The post The Paradox of Power and the Secret Strength of Meekness appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

As a psychologist and psychotherapist who specializes in the relationship between psychology and faith, I regularly work with religious people who struggle with feelings of unworthiness and guilt. Some of them have developed symptoms of OCD/Scrupulosity because their thoughts and feelings convince them––despite what Christ taught––that they are not forgiven for their sins even when they have repented. Sometimes, they find themselves compelled to call their priesthood leader every morning to confess all their sins, just as they did the day before, to calm their mind and get a brief respite from debilitating obsessive thoughts and feelings of guilt.

Because I uniquely position myself to help people of faith with psycho-spiritual issues, church leaders regularly ask me to speak to their members about related topics. Recently, I have been asked to speak more often about self-compassion. Like other concepts with ancient religious roots, this topic has become too secularized and psychologized of late. Compassion  has been mostly or altogether separated from its original purpose and meaning—‘to suffer with another.’  Now ironically made into a property of the self, each of us needs to develop and practice self-compassion in order to be healthy and well.

Too Much Self!

This shift from the religious and the relational to the secular and the individual is commonplace in psychology. It is not an exaggeration to say psychology has a fixation on locating properties and qualities within the self and then placing responsibility for the care of those properties onto the self. Here are just a few examples:

• Be more self-reliant and strive to become increasingly self-sufficient, recognizing each person is ultimately responsible for themself.
• In pursuit of self-mastery practice self-control over thoughts, self-regulation over feelings, and self-discipline over actions.
• Develop a strong and positive self-concept and high self-esteem. Minimize negative self-talk and maximize positive self-affirmations.
• Be true to yourself, live in a manner that is self-authentic and self-congruent, and beware of becoming the social self––which is the self others want you to be.
• Above all else, love yourself, which entails things like forgiving yourself and practicing self-compassion and self-care.

Why does psychology demand so much of the self both professionally and in its wildly popular “self-help” arm?

Why the Self?

Almost 400 years ago, a French soldier, mathematician, scientist, and philosopher by the name of Rene Descartes endeavored to find certainty––which had long been the holy grail of philosophical inquiry. His 1637 publication Discourse on Method describes his application of a systematic form of skepticism through which he doubted everything possible. Descartes doubted the existence of God, the physical world, the existence of other people, and even our own bodies until he arrived at that which could not be doubted: doubt itself. To doubt is to engage in doubting. So, doubting anything––including doubt––requires doubt and the doubter. Doubting, he concluded, is a form of thinking done by a thinker. So, the thinking self is the one thing that cannot be doubted and, therefore, must be certain. This is the origin of perhaps the most influential philosophical assertion of the Western world, “I think, therefore I am,” or “When I am thinking, then I exist.”

The Burden of the Thinking Self

This makes the often frustrating “chatter” in our heads (Kross, 2021) necessary to the survival and maintenance of the self. But survival requires more than continuous thought, it requires correct thinking. Wrong thinking may not threaten being, but it wobbles the certainty of its foundation. One could live getting things wrong, but not securely or safely. So, we think very hard to get things right. From a Cartesian worldview, thinking has to be constant and correct.

The burden of self-contained thinking leaves little bandwidth available for caring about other things, including other people. Research bears this out, showing our thoughts, conversations, and posts are self-centered most of the time (Ward, 2013). Social isolation and loneliness have become a significant public health epidemic in many countries (Surkalim and others, 2022). Psychology and psychotherapy contribute to this problem when only offering people self-solutions, which leave the self increasingly isolated (Cushman, 1990). But when the thinking self alone is the trusted source of certainty, what else can be done? 

Faith in Self or Faith in Christ?

For Christians, the philosophy of being doesn’t begin or end with Descartes and his doubt. Sixteen hundred years earlier, Jesus Christ told his followers to trust in Him––not in themselves––saying, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself” (Matthew 16:24). His words echo the proverb “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). Nephi––whose thoughts condemned him as a “wretched man” (2 Nephi 4:17)––would not put his trust in his thoughts and feelings, instead crying out, “O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of the flesh” (v. 34).

Faith over Feelings

Consider again the psycho-spiritual issue of feeling guilty and unworthy. When breaking a commandment or neglecting the things one should do, a feeling of guilt is common. If the guilt works in a manner consistent with God’s will, then it will lead to repentance and the forgiveness God promises. The guilt should then end, having served its purpose. But often, for many people––and not just those with OCD and Scrupulosity––the guilt remains, and the forgiveness is questioned. Was the repentance sincere and sufficient? Was the sin really forsaken? Were full reparations made? Shouldn’t I feel better? Why do I still feel bad? Maybe I don’t deserve forgiveness. Maybe I can’t be worthy again. Into our heads we go.

