In my last post I touched a bit on how my views on the nature of belief have shifted over the past several years, giving particular attention to how I have come to see the relationship between my beliefs and my will. In doing so, I briefly explained why I no longer find it helpful to think of beliefs as things that I choose to have so much as things that I find myself with (whether based on reason, reflection, experience, etc.). Yet this revelation not only had a major impact on how I came to see the nature of belief (and perhaps even moreso faith), but it also played a tremendous role in how I came to understand the nature of authority. Specifically, it changed the way I came to understand the relationship between belief and authority, and whether one should – or even can – be forced or required to believe something simply on the basis of some alleged authority. And so it is to that issue which I intend to turn my focus in this post.

Although I already began to touch a bit on the idea in my last post, the more I think about the context of belief the more I am convinced that there is really only one authority, and that is the authority which truth itself possesses when it is perceived by the mind. I realize this may sound abstract or controversial to some, and that it may seem to view the matter far too subjectively. But when I think about the alternative option whereby my beliefs are delegated to some external authority, it doesn’t seem to me any less subjective in the end. After all, on such a view, it is I who would subjectively decide to submit to a given authority – whether the Bible, or the Pope, or the Church, etc. – and so then subjectively choose to believe whatever truths they might happen to proclaim (and this is all still assuming I have the ability to choose my beliefs in the first place, which I very much doubt). That said, I do believe that truth is objective and realize that there are certainly many things which may be true even though they don’t necessarily seem true to me, but to simply be told that such things are true doesn’t seem to grant them any sense of authority by itself, even if I may deeply respect the person who tells me they seem true to them. Truth, as I have come to see it, ultimately lacks any authority until it authenticates itself in experience. That is, until the mind “sees” it to be true.

With respect to matters of faith, it seems quite common for people to appeal to some type of infallible authority, whether that be an infallible Bible, an infallible Pope, an infallible Christ, an infallible Church, etc., and then go on to say that such an authority is sufficient. However, the more and more I’ve thought about such a notion, the more and more I’ve wondered if it’s really true. After all, can the most important convictions in life truly be reached on nothing more than the word of another? We can no doubt verbally assent to various propositions out of a desire to please, or an inability to argue, or even sheer laziness of thought, but I sometimes wonder if one of the reasons people so often feel let down by their faith during a time of crisis is because they glibly assented to this and that proposition on such and such authority and then falsely called their assent “belief.” One may have let a whole army of ideas march through the country of their minds, and even cheered them on with hearty assent every step of the way, but is that really the same as to have that army actually conquer that country and take over its running? Is merely assenting to some external authority (for whatever reason) really sufficient to generate the internal conviction of belief?

Defining “authority” in this context as “the power to convince or coerce someone into belief” (or something similar), it seems to me that such authority ultimately lies in the perception of a given truth by the mind. A perception which is, again, not a matter of a certain truth being thrust onto the mind from without, but rather a matter of the mind’s recognition of it from within. It is this subjective yet intuitive sense of perceiving something to be true that I take to be the ultimate authority, perhaps the only authority, when it comes to matters of belief. Why? Because it is the only thing that seems to truly have the power to convince. Even when I would previously appeal to some other authority, such as an infallible Bible, upon reflection I realized that in the end the case was still the same – as I realized it wasn’t an infallible Bible, per se, that held the ultimate authority for me so much as it was my belief that the Bible was infallible. After all, an infallible Bible alone is powerless to convince anyone. Its power to convince – that is, its authority – is derived from something other than itself, namely the perception by the mind that it is infallible (and that therefore what it says is true). For those who may also view an infallible Bible (or Pope, or Church, etc.) as the ultimate authority, have you ever asked yourself why you believe that? If, after running through a given chain of reasoning (however long or short), your ultimate answer boils down to “because ____ just seems true” then you will have grasped my point. It is this fundamentally inescapable notion of something seeming true that I’ve come to see as the ultimate authority, that which solely has the power to coerce our belief, and yet that which often times goes unnoticed by us.

Although my focus in this blog is specific to the context of faith, it may be helpful to think about other contexts for a moment as well. When it comes to the sciences, for example, we often talk about consulting the “experts,” in which case they may very well have the power to coerce our opinion to a considerable degree (especially if they have the appropriate credentials, are sufficiently unanimous in their views, etc.). If a cosmologist tells us the universe is at least 13 billion years old, for example, we (unless perhaps we are cosmologists) are likely to accept the matter simply on their authority. However, even in cases like this, it still seems to me that the ultimate authority lies not with the expert and what may seem true to them, but rather again with what seems true to us – in this case, it seeming true to us that they are an expert in their field, it seeming true to us that they hold a particular view on the matter in question, it seeming true to us that the matter in question lies within their area of expertise, it seeming true to us that we cannot say the same for ourselves, and therefore it seeming true to us that their view on the matter is likely correct, etc.

