What we truly do is an implicit indication of our faith. Because everything we do, even if it does not lead to a result, the outcome we expect from it is for the acquisition of a “good” on behalf of ourselves or others. Therefore, the only reason we might not be practicing what is undoubtedly required by our faith in words could be: not believing.
The first criticism to this might be that there are other reasons explaining this situation, i.e., not performing the requirements of faith. For example, not being strong enough (not being capable of performing the requirement) or external factors independent of the person that prevent them from performing the action, like environmental barriers. The idea that these external barriers will not lead to the result, this “forecast” for the future, is ultimately a belief in the success of those barriers, isn’t it? Thus, the barrier explanation is actually a name invented to make the fact of not really believing, or believing in the barrier, less uncomfortable.
But what if the barrier is undoubtedly a barrier? For example, if a person is ill and unable to move, not as a predictive expression but due to physical necessity at that moment, definitely limiting and clear? However, this example, due to its physical certainty and absoluteness, differentiates from the situation of “impossibility as a plan” because its certainty does not stem from a forecast/belief about the future. With this clarification, there is no need to amend the initial definition, because the requirement of faith, the things we initially attributed as hypothetical, directly excludes such definite excuses from its definition. But not believing in the success of the outcome, and therefore not performing the requirement of faith for this reason, is a kind of concealment. Because while linking one’s disbelief to external problems, when one does not strive to perform an action/indicator that could be evidence of their own faith, one tries to devalue this action to cover their disbelief and thus implicitly suggests this disbelief to the environment. That is, since they will not admit to not performing the requirement of faith, they play to weaken the thought that faith requires it. (Moreover, since our prophet, who could give a definitive statement about what the requirement of faith is, is not among us, these judgments always remain a bit human, thus always suspended, and such weakenings find an easily exploitable ground.) Thus, not only does one remain faithless, but also invites everyone to another type of conformist faith by making it feel like there is no other choice but to be faithless.
Truthfully, it is not our job to discover who is faithless and who is faithful. Without admitting or finding such a judgment within us, our real issue is to recognize this psychic state similar to a defense that can be performed by others or even ourselves within everyday dialogues, to be prepared for it, to guard ourselves against our own disbelief and the disbelief of others. Even the inability to make a judgment often turns into a tactic used to sustain the anxiety that can lead this discussion into a deadlock. For instance, a person might exploit this ambiguity to serve in favor of not knowing and thus not doing. In this way, one finds an excuse on a philosophical ground and can contentedly think that the choice not to do something is smarter with explanations found from philosophy. Various thoughts do not actually leave us in a dilemma between various choices; generally, there is no initiative, and various thoughts are just different explanations of stagnation. And when you choose one of two thoughts, you are not making a choice for your next move; you are adding different meanings to your next stagnation. It turns out that one does not benefit from docta ignorantia, which convinces oneself on a philosophical ground, with its wisdom—as opposed to what is thought—nor with the indecision of its skepticism; but with the intellectual depth of its idleness and the idea of the impossibility of action.
Turning back to ourselves, but if we turn back to ourselves with our whole being, the question becomes: What is the requirement of our faith? And—if it is so clear—do we have a license not to be fulfilling it right now? Perhaps the degrees of honesty shown to these questions are intertwined with the degrees of faith.
