Standalone Essays · Triad of Stewardship

Faith vs Trust: What a Sojourner Can Believe In

Some would argue that the type of faith I address is what is called a “blind leap of faith.” They would say that their faith is not blind at all, but is based on an ongoing relationship with God and on their experiences. I get that argument and I’ve heard it many times over the years. I also respect their right to their belief and the comfort it brings, even while continuing to hold that it is a false comfort. Let me show the reasons behind my skepticism.

First, I’m glad to say that I have a wonderful wife with whom I’ve been married for over three decades. She has demonstrated her loyalty to me through thick and thin. She has loved me (often sacrificially) for about half her life now. I can see her, touch her, and hear her voice as she gives me sound advice. I can see direct connections between the things she says and does and the results. I can see no such thing with God. There is no one to see or touch. I can pray, but as often as not, there is no result. From time to time I might ask for a thing, like a job, and get it, but it is rare enough and random enough to be pure chance. I have discussed the plight of orphans with my wife and she responded, “Let’s adopt some.” But if I discuss the same problem with God, the orphans go on suffering neglect and abuse. I can feel social anxiety or PTSD and my wife will comfort me. She will hold my hand, or speak calming words, or purchase medicine for me. God? I’ve not received any such comfort in my entire life. Instead, his “people” have abused me, falsely accused me, and put their own needs ahead of the good of the many. That’s as close to God as I’ve ever gotten. If there is a God out there, he must be a hermit, or have his phone on “do not disturb,” because I’ve watched thousands of Christians be tortured and killed with not so much as a chirp from him. And I’ve read of Christians doing the same to others, claiming to have his approval!

Second, anything that I can equally say about an obviously fictional character as I can about God, with the same amount of resulting proof, should be a clue. Let’s use the comic book character called Tony Stark. “I know that Tony Stark lives, because I feel him in my heart. I pray to Tony Stark every day and he solves my problems for me. If he doesn’t, then I know that he either said ‘no,’ or ‘wait a little longer.’ But even though I can distinguish no response for years, I still know that he answers my prayers. I spend about ten percent of my income on Tony Stark paraphernalia and to fund conventions, but it brings me great comfort to know that there are many other fellow Tony Stark believers.”

These are all things that Christians say or hold. They would argue that the ones who believe in Tony Stark are lunatics, but the truth of the matter is that there would be just as much evidence about the reality of the “Tony Stark Faith” as there is for Christianity. They point to their Bible. I could point to film evidence of the existence of Tony Stark. They might argue that the man onscreen is just an actor, and not actually Stark. But I could respond (as they do about the Apostles) maybe, but the actor was controlled by the Holy Spirit of Pepper Potts so that everything he did and said was a direct, infallible reflection of the mind of Tony Stark.

If at some point God shows up and stops a war, or feeds the hungry, or heals the sick, or does any good thing at all — directly, himself — then I will be happy to adjust my beliefs. Christians will argue that when God does finally show up (after thousands of years of absence) it will be too late for the likes of me. He requires blind obedience and faith with no evidence, and those that refuse to do this will burn in hell forever. They will not be allowed to change their minds based on evidence. To my mind, if such a God does actually exist, and does show up, he would reveal himself to be a cruel tyrant and should be resisted by any means possible, much like Thanos.

Having said that, I would like to reiterate my respect for their right to said beliefs and the comfort they may derive from them. My goal is to maintain a respectful and open dialogue. I would hope that a Sojourner’s recognition of others’ perspectives, despite disagreement, can foster understanding and prevent the conversation from becoming adversarial or dismissive.

Historical existence is not spiritual authority

A believer might respond: “Yes, but Tony Stark is known to be a fictional character, while Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character.” All right — what if we used the same argument for another historical character? Take Siddhartha Gautama, the man who would later be known as the Buddha. Both men are broadly accepted as having existed as historical figures.

For Jesus, we have the New Testament’s record. But this would be circular reasoning were it not for a couple of outside references, wouldn’t it? It would be like saying Harry Potter was a real person because the book series by J.K. Rowling said so. However, we have brief mentions by Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, so there is at least some sparse support for his existence. Most scholars do accept his historical existence. Of course, the historicity of his miracles and resurrection remains a matter of considerable debate.

The Buddhist scriptures (the Pali Canon) and other Indian texts offer considerable evidence of the Buddha’s life and teachings. But archaeological discoveries and inscriptions also provide corroboration for aspects of his life and the socio-political context in which he lived, so there is little doubt among scholars that he actually existed. The same level of debate is maintained about some of the more magical details of the Buddha’s life. But while these may be open to interpretation, his historical existence certainly is not.

