All thinking is a form of believing, and therefore there is no truth apart from faith. The scientist who carefully observes phenomena, for instance, is a person of faith who believes that an external world exists, that it is knowable by the human mind, that the future “resembles” the past (i.e., the uniformity of nature), that causal relationships exist, that the scientific method is able to reliably use logical inference to reach tentative conclusions, and so on. Indeed, the entire scientific worldview relies on metaphysical assumptions no less than any other religious view.On a practical and existential level, then, we note that everyone trusts and makes decisions based on metaphysical presuppositions that they (sub)consciously assume to be trustworthy. Regarding such assumptions, (i.e., axioms of ultimate meaning and “consequential weight”), we are constrained to give account, though we cannot settle the truth of such assumptions using the science or a naturalistic worldview without begging questions…
Some examples of matters of ultimate meaning include: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” “Does God exist?” “Is the universe a finite closed-system of cause and effect or the handiwork of a personal Creator, or neither?” “Is there a purpose to life, and if so, what is it?” “What is the nature of reality? Is everything categorically made up of “matter” (however you define it) or is there a non-material, spiritual dimension to reality as well? On the other hand, could everything be made up of spirit (or mind) and the idea that matter matter “exists” is just a fictive product of the mind?” “Is the universe governed by impersonal forces or does God personally supervise all that happens?” “How do we know things, and indeed, how can we properly define knowledge?” “Do we acquire knowledge exclusively through our senses or may it be attained by reasoning, intuition, or mystical revelation as well?” And so on…
How we answer these sorts of questions reveals what we trust as ultimately real and worthy of our confidence. In other words, since thinking is necessarily a form of believing, and since believing is necessarily a form of “believing that,” or believing in some sort of “object” that answers to the intentionality (or focus) of the mind, then every decision we make regarding the most prosaic of concerns to the most cosmic, presupposes a “deeper narrative” that contextualizes and gives meaning to our lives. This is inescapable to the human condition.
The narratives we believe are not trivial but are “weighty” in their consequence, and the more we trust in the “story” of what is real, the more authority and influence it has over our lives. Practically speaking, you can ask yourself who you would turn to when you are faced with a difficult decision to make. We may not be fully conscious of it, but apart from ourselves, each of us has a list of others whom we regard as worthy of our trust.
We “walk by faith, not by sight,” and this is true of every soul, regardless of their educational level, socioeconomic status, gender, and so on. Each of us is a sojourner in this world; each of us is “going someplace” with the faith that animates our steps.
“Knowledge” has been defined as “justified true belief,” but since belief is axiomatically assumed, what’s left is the verdict we give that regards a particular truth claim to be justified, or warranted. That is how we esteem things to be “facts” or a true matter, after all. It would make no sense for me to say “I know x” when I am unsure if x is true, and what makes me sure that x is true are reasons (or justification) for my faith in the assertion: “I know x.” Truth is a form of “correspondence” or “agreement” with language that points to something and affirms its reality (or state of being). Of course we sometimes get it wrong, and our descriptions are not accurate to what is real; our “x” may not be true, and if it were demonstrated that “x” was not the case, we would conclude that we were mistaken, that what we thought we knew was not really so, that we were wrong in our claim, and so on.
I hope you understand that it is a form of the “straw man” fallacy to say that “faith” is a matter of religious conviction, since, as we have seen, everyone has a system of faith and everyone is bound to assumptions they make about what is “true” belief (i.e., knowledge) and what is not. As G.K. Chesterton said: “It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason itself is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.” The difference in matters of ultimate questions has to do with the “direct object” of your faith. What are you relying on to be the best explanation for the meaning of your life? For atheists and humanists, the object of faith is their own reasoning, not God who created mankind in his “image and likeness.” Theirs is a rather dismal myth that the universe “evolved” into being without any discernible reason, that human life is ultimately experienced as inexplicable and vain, and that the “end of the story” is found in the “heat death” of the universe. The best people can do is learn to love the machine in which they are enmeshed and hope for a meager happiness before they die and are extinguished forever.
No matter who you are, then, if you are able to think at all, you are a person of faith, trusting your fallible sense and fragile sense of rationality to justify or make sense of your worldview. This is inescapably certain, for to deny it requires faith in your thinking to the contrary. Despite this, there is no demonstrable certainty for your conclusions – and therefore you are consigned to the way of faith – even if you are a hidebound atheist or other comedian of the mind. It all comes down to who or what you are listening to, and to whom you yield authority. Every person has a “web of belief” that frames the “grammar” of their life, and the deepest question comes down to: “What are you trusting concerning your life?”
.
Hebrew Lesson
.
- Psalm 27:13 Hebrew page (pdf)