The Paradox of Belief: Integrating Faith and Logic in the Psyche

Deep inside the human mind, there is a deep contradiction between conviction and skepticism, a dichotomy weaving the very pattern of our being. People who deny the existence of God most often do so in the name of rational thinking, reasoning, and autonomy. It is not merely a denial of the divine, but a psychological attempt to liberate the self from the structures and archetypes that faith imposes. But it can lie at the root of a rebelled seeking for elevation, to escape from the general categories and claim the singularity, a fight for the top of a social pyramid, revisiting the archetype of the rebel. But, when we look at those who hold to God, there is a distinct psychological profile. Belief is a source of comfort, a shelter from having no certainty over life. Used in a territorial manner—man as the father, the defender—the father figure provides succor during the anxieties and the despair. When faced with the unknown, the believer invokes this image to ward off chaos, finding psychological stability in the process. However, this dependence can also constrain growth, since dependence on the transcendental archetype may block the individuation process, the process by which one moves towards self-realization. For the non-theist, the lack of this archetype necessitates the invention of a believers’ own meaning and own values. This act of how meaning is formed, empowering yet burdensome. Free from the constraints of shared systems of belief, the psyche is liable to chaotic disorder. Rational reason, taken to the extreme, may cut a man off from the wellsprings of the feeling and intuition, and may result in emotional and psychic imbalance. To deny the divine outright is to face the void, and not everyone is equipped to deal with the weight that comes with the existential burden of such privation. Herein lies the paradox: belief in God provides psychological comfort but may stunt individuation, while the rejection of God fosters autonomy but risks psychic fragmentation. [Those] that rehash and rehash endlessly whether God “is” or “is not” a there are, in the end, in a battle of the mind as to their own inner demons. They externalize these conflicts in the push for a debate that is a reflection of their own internal conflicts and conflicts. To transcend this dichotomy, one must look inward. The issue is not the existence or not of God, but the function of the archetype of the divine in the psychic. For the devout, God is a totem of order, hope, and unity. For the atheist, the absence of God demands the forging of new symbols and new paths. Both routes are full of difficulties, and both can be a source of growth or devastation. It is how well the individual integrates the archetypes of content, logics, emotions, and beliefs within himself or herself that seem to be far more important than a debate about whether God exists or not. The real objective of this journey is not to prove or disprove anything, but rather to strike a harmonious balance between reason and elusive intuition, between belief and ongoing doubt, and between individual freedom and collective norms. Many other things will give you peace among the frenzy of the world; balance is one of them.