Certitude, Doubt & the Virtue of Faith
A young friend respond to a recent email of mine to him with his usual characteristic directness. He writes:
Fr. Gregory,
You have said some interesting things.
1) What is the virtue of faith?
2) Why is intellectual/psychological certainty the antithesis of Christian faith?Best,
W
With his kind permission what follows is my answers to his question. Maybe somewhat uncharacteristically (or at least unexpectedly) for an Orthodox Christian priest, my answer to W is drawn from my own admittedly informal reading of two foundational sources in Western Christian ethics: Aristotle treatment of virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics and St Thomas Aquinas’ consideration of virtue in Summa Theologica (Secunda Secundæ Partis, Q 4 where he treats questions pertaining to the virtue of faith itself). I hope to write more later about Aquinas but for now my letter to W on certitude, doubt and the virtue of faith.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Dear W.,
Thank you for your email and your two very good and concise questions. Let me see if I can answer them for you.
(1) What is the virtue of faith?
Let me begin by explaining virtue (and its opposite, vice).
For Aristotle, virtue is not static but dynamic. First, the dynamism of virtue flows from the fact that any virtue is for him the means between extremes. So the virtue of courage is the mean (or balance point) between cowardliness, on the one hand, and recklessness on the other. I should point out that both these extremes represent vices–that is the absence of the virtue of courage.
What should be immediately clear, and this is the second factor that leads me to see virtue as dynamic, is that as the midpoint between extremes, the exact content of a virtuous act will change as circumstances change. To remain with courage for a moment, what is a courageous act for a soldier or a policeman would most likely be for me reckless. Why? Because I do not have a soldier’s training or the police officer’s authority.
Virtue, however is not simply a matter of balance, but the habit of acting in a balanced manner and so again, contrary to what we often imagine, virtue is dynamic not static. And so, to go back to example above, under the right circumstance–say someone is threatening someone you love–you might do something that great bravery on your part. This is certainly a good thing but as a spontaneous action it is not for Aristotle (or indeed, the classical Christian moral tradition as a whole) a moral virtue. Again, the key to virtue is that it is the habit of being disposed toward the good not simply in theory but also in deed. Virtue is the habit of right acting.
So what about faith?
In Hebrews we read that “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1) Going back to Aristotle for a moment, we might want to ask what are the extremes between which faith is the middle point?
Well, on the one hand there is doubt. This is easy enough for most people to see. Doubt is the absence of faith. More than that though, doubt is a form of mistrust. When you say you doubt my word, for example, you are saying that you do not trust the truthfulness of what I say. Ultimately you do not trust me.
But what about the other extreme? I would suggest that flip side of doubt is presumption. Though I am indebted–clearly–to Thomas Aquinas, I would hazard a to disagree (just a bit) with him on this point. My disagreement is not however substantive I think. Let me explain.
Typically, presumption is seen as opposed to hope. I agree with this, but I would argue (and this is where I am more psychologist then ethicist) that hope is faith in the future tense. When I hope, I have faith or trust in the goodness of tomorrow. I can even be place my hope in another, or–I can trust that you will continue to pursue the good or that you will act in my best interest.
In any event, just as doubt refuses to trust in God, presumption only trust in the self.
So what is the virtue of faith? It is the habit of being well disposed to trust God. This includes not only the things He has said, but also that (however bleak they might be at the moment) that He does not act contrary to what is best for me, that He loves and cares for me.
As the mean between extremes, I think faith can embrace a certain degree of critical thinking relative to faith’s object, that is God, His revelation and the Tradition. It can also embrace a relative degree of self-confidence. Actually in my experience (pastoral and personal) the absence of healthy doubt and the absence of healthy self-confidence is more likely to undermine faith than anything else.
Faith, as with all the virtues, is not passive, it is not static. It must involve the whole of the person in response to God Healthy doubt or skepticism is necessary not because I do not trust God but because I do not trust myself. Faith is the evidence of things unseen remember and this makes it easy for me to misplace my faith. I am always tempted to trust objects, ideas, ideals and individuals that are unworthy of my trust in any ultimate sense. It is also, as a quick aside, possible that even if I do not trust a particular person as if he were God, I may still extend to him more trust then his character or circumstances justifies.