So the same level of proof exists, more or less, for each of these men, yet Christians would categorically deny any spiritual authority the Buddha might have. This rejection implies that historical existence and spiritual teachings alone are insufficient for spiritual authority. By extension, then, Christians too cannot use Jesus’ historical existence as an argument for his authority.

I mean no disrespect to either the Christians or the Buddhists. Christians comprise about 31% of all the religious people of the world. Buddhists form about 7%. Though I did not use Mohammad in my argument, I could have; about 26% of the religious people are Muslim. If I were intent on being disrespectful, I would have about 64% of all the religious folk mad at me! My argument should not be seen as a direct attack on a given religion. I’m simply challenging the assumption that historical existence automatically confers spiritual authority. One religion cannot use the argument while denying it to other faiths, especially when they have more verifiable evidence. I’m inviting all the Faiths to explore other potential factors or justifications for accepting their central figure’s spiritual authority beyond his mere historical existence, and to reflect more deeply on what truly constitutes spiritual authority.

Is science also a form of faith?

One might object that science is itself a kind of faith — that scientists basically tell stories to explain the facts they see, and that they have often been wrong. Surely we can agree that science has brought us a lot further than religion ever has. It has increased our lifespans, improved our quality of life, made the world much smaller, given us hope of living on the moon, and so much more. But science is not just about amazing discoveries and breakthroughs.

Science is about honesty and humility. It’s about understanding how little you know and being open to asking questions that you may not be able to answer in your lifetime. Good science, at its best, celebrates doubt. Sometimes the majority have been wrong. Lots of doctors belittled the few who urged them to wash their hands. Others thought the original vaccines were a horrible idea. But they were wrong. Those doctors and scientists weren’t bad. There was no conspiracy. They were just humans with biases and differing motivations and ways of looking at things.

But consensus, though fallible, remains the best model. Why? Because eventually, sooner or later, the ideas evolve. There are always a few mavericks out there kicking at the tires and asking the hard questions. Evidence mounts and finally a threshold is hit where the paradigm shifts and everybody goes “Ah! Maybe THAT’S how it works!” Good scientists move to this new stance, not because they are intellectual lemmings, but because that seems to be where the preponderance of the evidence is.

In science you’re free to question; free to doubt. But you’d better have a thick hide, because you’re going to have to bring hard evidence. Nobody should blindly follow science any more than they should blindly follow religion. Last year they were telling you butter is terrible. This year it’s the best thing ever. A good dose of skepticism is healthy. Not cynicism — skepticism. There’s a difference. Consensus is great and exists for a reason. But consensus can also devolve into “groupthink” and must be periodically given a reality check. That process is not a flaw. That process of questioning, challenging, and evolving is the whole point. Sojourners should be constantly checking themselves for both overly compliant groupthink on the one side and stubborn, pigheaded “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” attitudes on the other. Good thinking is not being convinced that you hold the truth. Good thinking is longing for the truth — no matter what it does to your beloved pet theory.

Faith and trust are not the same

So is there no place for faith in the Sojourner’s mind? It depends on your meaning. The words “faith” and “trust” are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings. Trust is based on confidence, experience, and evidence in a person or thing. I trust my wife, based on thirty-some years of experience. If she were recorded hiring a hitman to kill me, I might understand her motivation, but I’d have to say my trust in her would be shaken!

Faith, on the other hand, is a belief in something, even without proof. Though it is often associated with religious or spiritual concepts, there is a place for it. When I committed myself to my wife, I didn’t really know her as well as I know her now. I’d seen enough to place some “faith” in her, and to ask her to marry me. I didn’t have the level of proof that I have now, but there was enough for me to “take a leap of faith” and marry her.

The Bible defines faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). This is likely the basis of the term “blind leap of faith.” There is no such concept in Sojournism. We do not take wild leaps into the abyss without at least some minimum of reason or evidence. We may calculate probabilities, or take chances based on limited information, but without any evidence we prefer to wait and think or explore first.

Having said that, there are some things in which a Sojourner would have “faith.”

