Every Conscious Person Is Operating on Faith

As previously mentioned, some logical questions that flow from the fact you exist include “How did we get here?” and “Why are we here?”. Many people believe it is unnecessary or irrelevant to try to answer these questions and choose to avoid investing their faith in any conclusion related thereto (Option 1). Others invest their faith in the conclusion that everything came from nothing (e.g., a big bang event that has no explanation, creator, or ultimate source) and evolved from nothing, to lifeless energy, to lifeless mass and lifeless energy, to lifeless mass (including amino acids that became more complex in the form of simple proteins) and lifeless energy, to lifeless mass (including organized and complex proteins) and lifeless energy, to lifeless mass and mass embodying life (single celled organisms with fully advanced sub components [organelles]) and lifeless energy, to the energy and mass (including the incredibly complex lifeforms) we are and experience today (Option 2). Still others invest their faith in the conclusion that the complexity and order we experience and observe in the universe was created by an intelligent Creator (the creation process from which could possibly have included an originating “big bang” event, but one originating from an intentional designer, not nothingness) (Option 3). As you have probably already considered, there are various potential subcategories to Option 3 that could vary significantly.

Where do you invest your faith? You might object and say, “I am not investing faith in anything” (i.e., Option 1). By choosing to avoid investing any faith in either Option 2 or Option 3, you are necessarily relying (on faith) that at least Option 3 is not true. (Read the previous sentence again and let it sink in). The previous statement is true because some of the subcategories of Option 3 (if one of them turns out to be true) carry consequences for failure to invest faith in that subcategory of Option 3. The adage, “Don’t shoot the messenger” comes to mind at this point. I did not create the various belief systems in our world that fall under Option 3. I am simply reporting the fact that at least some of these belief systems carry significant consequences if one or more of them are true. As such, those persons choosing Option 1 are (perhaps ironically) in fact relying on faith by the act of not investing faith in either Option 2 or Option 3.

In some belief systems, including Christianity, there is no “neutral” position. In such belief systems, relying on a very specific set of information (beliefs) by faith is required, wherein the faith (or lack thereof) in such systems carry very significant eternal consequences. In other belief systems under Option 3, there are no consequences of eternal significance. The bottom line is this: Because some belief systems teach that there are significant eternal consequences for failure to believe/trust, and because it is possible one of those belief systems might actually be true, any option chosen above (Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3) requires faith. If choosing an Option 1 scenario, you are forfeiting and, by default, shifting your faith to Option 2 or Option 3. By doing so, one thought might be to live for today and bet on either (a) Option 2 being true or that, (b) if Option 3 is true, betting it is one of the subcategories that does not carry any significant negative eternal consequences for you (either because such subcategory has no such consequences or, if it does, you will somehow pass an undefined morality test by being a decent person). Resting your faith on a subcategory of Option 3 does not guarantee that Option 3 is true or, if it is in fact true, that the ultimately true subcategory thereof does in fact carry eternal consequences. However, it does guarantee that you are actively in the “game” and not forfeiting.

It is tempting at this point for some people to object that the argument set forth above is an example of argumentum ad baculum, also known as the “appeal to fear” fallacy. This fallacy applies when an argument is solely based on alleging negative consequences if one does not make a certain choice. That would assume that the argument here is to choose Option 3 and assume that one of the subcategories–namely, Christianity–applies as truth in our universe. However, if you look closely, that is not the argument being made. Rather, the argument is simply this: Whatever you choose (Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3), you are doing so on faith. You are putting your “weight” on one of the options. There is no neutral, non-faith option.

Please note the argument set forth above is also not a “False Dilemma” fallacy which is described by Google AI as “[p]resenting only two options when more exist, often with one option being a frightening outcome.” As far as this issue of “creation,” there do appear to be two general options (proposed above as Option 2 and Option 3). However, as indicated above, Option 3 is further subdivided into a large number of subcategories, only some of which (including the specified example of Christianity) posit that there are significant eternal consequences regarding where a person’s faith is placed. Stating something is a possibility that should be considered among many options is not shoehorning a person into a False Dilemma fallacy. Rather, it is reporting on statistical possibilities. As far as statistical probability is concerned, that would require other evidence, and that evidence has not even been discussed yet (or the associated reliability and authenticity of such evidence). That will come later. For now, the point is this: whether you realize it or not, you are operating on faith in something. Many people do not take the time to even consider what the potential stakes are of not placing a bet, and what evidence is available to support such stakes (Option 1). You have one life of indeterminate length to choose whether to intentionally seek truth and potentially uncover something perhaps unexpected (Option 2 or Option 3) or remain on the bench in a state of complacency (Option 1) without a sober and honest look at the data gathered from history, our world, and the universe around us.

“Complacency” is a term and concept that I did not fully understand in college until I became a big fan of Steve Irwin, The Crocodile Hunter. Before his untimely and very unfortunate death, I included him on my list of the three people I would most want to have a meal with to discuss life. The most important lesson I learned from Steve is to understand the concept of complacency and how it must be avoided at all costs. Before having my interest in the concept of “complacency” piqued by Steve, I assumed that “complacency” simply was a form of laziness and lack of effort. My understanding was lacking. I learned that “complacency” is actually believing you are in a state of safety when you are actually in danger. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2025) defines “complacency” as “a calm sense of well-being and security: the quality or state of being satisfied (especially: satisfaction or self-satisfaction accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies).”¹

It is the opinion of Earnest Expedition that there are vast swaths of people in the world choosing Option 1, believing they are “neutral,” above the fray of what feel like hyper-polarized belief system (religious) conflicts, and unaffected by any consequences of failing to dig deeper and investigate/choose. Despite the smug sense of being “above” those fighting “below,” such people are actually operating in a mode of cosmic complacency, the results of which may not become apparent until the danger has been revealed to them with little or no time to react. Earnest Expedition’s hope is to get men’s souls awake and moving–to “free the feet”² in an attempt to earnestly seek truth regardless of where the evidence leads.

¹ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complacency (emphasis added), from December 7, 2025.

² The latin word expedire, literally meaning to “free the feet,” is the etymological root of the word “expedition” which effectively means to get moving forward with purposeful intent. The Earnest Expedition logo is two overlapping “E”’s over a platform/base comprising an overlapping set of (1) a backward facing “F” (symbolizing “free”), (2) a “T” (symbolizing “the”), and (3) a forward-facing “F” (symbolizing “feet”).