That being said, however, there does seem to be a least some degree of difference in how the relationship between belief and authority is typically characterized in the context of faith as opposed to other contexts. Although there might be many reasons for this, one which seems plausible to me is that the context of faith is one where our personal emotions and intuitions are often given a much greater primacy of place (similar contexts might be those like music, art, literature, philosophy, etc. – although even the sciences may often times be included here). As I see it, the degree to which our emotions or intuitions are central seems to be the degree to which what we think begins to count. Although I may be content to accept the authority of the expert when it comes to cosmology, it’s probably safe to say that such a context rarely touches my personal emotions or intuitions in the same way that my faith does (save perhaps the emotions of awe and wonder that might be stimulated). When it comes to a matter much closer to my personal life, on the other hand, and especially one which affects me significantly at an emotional or intuitional level, then all of the sudden my own opinion rears its head and demands to be heard. This is something I take to be true for all of us – after all, how many people do you know have questioned a given “authority” simply because they didn’t like or agree with what they said? Likely a lot, and likely yourself included (I know I have!). But why is this?

One reason, I think, is again our personal investment in the matter – and this seems to hold regardless of the context in many cases. When it comes to the physical condition of our bodies, for example, we might say that a medical doctor is the authority. After all, we do not understand the physical working of the human body as they do. But what if, upon asking for their advice concerning the ailments of a loved one, they tell us that our loved one is dying and has but a short time to live? They are the undisputed authority, after all, and yet how likely is it that we would leave their office in disbelief and immediately look elsewhere for a second opinion? We do so because, unlike random factoids about stars in a galaxy far far away, we are personally invested in the matter. Similarly, imagine that someone sits down at a grand piano and perfectly plays one of Chopin’s nocturnes. I’m not sure about you, but it seems nonsensical to me to suggest that someone must think it beautiful simply because it is by Chopin (and I say that as a huge fan of Chopin). They may be made to feel ashamed and humiliated that they do not think it beautiful, and it may be fair that they are told that many people do, and that perhaps they should listen repeatedly until its beauty enters their nature and captures their conviction, etc. But you cannot simply impose Chopin’s authority on a person, for such a person is not convinced by the so-called authority. Better yet, it is not authoritative because it does not convince.

I hope that somewhat of a principle of authority is now starting to emerge. In sum, nothing but perception, as I have come to see it, has any ultimate authority – that is, power to convince – in and of itself. Everything involves our intuitions at one level or another, and therefore we cannot be convinced, if we are honest, until some faculty within us responds in a way which is authoritative. Of course, truth is truth regardless of whatever may seem true to me, yet such truth has no authority with me until I see it to be true. Turning back to matters of faith, consider the authority of the Bible, for example. Surely, one might argue, the authors of scripture are far better equipped than I to judge the truth when it comes to matters of faith. After all, who am I to set up my own poor judgement against their inspired words? Indeed, is there not a danger that we may reject an infallible Bible only to enthrone an infallible self? I too feel the force of the point, but I can no more be convinced that a given doctrine is true simply because the Bible declares it than I can be convinced that a nocturne is beautiful simply because Chopin wrote it. In both cases the fault may be with me and I must sit down again before each and let them impress a mind which I strive to free from bias. But no authority is experienced, as I have come to see it, until those truths are perceived. Even an infallible guide lacks authority unless one sees that what it says is true. But who can determine that except each of us ourselves? Indeed, to even contest the point in question might, ironically, serve only to ultimately prove it – for one would likely only be able to do so because, at bottom, something contrary seems true. To deny that it is what seems true that ultimately determines what one believes seems, in effect, to deny the very means by which one makes such a denial in the first place – much like a scene out of Looney Tunes in which Wile E. Coyote saws off the very branch upon which he sits.

In any case, I could go on, but I hope by now I’ve at least been able to sketch somewhat of an outline of how I’ve come to see the nature of authority and its relationship to belief along my journey over the past few years, and perhaps in a way that may be food for thought in your own journey as well. In my next post, I hope to close out the year by extending this line of thinking a bit further, exploring some of the implications I’ve drawn from it, while also offering some concluding thoughts on the nature and importance of belief as it pertains to the Christian life in general.

Until then, thanks again for reading and – as always – stay curious, seek truth, and love well.

Cheers,