On Grant & Faith

by Steven B. Orkin  

I recently posted the following quote from the wonderful organizational psychologist, motivational speaker, and author, Adam Grant on Facebook.

 

I greatly admire Mr. Grant’s unique, common-sense, progressive perspectives and have saved or shared a number of his FB posts in recent months, finding them thought-provoking and inspiring.

 Anyway, in response to my post of the quote above, a friend of mine wrote the following comment:

 Isn't this what is referred to as ‘faith’?

 I’ve been thinking about her comment for days, slowly formulating a response. Initially, I assumed I’d just add a reply to her FB statement but quickly realized that wouldn’t cut it. So here we are, back on the blog, baby! 

 My friend’s simple eight words inspired me to study the Grant quote more carefully to absorb greater nuance from it. Here’s the short version of my conclusion:  In the overall context of the quote, I don’t think ‘faith’ works as a definition.

 Here’s why:

In the first paragraph/sentence, I think Grant is predominantly referring to people who purport to ‘lead with their gut’ instead of evaluating facts and evidence to create an informed opinion. I think he may additionally be referring to people who disdain or refute facts and evidence because they don’t suit their narrative, aka ‘willful ignorance’. This ideology has led to the vapid (and extremely dangerous) “Fake news!” declarations that arise any time inconvenient truths are conveyed. It has also perpetuated the illusion/delusion that one’s uninformed opinions are just as valid as facts and evidence. They are not.¹

 Again, in the overall context of the quote, in the second paragraph, Grant is warning us not to fall prey to our emotions with regard to what we want to believe over what’s verifiably true. He’s likewise empowering us to maintain receptivity to new information.

 The last paragraph/sentence similarly empowers us to not be so quick to close the book on what we believe. Leaving the door of possibility open to refining our beliefs makes life ever so much more interesting.

 Now, let’s talk about faith.

 Many people equate faith with hope, viewing them as synonyms. They’re more like cousins. They have a lot of parallels, but they are entirely separate entities. The biggest difference is that faith generally has more of a religious or moral connotation, but neither quality fully defines faith. It’s much broader than that.

 Faith also equates with trust, though they’re not synonyms, either. If we had to formulate a basic definition, it would be that faith is a fundamental belief in something that cannot be fully defined for reasons that can likewise not be fully defined.

 However, we need to apply a sense of moderation to this. ‘Blind Faith’ is just as dangerous as cynically having no faith in anything. There’s a kind of safety in it. You don’t have to deliberate over, question, or examine something if you have blind faith in it. It is what it is. Being faithless requires no investment whatsoever. If you don’t believe in anything, you’re never disappointed. Both polarities are lazy and weak.

 Faith is an integral component of our spiritual toolbox. It requires courage and strength. It can be devastating when your faith in something is violated, but it is nevertheless a worthwhile endeavor.

 Let’s take another look at the Grant quote from a faith-based perspective.

 We have to turn the first paragraph back on itself. The nature of faith requires an ideological investment that may not be justifiable in an empirical sense. We’ve all heard and used the phrase, ‘leap of faith’ and that’s exactly what it is. There’s a risk that you’re wrong. Under certain circumstances, you have to make that leap even if the evidence is ‘weak’ or unclear.

 The second paragraph similarly doesn’t fit the parameters of faith. Faith is only fact-based to an extent. Just to use the broadest example, if someone asked you to justify your belief in God, you would likely come up with ideas, thoughts, feelings, and experiences that purport to support your belief. Those things are obviously very meaningful and persuasive to you, and some or all of them might be meaningful and persuasive to others. However, most or all of those things would likely not stand up to scientific or investigative scrutiny. That doesn’t make them meaningless or wrong. Nor does it minimize or invalidate your faith that God exists. Indeed, the likely failure of your justifications for your faith in the context of scientific inquiry will have little to no effect on the power of your belief. It’s possible it would make you question it, but that’s okay. An unwillingness to question what you believe leads to the aforementioned ‘blind faith’. It narrows your field of vision to a dysfunctional and destructive degree. 

 With regard to the second sentence of that paragraph, in the context of faith, conviction comes first. When designing your ideological worldview, you have to gather a certain amount of information, but going back to our ‘Does God exist?’ example, you’re not going to scientifically prove God exists and then adopt that as your worldview based on that proof. You’re going to reflect on your thoughts, experiences, and learning, then use that information to determine what you believe. Despite any lack of scientific proof, you will decide that God exists and use that as the foundation for your ideology, building on and modifying it as you go. The fact that you can’t empirically prove God is irrelevant. You have elected to place your faith in the idea that God exists. Essentially, you start with a supposition and work outward to determine how well it works for you. You just have to have the humility and grace to accept that sometimes, in certain circumstances, your faith is misplaced, and modify your worldview accordingly.  

 Paragraph 3 of Grant’s quote remains spot-on in a faith-based context. Dogmatically adhering to your beliefs creates an ideological dead zone. Questioning your faith is not only healthy, it’s essential to your spiritual wellbeing. Often, at those times where you question your faith, you’ll nod in satisfaction as you decide, “Yep! This still works for me!” On other occasions, you may decide, “I need to rethink this.” Coming to such a conclusion does not make you ‘lacking in conviction’ or ‘indecisive’. It makes you philosophically flexible and intellectually robust. It keeps the doors of possibility open regarding your own evolution as a person. Taken to the farthest limit, it might just help change the world.

 Empiricism is an essential tool in making sense of the world, in shaping and expanding our knowledge and bringing structure to our morality. But sometimes, the world can be soul-crushingly merciless. It can be easy to use empirical thinking to conclude, “It’s all a chaotic, arbitrary mess. Nothing we do matters.” Faith is a shield against such thinking. It steps in with confidence and says, “I know it seems like everything sucks, that evil is winning, but trust that things are going to get better. Believe in the possibility of a better tomorrow. Do what you can to fight the good fight, to shape your world into what you want it to be. There will be setbacks, some of them profound, but the journey is still worth taking. Keep. Going.”

In these depressingly grim, dark days of the world, faith is nothing less than essential. Keep it close at hand. Trust in its power and possibility. Believe in its magic. I’m confident you’ll be glad you did.

 Thank you for reading.

 

 

 

1. Note that I don’t equate ‘leading with your gut’ with intuition, which can be a powerful, divinely inspired force in our lives. When we tap into it accurately, intuition can allow us to know things or make certain kinds of decisions that defy rationality with their seemingly inexplicable accuracy. In this context, ‘leading with your gut’ is emotion-based. It’s a kind of intellectual laziness, an unwillingness to investigate the facts and reflect on what you find with objectivity and humility.