Faith in Humanity

We don’t necessarily believe in the “inherent goodness” of people, because there is ample evidence to the contrary. Along with Aristotle, we hold that ethics is something that must be taught; must be ingrained as a habit over time through discipline, both external and internal. But we do believe in the POTENTIAL for positive change in the world, without relying on religious beliefs or a belief in a higher power. We believe that over time, humanity may get itself sorted out, given the right pressures. This approach acknowledges the complexity of human behavior and demonstrates a commitment to reason and the power of human agency in shaping a better future, without the need for divine intervention.

Faith in Science and Reason

Some people have faith in the power of scientific discovery and rational thinking to provide answers and solutions to the world’s problems, without the need for supernatural explanations. But this faith is more like trust, in that it is based on centuries — if not millennia — of advances built on the rational exploration of the natural world. It is founded on a long history of empirical evidence, tangible advancements, and the self-correcting nature of the scientific method. This trust is not blind but rather grounded in the observable results and continuous progress that science has achieved. I can see evidence of science’s superiority over superstition all around me. In fact, I am typing on some of the evidence! Science’s advantages are tangible, provable, and repeatable. If faith, in the religious sense, has advantages, they are so intangible as to remain invisible. While religious faith can offer comfort and a sense of purpose to some individuals, its lack of empirical evidence makes it difficult to justify as a reliable guide for solving real-world problems. Sojourners, who desire to be part of the solution for humanity’s problems, prefer the practicality and reliability of placing faith in science and rational thinking when seeking answers to the world’s challenges.

Faith in Oneself

Self-confidence and belief in one’s own abilities and potential can be seen as a form of secular faith, as it relies on personal conviction rather than religious belief. But here too there are limits. A Sojourner keeps in mind his limitations. My body is often weak and sometimes betrays me. The organic brain is subject to fluctuations in sugar or other chemicals, seriously curbing its cognitive abilities. Even at its best, the single human mind is limited in its knowledge. Even people like Aristotle, Hypatia of Alexandria, or Einstein made mistakes — sometimes in their chosen field — and this doesn’t even begin to treat the mistakes they may have made in everyday life, in fields in which they were ignorant.

As an autistic person I have both great strengths and abysmal weaknesses. Pit me against problems that are within my bailiwick and I look like a genius. Place me in a social circle with people chit-chatting and networking and watch me sweat as I commit faux pas after faux pas. Faith in myself does not mean I am convinced of my infallibility or my invincibility. It means I understand that I am infinitely programmable. I can both receive new code from outside myself and I can even write my own code, based on my learning patterns. I can evolve and improve. It is in that potential that I place my faith. Sojourners emphasize the importance of recognizing one’s limitations, accepting them, and striving to become the best possible version of oneself through reason, self-reflection, and continuous adaptation to the world around us.

Faith in the Future

Optimism and hope for a better future can also be considered a form of secular faith, as it involves believing in the possibility of progress and improvement without necessarily invoking religious concepts. Again, this is not blind faith, but is instead based on my reading and understanding of history. Evidence shows that at one point slavery was endemic throughout the world. Now, though it still exists in various forms, it is rare and held in general contempt.

In the Middle Ages, life expectancy was considerably shorter than today, with an average lifespan of around 30-35 years. While some individuals lived into their 40s or 50s, many died in childhood or early adulthood due to factors like disease, famine, and war. In the U.S., where I reside, the average lifespan is 77.5 years for both sexes, with men having an average life expectancy of 74.8 years and women 80.2 years. I expect this is not even particularly high compared to many other countries, due to the “standard American diet” (SAD). Nevertheless, we’ve doubled the human lifespan since the Middle Ages, largely due to a combination of nutrition, hygiene, and vaccination against diseases.

Generally, the “good old days” were nastier, more brutish, and more dangerous than they are today. Old people tend to gloss over things like the cocaine in the soft drinks, the morphine given to babies, and the experiments without anesthesia on black women. If I read my history right, humanity is largely, broadly advancing and improving. Yes, there are problems, but there have been problems before that we solved. We may or may not solve the new ones. We may even go extinct. But we have the capacity to be better stewards of the opportunities before us, given sufficient good people who are convinced of the advantages of pursuing the Ideal.

The Sojourner form of secular faith aligns with Stoic principles by focusing on rational evaluation, the pursuit of wisdom, and the importance of virtuous action in striving for a better world. It emphasizes critical thinking, historical context, and a realistic understanding of human capabilities.

Part of the Triad of Stewardship’s Standalone Essays. Companion pieces: Forgiveness and Its Limits (forthcoming) · The Mandates of Conflict · Criminal Justice.