By Sam Pesez
Let’s be clear from the offset on how faith, in a religious sense, is conventionally defined. It is a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof, or – alternatively phrased – a complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Throughout this article, I will stray away from this conventional definition as I seek to redefine faith as not being limited simply to a conviction, trust, or a belief: however difficult to pinpoint, it is so much more. I endeavour to show that the problem of the objectivity or subjectivity of faith is one which must be wrestled with precisely because faith is something far greater than a belief: it is something innate and all-consuming. To address these poles of the argument, definitions of objectivity orbit around phrases like “freedom from bias”, “impartiality”, or “independent from the mind”. On the other hand, subjectivism is rooted in the notion that knowledge is merely based on one’s own perspective or experience – that there is no single or external truth and that the only thing that we can be sure of is our own cognition. This framework is a necessary arena in which to play out the rest of our debate.
The reconciliation of faith and subjectivism is a matter which troubles me almost daily. As a person of faith who believes in God, was raised in a Catholic household, still goes to church weekly, and prays often, the idea of subjectivism is something which I find a frequently unavoidable stumbling block. I am often sat thinking that to have faith – particularly a religious faith – one should view it as objective. One cannot have faith if they do not see it as objective; I see both ideas as inseparable. Because if I were to have a faith but not see it as objective then it would cease to be a faith in itself: I would not “believe” in “it” enough. The faith would be reduced to an idea, a thought, a predisposition to a way of thinking, or a philosophy of life personal to oneself. This would neglect the fact that faith is a relationship. I have faith in my friends to be there when I am going through hard times. Everyone’s faith, regardless of what it is, is something which is lived: it is alive, not just a way of living. I would not be able to hold my faith if I did not sincerely think that what I am believing in is objective.
Yet this is where I find the obstacle. I remember that I am 1 of over 7 billion people in the world who also have their own faith, whether it be Jewish, Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, spiritual, agnostic, or even atheist. Each of these 7 billion-plus people in the world are all equally convinced that their faith is the right one and is the objectively correct “faith”. This leads me to ask the question of who is right. And I can say with quite a lot of certainty that, if you were to pose this question to each person on this planet, the vast majority of them would reply with their own sense of utter justification, “I am right”. This leads me to a second question. How can faith be objective if each individual of a multitude of different faiths believes that they are right? Can everyone’s individual faith be true but faith still be objective? These are questions which I do not know the answer to; though I still find myself accepting that whilst I truly believe that my faith is correct, everyone is entitled to their own faith. I do this in the humility that I do not believe they are right but also simultaneously accept that they believe that I am not right. Admittedly, it is paradoxical.
If we were to apply the same thought process to any other belief, such as a political view, there would be no issue with this because everyone is entitled to their own point of view on some things. It is perfectly acceptable for a right-wing activist to think they are correct as it is for left-wing activists to think they are also correct. But like 1+1=2 is seen as objective, I sincerely believe that faith requires a higher threshold of certainty – one must be sure beyond all reasonable doubt. One person’s faith on this planet must be the objectively right faith. But whose is it? I believe that mine is. But so will a Muslim, or an atheist, or a Jew, or a Hindu, or a Sikh, and the list goes on. This does not solve the problem because we will be stuck in this unending cyclical loop of never knowing who is truly right. And then we may never know until we die, but then what does that solve?
To tackle this problem of faith and subjectivism we need to dig down further into what we mean when we are talking about objectivism and subjectivism. I do this bearing in mind the eventuality that we will have to suspend both concepts of subjectivism and objectivism by the end of this article, as they will become too constraining. We may be led to having to accept other concepts such as universal acceptability or individuality. One’s automatic response to the definition of objectivity would be that faith therefore cannot be objective because one would assume that faith is intrinsically linked to the mind, to bias, to a way of thinking. However, I am inclined to disagree with this point of view because, as I discussed earlier, I believe that a faith ceases to be a faith if it is reduced to a philosophy of life. Faith is something which goes beyond our material existence on this planet. Even the atheist, who may deny the existence of the soul or the supernatural, would have to accept that when thinking of faith we are dealing with something beyond the mind or our day-to-day cognition.
