It is over-simplistic to think of faith as a monolithic, unwieldy, irrational, and “blind” trust in an imaginary unknowable. (I don’t blame you; it’s our post-Enlightenment conditioning, which explicitly and aggressively put science and religion at odds with each other.)
However, the truth is, faith is a composite of many different incidents, experiences, and influences. Fundamentally, faith relies on two categories of elements: (1) Knowledge (or, Reason), and (2) Intuition.
Knowledge is that which appeals to the logician, the rationalist, the scientist in you.
But what is knowledge? How can you know something? According to Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, there are three means of knowledge (pramanas):
(1) Direct perception/ experience (pratyaksha)
(2) Inference (anumana)
(3) Testimony/ word of reliable experts (shabda)
The first two depend on our sense perceptions: [(1) I have seen fire before, so I know this is fire; (2) I have seen fire before, and I know that smoke always accompanies fire. Therefore, this smoke must indicate that there is a fire.] Pratyaksha and Anumana rely on empirical evidence, and they are acceptable means of knowledge in science.
The third (testimony) is what people who identify as pure rationalists (and scientists) will most likely not accept. Testimony (which includes the Vedas) is very much a valid source of knowledge in yoga and Vedanta—two traditions I respect.
If we didn’t trust our teachers as a valid source of knowledge, we’d probably learn nothing new ever and make no progress on any of our goals.
However, when defining shabda/testimony in the context of faith, I am not talking just about the Vedas. I am also talking about the testimony of those we love and respect. How does one learn anything? Through the association of someone they wish to emulate. So naturally, the testimony of this learned person (a parent, a teacher, a boss) is considered a valid source of knowledge. If that wasn’t the case, if we didn’t trust our teachers as a valid source of knowledge, we’d probably learn nothing new ever and make no progress on any of our goals.
Intuition is that deep attraction (or need for connection) you feel towards the wondrous, the expansive, the inconceivable.
How often do you come across advertisements promising you ‘connection’ in some way or another? ‘Disconnect from the noise, reconnect with nature/yourself’ and the like. Why are these claims attractive?
Why do we seek connection? Why are we called social animals? Why is isolation the worst punishment for humans?
I read Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene when I was 21. Ever since, I believed that survival was the sole motivator of everything about humans. That everything we are—our anatomy, our brain chemistry, and our social interactions—could be traced back to this one single motivation.
But then I experienced pure love. I don’t mean the pop-culture version of boy meets girl. I mean the experience of life after that meet-cute. Of course, our biological urges brought us together. But mainstream discourse gives too much importance to sex and not enough attention to what makes the sex fulfilling. Fulfilment in a sexual (or any) relationship comes from feeling deeply connected with the person—a connection that transcends the mere physical into the mental, emotional, and spiritual. The selfish gene theory does not explain my (and, I believe, yours too) desire for connection.
It is incorrect to claim that the selfish gene theory does not explain the desire for connection. I’ve published an addendum to correct this mistake and to make a better argument for my claim that connection is an equally strong motivator as survival. (link here)
I believe, therefore, that connection is an equally strong motivator as survival. It is because of this need for connection that we cultivate and cherish human-human, human-animal, and human-nature relationships.
Intuition is essentially about tuning into this need for connection, and letting it be your guide. It is embracing the mystery and the sense of promise offered by the magnanimity of the universe and the brilliance of our existence. It is giving voice to your emotions, to break away from the often-limiting boundaries of modern social conditioning, and to rediscover your true proclivities, unconstrained by superficial categories and inadequate definitions.
Leaning into the affective appeal of a divinity, a universal connectedness, and the sense that you are more than just this bag of flesh and bones—that’s the intuition that contributes to building faith.
In part II, I talk about the important role of reason in building unshakeable faith and share some intriguing ideas from theoretical physics that are a humble reminder to me of the limits of human reason and knowledge.
Beautiful and moving!