The real measure is how willing a person is to step out of their comfort zone.
“I can’t understand the psychology of the atheist,” Cardinal Martini once said in his famous debate with Umberto Eco. “(The atheist) a figure whose psychology eludes me because, like Kant, I don’t see how one can possibly not believe in God, can maintain that it is impossible to prove his existence, and yet also firmly believe in the non-existence of God, maintaining that this can be proved.
Many people, when they want to present their claims as absolute truth, say that something is “scientifically proven.” These are likely people who believe only in things that have been scientifically verified. In this logic, God’s absence is apparently scientifically proven as well.
Let’s leave God aside for a moment and look at other phenomena that are just as difficult to prove “scientifically.”
Read also
Do a man and a woman really love each other, or do they only think—or pretend—that they do? How exactly would we prove it? By analyzing their blood chemistry before and after a meeting? Or perhaps by asking ChatGPT?
Another example: someone goes to the frontline—was it to defend their homeland? Or perhaps to seek adventure or glory? Can we “scientifically” assert that the person is noble? Is that proven? Then why does the same person come back from the frontline and commit vile acts?
When all knowledge and all types of truth are artificially compressed and forced into a “scientific cage,” that approach is known as scientism—a tendency especially widespread in the 19th and 20th centuries. Yet it is obvious that not everything needs “scientific” proof. Sometimes such proof is not even possible, especially when we are talking about a human being—a deeply complex and contradictory creature. This does not mean we should not look for other forms of evidence—better to say, signs or indicators. Much depends on the standard we set for these indicators. “I believe those witnesses that get their throats cut.” Blaise Pascal once said. A rather high bar.
Let us approach the issue from a different, “non-scientific” angle and try to understand how sincere a person is in their convictions, how dedicated they are to the ideas they proclaim. There is a well-known measure: what kind of hardship, what kind of sacrifice they are willing to endure for those ideas. How precious is their comfort zone? What are they ready to give up—a cup of coffee? A glass of vodka? Lunch? Money? Their home? Their job? Their life? Their honor? The greater the sacrifice, the deeper and stronger the convictions. The religion we profess is built on that very message—Christ’s message, delivered to us through sacrifice.
And if we descend from heaven to our own soil and look at our society, we will see that sociological (scientific?) methods reveal little about people’s true convictions. Researchers ask people: Do you want Artsakh to be part of Azerbaijan? About 95 percent say no. But that “no” comes with a very low threshold for action. Soon they will ask: Do you want 300,000 Azerbaijanis to live on Armenian territory? Or Do you want three “enclaves” handed over to Azerbaijan? I have no doubt the same 95 percent will say no. But if Azerbaijanis come and the enclaves are handed over, that same 95 percent will hardly protest.
So how do we measure people’s faith, dedication, sincerity?
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
