Leaps of Faith Revisited: Why Do We Believe What We Believe?

I had a different post planned on what ramifications, in my view, come from faith in the risen Christ.  For various reasons, though, I haven’t felt that the last few posts have satisfactorily clarified some of the issues here.  I’ve focused on larger issues and neglected the more individual ones.  I hope that I can address that lack here.

There are two kinds of people:  those who divide everyone into two kinds, and those who don’t.  😉  I’m in the latter camp, because I have more categories than that.  For the purposes of what I’m doing here, I think it will clarify things.  In all societies and cultures–or at least all those beyond a certain level of complexity, you have various attitudes toward belief (not necessarily just religious belief, but those of society at large).  These are as follows:

1.  Sheep.  Sorry to be rude, but it’s not without reason that Christ describes himself as a shepherd!  The vast majority of people–I’d say 70%, at least–are basically conformist.  Perhaps I should use that term–“conformist”–as it’s a bit more polite.  Conformists go along to get along.  They’re not extremely reflective and they tend accept whatever the prevailing religion, political ideology, or societal Zeitgeist happens to be.

This is most likely a survival trait, for obvious reasons.  In a hunter-gatherer tribe, there has to be a certain amount of social cohesion, which means everyone has to be on the same page about major things.  If this isn’t the case, it could spell doom for the group and the individuals.

Such a trait doesn’t imply ignorance or stupidity or lack of integrity, either.  Most of us have family members, co-workers, bosses, and such with whom we know not to bring up certain topics, or around whom to tread warily, or whatever, as a way of preserving family harmony, one’s own job, etc.  Most of us know that there is an expected pattern of behavior in church, at work, etc.  Almost all of us are conformist at least in some contexts.  Those who are unwilling or unable to “go along to get along” are the eccentrics, the bohemians, the misfits, and such, and are perceived as being either crazy or assholes.  Often they actually are.

The point is that such default conformist belief is not necessarily hypocritical nor is it necessarily deep and sincere.  Social change usually causes trauma, but the trauma ends surprisingly easily.  Most Medieval Spaniards were originally default Arians.  When orthodoxy took sanctions against the Arians, it was traumatic, but eventually most Spaniards became default Catholics.  After the Moorish invasion, most Spaniards in the Southern sections eventually became default Muslims.  In fact Richard Fletcher’s excellent book, Moorish Spain, shows how one can trace genealogies forward from the 7th Century and watch as the names in more and more lineages change from Latin or Germanic to Arabic, until nearly 80% of the population is Muslim.

Likewise, most Russians pre-1918 were default monarchists; then they were default Communists; now they’re in transition with the outcome being unclear, to default something else.

Once more, I don’t want to judge people too harshly.  “Going along to get along” is usually said in a negative, derogatory tone; but it is a deeply human trait, born of our legacy as a social species.  Everyone does it; we do it and will continue to do it, too.

2.  True believers.  There is always a smaller group–say, 15% or so–who internalize conformity to the dominant paradigm much more strongly than everyone else.  These are the leaders, the movers and shakers, the religious police, the party men, the dyed-in-the-wool capitalists/Communists/atheists/Buddhists/Jews, whatever.  Sheep go along to get along, but don’t get too exercised about perfect orthodoxy or even precise details of belief.  True believers, by contrast, will cross every “t”, dot every “i”, and look askance at you (or worse!) if you don’t, too.

When societies change, True Believers are the ones at the forefront of metaphorical or literal battles to Preserve the True Faith (where “faith” need not imply a religion).  If they lose the day, they’re the troublesome resistance fighters that refuse any compromise, or the fifth column that goes into hiding, conforming exteriorly but secretly keeping the faith.

3.  Nonconformists.  Maybe five percent or so of the population.  These are the curmudgeons who are never quite satisfied with society, even if it’s their belief system that is regnant.  If they’re in a capitalist state, they’ll be Communist; if the state goes Communist, they’ll be Trotskyist.  They’re never quite willing to go along with broader currents.  They’re not “joiners”.  These are the eccentrics, the hermits, the denizens of subcultures.