Too much self-mistrust however is equally deadly. Even though I need to be aware of the limits of my faith, I can so emphasize those limits that I loss sight of the fact that it is still “I” who believe. Faith is personal and if I am not careful I can so focus on God (and worse, other people–this is the sin of vainglory) that I fall into an unhealthy passivity forgetting that though salvation is God’s gift to me, it is a synergistic gift. Let me make that stronger.
Salvation is a divine gift that both invites and requires my active participation. To never speak to God as a friend, “as one man talks to another,” is to not know the gift of salvation; it is the sign of a deficiency of faith.
Now, question two:
(2) Why is intellectual/psychological certainty the antithesis of Christian faith?
Back quickly to St Thomas for this one.
Rightly Aquinas says that faith is an intellectual virtue but that the certitude of faith is found not in the believer (or if you prefer, the knower) but in the Believed (i.e., the Known or God).
Aquinas offers an interesting argument on this point. He compares faith and science (or knowledge based in a reasoned reflection on sense data). Because faith and reason are both gifts, both faith and science (knowledge) he says are also gifts. But there is a sense in which science is more certain than faith.
The certitude of science flows from the limits imposed on it by reason and the senses. Science is more certain because its the product of the human intellect. As such it is finite and so the more fully the intellect understands something the more certain it is in its knowing (i.e., science).
But God is not the product of the human intellect. Though I use my intellect to understand Him, my understanding always fall short since He is Infinite and I am not. In this sense, in the sense that my understanding of God (my science of God or my theology) always falls short of the Truth of God, my faith is always uncertain.
BUT, faith is a gift and as such the source of faith is not the knower but the Known; not me but Him. Precisely because God is Eternal and Unchanging, faith is certain. Again though the certainty belongs not to me as a psychological or intellectual subject but to God as the Object of faith. Because I am a creature my understanding of God, the intellectual and psychological dimensions of my relationship with Him are in a state of constant flux while He is Unchanging.
God is certain because He does not change. It is in this sense, that faith is trust IN the Unchanging and Eternal God, that we can say faith in its OBJECT is certain.
Intellectual/psychological certitude (i.e., knowledge or science) about God, however, is not possible since God will always transcend my knowledge or understanding of Him.
For St Gregory Nyssa, to wrap this up, this is the source of human perfectablity. We are in a constant state of change, and so we are forever imperfect. This however is not due to any lack on our part but is inherent in being a creature and it our changeability that makes it possible for to grow in perfection, that is become like God Who does not change. We can only become like the Unchanging God, that is perfect, to the degree that we are willing to change “and change frequently” in Gregory’s formulation.
To the degree that I imagine I have intellectual certitude–that is that now I understand God or the Christian life in an exhaustive sense–to that degree I am a fool and living not by faith but something else entirely. A life of faith requires that I am constantly changing, growing and re-evaluating myself and my life not only in the Light of the Unchanging God but also the ever changing circumstances in which I (quite literally) find myself.
Thanks for your very good questions and I hope this helps.
In Christ,
Fr Gregory
Thank you for your email and your two very good and concise questions. Let me see if I can answer them for you.
(1) What is the virtue of faith?
Let me begin by explaining virtue (and its opposite, vice).
For Aristotle, virtue is not static but dynamic in that it is the means between extremes. So the virtue of courage is the mean (or balance point) between cowardliness, on the one had, and recklessness on the other. I should point out that both these extremes represent vices–that is the absence of courage.
What should be immediately clear is that as the midpoint between extremes, the exact content of a virtuous act will change as circumstances change. To remain with courage for a moment, what is a courageous act for a soldier or a policeman would most likely be for me reckless. Why? Because I do not have a soldier’s training or the police officer’s authority.
Virtue, however is not simply a matter of balance, but the habit of acting in a balanced manner. And so, to go back to example above, under the right circumstance–say someone is threatening someone you–you might do something that requires physical courage. This is certainly a good thing but as a spontaneous action it is not a moral virtue. Again, the key to virtue is that it is the habit of being disposed toward the good not simply in theory but also in deed.
So what about faith?
In Hebrews we read that “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11.1) Going back to Aristotle for a moment, we might want to ask what are the extremes between which faith is the middle point?
Well, on the one hand there is doubt. This is easy enough for most people–doubt is the absence of faith. More than that though, doubt is a form of mistrust. When you say you doubt my word, for example, you are saying that you do not trust the truthfulness of what I say.
