g., Aquinas's proofs for the existence of God), but these "proofs" rarely convince those who don't already believe in the system. Hence, the seeker of truth cannot be only a philosopher or a theologian. He must also be a psychologist, for the wellsprings of faith, which is all we can aspire to when it comes to important beliefs, are deeper than rational and evidential analysis.

In his famous essay, “The Will to Believe,”8 William James advanced the notion of “live hypotheses” and “dead hypotheses.” People are willing to act on hypotheses that are alive to them, but are unmoved by hypotheses that are dead to them. For example, some people view Christianity as so far-fetched that they are unwilling to read even a short, apologetic Christian article. Other people, who may not be willing to affirm that they believe in Christianity, find it intriguing enough to engage with people and writings that advocate for the religion. Christianity is a live hypothesis for them.

If one considers the “important things” - i.e., God, morality, the meaning of life - one could make a long list of possible philosophies, religions, or worldviews that one might consider. However, the human lifespan is too short for us to become expert enough in all the possibilities to make an informed, rational decision about which one to choose. I, for example, have not explored Zoroastrianism as a possible religion around which to order my life. I cannot explain precisely why Zoroastrianism is a dead hypothesis for me. I ignore it, and I am not even motivated to explore my reasons for doing so.

For most people, most options are dead hypotheses, not because we have studiously examined them, but because we have made preliminary judgments about whether they are alive enough for us to devote time to them. We take action only on those that we view as live hypotheses, and we ignore those that are dead for us.

James’s essay also provides an interesting analysis of skeptical agnosticism:

. . . he who says, “Better go without belief forever than believe a lie!” merely shows his own preponderant private horror of becoming a dupe. He may be critical of many of his desires and fears, but this fear he slavishly obeys. . . . For my own part, I have also a horror of being duped; but I can believe that worse things than being duped may happen to a man in this world.”9

Skepticism, then, is not avoidance of options; it is option of a certain particular kind of risk. Better risk loss of truth than chance of error, – that is your faith-vetoer’s exact position . . . what proof is there that dupery through hope is so much worse than dupery through fear?10

James, then, suggests that religious belief springs from deep within the human psyche, from the psychological dimension of faith. (Christians would include “grace” as a crucial element of the deep wellsprings of faith.) Reason and evidence may play a role in the formation of religious beliefs, but their role is limited. James ends his essay with a quote from a contemporary:

We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist, through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? “Be strong and of a good courage.” Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. . . If death ends all, we cannot meet death better.11

James proposes that choice is unavoidable, and risk is a constant companion of choice. Commitment, then, is the fourth dimension of faith, the willingness to follow through on a decision. Regarding this matter, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association says:

In other words, faith has two parts to it, and both are equally important. The first part is belief–belief that God exists, and that He loves us and sent His Son into the world to save us. . . . The second part of faith is commitment–a definite decision not only to believe in our minds that Christ can save us, but to put our lives into His hands and trust Him alone for our salvation.12

The commitment dimension applies also to other faith systems. A Buddhist, for example, may commit to a particular guru. A Jew may commit to follow the traditions of his/her ancestors. An atheist may commit to participating in a collective effort to better understand nature through scientific research.

In light of the fundamental uncertainty of things unseen, commitment implies hope, which is faith’s fifth dimension. Hope says that the unseen promise is worth the risk. Hope motivates action. Loss of hope leads to despair and paralysis.

Hope, combined with commitment and confident belief, may lead to the sixth dimension of faith, courage. Martyrs, of course, immediately come to mind, and virtually all faiths have had their martyrs. But faith-generated courage also appears in less dramatic and not directly religious situations. When state delegates gathered in 1776 to decide whether to declare independence from Britain, they reflected a variety of faiths. Most were mainstream Protestants, but others, like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were deists who lacked the full doctrinal faith of Christians. Yet all put their lives at risk by signing the Declaration of Independence. Their faith in hoped-for success was strong enough to give them courage to move forward.