Faith is something which nestles at the core but is simultaneously not part of us. It is something which we do not have control over for we cannot force ourselves into believing something or choose to believe something which we fundamentally do not and cannot physically or mentally accept. Why do some people have a religious faith and some do not? Why do some people convert to a religious faith but others do not? I would argue that if faith were to be part of the mind, everyone of shared faith would have to think the same way about everything: they should vote for the same political parties, eat the same food, have the same routine, have the same likes, dislikes, and desires. Yet this is not the case. Even in groups of faith there are significant divisions. In Christianity there are Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals. In Islam there are Sunni and Shia. The list goes on. This leads me to the idea of individuality – the idea that faith is so unique and personal to the individual. As a Catholic, despite having the same intrinsic beliefs as other Catholics, such as in the existence of God or Jesus’ resurrection, I would not be surprised nor troubled by the fact that other fellow Catholics might have different visions of who God is or different philosophies of life.
Isn’t this just subjectivism, I hear you ask? On this I would have to strongly disagree with you because anyone with a religious faith, or without one, would strongly refute its subjectivity because for the individual the faith is grounded in an external and objective truth. I could personally list off a multitude of reasons, experiences, facts, external and objective truths to defend my faith. Faith for the individual is anything but subjective.
It is at this point that I would like to introduce an idea which can reconcile subjectivism, objectivism, individualism and universality when it comes to faith. It is the metaphor of faith as a moon. Faith is the moon which orbits the earth and to which each individual has access to if they so wish to if they were to just look up at the sky on a clear evening. Like the moon, which each individual will see at a different angle, shade, orientation or colour based on where they are standing on the earth at a given moment (and based on their individual perspective, eyesight or state-of-mind) we may consider faith.
I truly believe that each of us sees a sliver of our moon. Like faith, some will sometimes see more of it, some will sometimes see more clearly but some will sometimes not even bother to look up (or will only see the dark side of the moon). This reconciles objectivism with subjectivism because whilst faith (the moon) is objectively present and an external, object truth, the angle of the moon or what we perceive of the moon at any given moment is subjective to the individual. No individual is or must be right or wrong about the side of the moon they see or their faith. They are simply seeing a different part of the moon to others. The same analogy can be extended to groups of people, who are looking at the moon through the same lens of their telescope. Without delving too deeply into the metaphor, it is scientifically known that the moon itself does not produce its own source of light but reflects the light of the sun onto us. The same can be said about our moon-like faiths; we see merely a reflection of something greater, and far too complex for us to look at directly. Our temporal beings can only interpret what we see from our own perspectives. Further questioning is required to understand the true nature and source of the light which reflects onto our moon like faiths. However, there is an element of peace, acceptance, truth, and accuracy in this analogy because when it comes to faith it is not about who is better or who is right but about your own faith: or rather, how you are positioned.
Without descending too far into relativism, faith is influenced enormously on the country or culture we live in. Christianity has become predominantly a Western religion. Islam is an Arabic religion. Hinduism is a South-East Asian religion. Everyone’s faith is grounded in their culture, country, language, and way of life which gives nuance and application to their lives. Each faith has its own cultural nuances, practices and traditions which are entrenched in its place and culture. It is as if the same book were to be translated in different languages. Sometimes when books are translated words, phrases, or analogies may be lost in translation – particularly if it has been translated back and forth over millennia. Ultimately, we are reading the same book and looking up at the same moon.
Forgive me if this is a cop out. But I believe that debates over subjectivism and objectivism or who is right and wrong are fruitless and unnecessary. All they do is sow division when none is needed. I have a monotheistic faith in the Christian God and in Jesus as do millions of other Christians who share my faith and see the same part of the moon as I do. This does not take away from the fact that there are billions of other people in millions of different groups who see a different side of the moon. My faith is true and right but so is theirs and this does not and should not take anything away from each other’s faith. Nor should this detract from the notion that we are all entitled to convince and testimony to others to see the moon from our own perspective. Nor should this stop us exploring other sides of the moon to see if there is a side of the moon which we believe is more accurate or representative. Faith is such a deeply personal and all-consuming thing, and I would encourage everyone to dig deeper to explore their own faith and be more open-minded regardless of which religious faith, or lack of, they land on.