But what about the other extreme? I would suggest that flip side of doubt is presumption. Though I am indebted–clearly–to Thomism, I would disagree just a bit with him on this point.
My disagreement is not substantive. Typically, presumption is seen as opposed to hope. I agree with this, but I would argue (and this is where I am more psychologist then ethicist) that hope is faith in the future tense.
In any event, just as doubt refuses to trust in God, presumption will only trust in self.
So faith is the habit of being well disposed to a trusting relationship with God, As the mean between extremes, I think faith can embrace a certain degree of critical thinking relative to faith’s object (God, His revelation and the Tradition). It can also embrace a certain, relative, degree of self-confidence. Actually in my experience (pastoral and personal) the absence of healthy doubt and the absence of healthy self-confidence is more likely to undermine faith than anything else/
Faith is not passive, it is not static. It must involve the whole of the person in response to God Healthy doubt or skepticism is necessary not because I do not trust God but because I do not trust myself. Faith is the evidence of things unseen remember and this makes it easy for me to misplace my faith, my trust, to place it in objects, ideas and individuals that are unworthy of my trust in any ultimate sense. It is also, as a quick aside, possible that even if I do not trust a particular person as if he were God, I may still extend to him more trust then his character or our relationship justifies.
At the same time, too much self-mistrust is equally deadly. Even though I need to be aware of the limits of my faith, I can so emphasize those limits that I loss sight of the fact that it is still “I” who believe. Faith is personal and if I am not careful I can so focus on God (and worse, other people–this is the sin of vainglory) that I fall into an unhealthy passivity forget that even if salvation is God’s gift to me, it is a synergistic gift.
Let me make that stronger salvation is a divine gift that both invites and requires my active participation. To never speak to God as a friend, “as one man talks to another,” is not to know the gift of salvation; it is the sign of a deficiency of faith.
Now, question two:
(2) Why is intellectual/psychological certainty the antithesis of Christian faith?
Back quickly to St Thomas for this one.
Rightly Aquinas says that faith is an intellectual virtue but that the certitude of faith is found not in the believer (or if you prefer, the knower) but in the Believed (i.e., the Known or God).
Aquinas offers an interesting argument comparing faith and science (or knowledge based in a reasoned reflection on sense data). Because faith and reason are both gifts, both faith and science (knowledge) he says are also gifts. But there is a sense in which science is more certain than faith.
The certitude of science flows from the limits imposed on it by reason and the senses. Science is more certain because its the product of the human intellect and the more fully the intellect understands something the more certain it is in its knowing (i.e., science).
But God is not the product of the human intellect–though I use my intellect to understand Him, my understanding always fall short since He is Infinite and I am not. In this sense, in the sense that my understanding of God (my science of God or my theology) always falls short of the Truth of God, my faith is always uncertain.
BUT, the source of faith is not the knower but the Known; not me but Him. Precisely because God is Eternal and Unchanging, faith is certain. Again though the certainty belongs not to me as a psychological or intellectual experience but to God as the Object of faith. My understanding of God, the intellectual and psychological dimensions of my relationship with Him are in a state of constant flux while He is Unchanging.
As my goal, God is certain because He does not change and so we can, in this sense, say faith in its OBJECT is certain.
Intellectual/psychological certitude (i.e., knowledge or science) about God is not possible since God will always in this life and the life to come transcend my knowledge/understanding of Him.
For St Gregory Nyssa, to wrap this up, this is the source of human perfectablity. We are in a constant state of change, and so we are forever imperfect. And this is due not to any lack on our part but is inherent in being a creature.
At the same time we are called to grow in perfection, that is become like God Who does not change. We can only become like the Unchanging God, that is perfect, to the degree that we are willing to change “and change frequently” in Gregory’s formulation.
To the degree that I imagine I have intellectual certitude–that is that now I understand God and the Christian life–to that degree I am a fool and living not by faith but something else entirely. A life of faith requires that I am constantly changing, growing and re-evaluating myself and my life not only in the Light of the Unchanging God but also the ever changing circumstances in which I (quite literally) find myself.
Thanks for asking and I hope this helps.
In Christ,
Fr Gregory
Tags: Aquinas, Aristotle, Certitude, Doubt, Ethics, Faith, Virtue
Ethics, Faith and Reason | Fr Gregory Jensen January 14, 2010