4.  Freethinkers.  I don’t mean this in the usual way the term is used.  Usually, “freethinker” means “liberal, atheist/agnostic, humanist”, or some such.  I’m using it to mean someone who literally thinks freely.  That is, he or she looks at the issues and tries to be careful in forming belief.  He won’t automatically accept or reject something just because it’s the conventional wisdom or the default societal belief.  He doesn’t conform automatically, but he has no trouble doing so to the extent that it does not compromise his values.  He has the courage of his convictions and will set himself against the norms, but he feels no need to do so unless it’s really necessary.  In many ways, he’s what Marcello Truzzi called a “zetetic“.  There aren’t many people like this–perhaps 5% of the population.

Most human progress comes from the last two categories of people, since they are the ones that are willing to think outside of the societal box, and the ones willing to take the chances to change things (although they are often assisted by True Believers whose causes happen to align with theirs).  Of course, these two categories have also caused much trouble, as well.  Look at Soviet Communism.  Many of the early movers and shakers really wanted to make a better world, and thought that they could.  Unfortunately, True Believers got hold of things, along with cynics who viewed the new order as a good way to get into powerful positions (category 4 people can turn this way, as can 3 at times), and–well, we all know what happened.

Anyway, to return to the point, while the categories of people don’t change much, the types of society they live and function in do.  Societies such as ours–relatively open, with freedom of speech and religion–are much less onerous towards and give freer rein to the various non-conformists:  the eccentrics, the radicals, the bohemians, etc.  This is not itself without risks; but I think that it is better than the alternative.  Societies dominated by theocracies, authoritarian political ideologies, or uniform, tribalistic outlooks are much harder for non-conformists to live in.  Such societies are in some ways more stable, for obvious reasons; and for that reason they may, in some contexts, be more resilient.  They are less adaptable, though, and they achieve stability at the price of individualism.

It is common in some circles these days to lament the loss of community and cohesiveness in modern society.  Among religious traditionalists, this loss is tied particularly to the loss of religious uniformity, community, or cohesion.  In a pluralistic society in which religion tends to become  a personal choice, religion, from this perspective, is trivialized.  Also, according to this view, an insistence on not feeling completely bound by traditional interpretations is a decadent product of  modernity, a desire to put oneself about Tradition, a desire to cherry pick one’s scriptures or traditions to make a custom-tailored faith that while perhaps satisfactory to the individual, betrays its origins and becomes just another negative relic of modernity.

While there is an element of truth to much of this, I still have to give at least two cheers for modernity.  Whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of secular, pluralistic modernity is an answer that can’t be answered in a fully objective manner.  Ditto pre-modern religiously uniform societies.  I strongly think that the former, for all its faults, is the better.  Yes, it can be alienating, atomized, lonely, and frustrating.  Still, the dangers of theocracy to the human conscience, education, and society, are in my mind much greater.  The Middle Ages were never really the Age of Faith as we tend to think; but to the extent that they were–to the extent that heretics could be burned and people could not be open about their religious beliefs, and with all due respect to their good points (as many have pointed out, the Middle Ages were not the cesspit of popular imagination, either), I am quite glad we are not living in the Middle Ages.

Thus, I would defend the interpretive method toward Scripture, which I will flesh out in the next post in this series, as not just a modern tossing all the parts he doesn’t like.  Rather, I think it is what most people do to some extent; and I think it helps keep things honest by seeking a space for those who can’t buy into the complete package offered by the official religious authorities (of whatever religion).  I don’t claim to have better judgment than the Church as such, to be granted special Divine insights, or to be always right; but I do claim that what I’m doing is and should be acceptable as part of the historical dialectic of the Church, and that it is good that our society is one in which such a dialectic can freely take place.

It’s hard enough to hold what we really believe as it is, with all the pressures for conformity.  It’s best, in my view, even if most people tend to conform, to have as much openness and space for people to believe what they believe because it is really what they have concluded that they do believe, rather than to believe it to “get along”.