Commitment to a faith system will almost always involve a communal dimension. Relying on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis says:

But faith is also communal. It is not just a private act. In the assembly of believers at Mass, we profess our faith together and join our hearts as we experience ourselves as the Body of Christ. Our personal faith brings us into a relationship with God’s people, and the faith of the entire people strengthens us in our relationship with God.13

Commitment and Community motivate believers to deepen their understanding of a faith’s doctrinal dimension and, usually, strengthen their confidence in the faith system. (Sometimes a deeper understanding may have the opposite effect and cause someone to become an apostate). Religious believers may study their religion’s scriptures and the writings of respected theologians. Atheist scientists may study the literature in their field, conduct experiments, and attend conferences to deepen their understanding of that part of nature that intrigues them.

In summary, the opaque psychological dimension of faith determines what hypotheses are alive for an individual. Like the fellow standing in the frozen, snowy mountain pass, all must make a choice, even if that choice is to refuse to choose, perhaps because of a fear of being duped. When we make a choice to attach ourselves to the doctrinal system of a faith, we declare our trust, however limited, in that faith and the community of believers that support it. If we remain within the community, we may deepen our understanding of the faith. That deeper understanding may strengthen our confidence in the faith, or it may weaken our initial attraction and cause us to leave the faith and its community. If our confidence in the faith is or becomes strong enough, we have hope in whatever promises the faith makes. That hope helps us show courage in the face of difficulties and threats.

One last point: when faith is not overtly religious - e.g., faith in atheistic materialism, faith in a political philosophy, faith in “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” - faith still functions like a religion, for people order their lives around beliefs of supreme importance, even if they do not realize it. As Herbert Schlossberg says, “anyone with a hierarchy of values has placed something at its apex, and whatever that is is the god he serves.”14 That god defines a faith which people believe to be true and important enough to warrant commitment, community, hope, and courage.

In light of the uncertainties that underlie any faith decision, James calls for tolerance, which is a good note on which to end this essay:

. . . we act, taking our life in our hands. No one of us ought to issue vetoes to the other, nor should we bandy words of abuse. We ought, on the contrary, delicately and profoundly to respect one another’s mental freedom: then only shall we bring about the intellectual republic; then only shall we have that spirit of inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is soulless, and which is empiricism’s glory; then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as in practical things.15

1 James, W. (1956). The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy. New York: Dover Books, p. 9.

2 Harmon, M. S. (2022, May 27). What does faith mean? Grace Theological Seminary. https://seminary.grace.edu/what-does-faith-mean/

3 Dr. Johannes Aagaard, a Lutheran theologian, emphasized this point in a symposium that was reported on in Cultic Studies Journal, 10(2), 1993.

4 See my Substack essay, “He is risen!”: A Cultic Sales Pitch? - https://michaellangone552550.substack.com/p/he-is-risen-a-cultic-sales-pitch

5 Dawkins, R. (1989). The Selfish Gene (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 198. Quoted in Wikipedia article, “Faith” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#cite_note-31

6 Lennox, John (2011). Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are missing the target. United Kingdom: Lion. p. 55. ISBN 978-0-7459-5322-9. Quoted in Wikipedia article, “Faith” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#cite_note-31

7 Among many other books, see: Meyer, S. C. (2020). The return of the God hypothesis: Three scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe. New York: Harper Collins; Polkinghorne, J. (2007). From physicist to priest: An autobiography. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books; Spitzer, R. (2023). Science at the doorstep to God. San Francisco: Ignatius Press; Stannard, R. (2017). The divine imprint: Finding God in the human mind. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

8 James, W. (1956). The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy. New York: Dover Books.

9 James, pp. 18-19.

10 James, pp. 26-27.

11 Stephen, F. J. (1874). Liberty, equality, fraternity. London, p. 353. Quoted in James, 1956, p. 31

12 https://billygraham.org/answers/can-you-give-me-a-simple-definition-of-faith

13 https://www.archspm.org/what-is-faith-how-does-it-tie-in-to-what-we-believe-as-catholics

14 Schlossberg, H. (1990). Idols for destruction: The conflict of Christian faith and American culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, p. 5.

15 James, p. 30.