Choose His Thoughts Over Your Thoughts

This is not easy. It is actually scary. It is hard to give up something that feels familiar and essential to existence for something promised by someone other than the self, even God. It requires the leap of faith captured so beautifully by Minnie Haskins (1908):

And I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year,

“Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.”

And he replied:

“Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God. 

That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way.”

Putting faith in Christ over ever-present thoughts and feelings is a very real and conscious choice that has to be made and remade on a regular basis. Thankfully, we have access to His thoughts––which are not our thoughts––as scripture stated by Him directly or revealed through His prophets. He has spoken to those who wrestle with their own thinking and feelings, with anxieties and fears, people who are “careful and troubled about many things” (Luke 10:41). He shows that we can be careful and troubled and still trust in His words. To accept His forgiveness, peace, and comfort, we can’t make our thoughts and feelings the arbiter of our status with the Lord, and we cannot employ self-compassion. Instead, we must yield to His compassion and what He has said over and over again that 

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish; neither shall any man [not even oneself] pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:27-29).

References:

Cushman P. (1990). Why the self is empty. Toward a historically situated psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 599-611. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.45.5.599. PMID: 2190505.

Haskins, M. L. (1908). God knows. In https://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/the-gate-of-the-year/

Kross, E. (2021). Chatter: The voice in our head, why it matters, and how to harness it. Crown: New York.

Surkalim, D. L., Luo, M., Eres, R., Gebel, K., van Buskirk, J., Bauman, A., & Ding, D. (2022). The prevalence of loneliness across 113 countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 376, e067068. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-067068

Vieten, C., Scammell, S., Pierce, A., Pilato, R., Ammondson, I., Pargament, K. I., & Lukoff, D. (2016). Competencies for psychologists in the domains of religion and spirituality. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 3(2), 92–114.

Ward, A. F. (July 16, 2013). The Neuroscience of everybody’s favorite topic: Why do people spend so much time talking about themselves? Scientific American.

The post Faith and the Overburdened Self: The Paradox of Self-Care appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

I’ll save you the beginning details. My sexual feelings awakened in my pubescent years like everyone else’s. Eventually, I landed at BYU. My parents, who knew my situation and loved me, assured me everything would be fine. I didn’t believe my parents—convincing myself that BYU hated and harmed people like me. I spent the first year in paranoia, combined with peak opposition to the culture around me. I believed that everyone secretly suspected that I was attracted to men. At the same time, I zealously hid the fact. 

Unsurprisingly, I did not like the Church. I even told my bishop I was an atheist.

A slip of the tongue changed my attitude. One night, I drove a friend home after a long evening of studying. He discussed the women he liked and wanted me to reciprocate. I awkwardly tried to dodge the question, using every obfuscation in the book. My response baffled him, and he pressed me further. I finally let the words slip out of my mouth, telling him the truth. And I waited with bated breath.

As it happened, other people in my life suspected I was attracted to other men (not dating at BYU is suspicious, no matter what). Yet once again, my friends, family, and professors reacted with love and kindness. And my heart softened as I told them the truth. Honesty snowballed, and now my situation is common knowledge. One professor recommended I go to the Office of Student Success and Inclusion (now the Office of Belonging), where I found excellent resources.

When I heard Elder Holland’s 2021 BYU address, it upset me. At the time, I thought it didn’t reflect love and compassion, and I felt unhappy about it. However, as I continued to learn about the context of the speech, I came to better appreciate the purpose of the talk. Unfortunately, some members of the BYU community, past and present, do attempt to undermine faith (though to be clear, I believe that the overwhelming majority of faculty and staff attempt to build faith). Calling such individuals to repentance was necessary.

At this point, my dislike of the Church evaporated. Too many friends and professors reacted lovingly to me for me to continue seeing BYU labeled as “homophobic.” When I saw the “Strike Out Queerphobia” protest attempting to strip BYU of its Title IX exemptions in the fall of 2022, I felt dismayed and angry. It smeared a campus I loved—while trying to convince people like me that we could never find a place at this campus or in the Church. I knew better. The Church was not only my religion, but it was also my community, my refuge, and my people. I didn’t want to leave any of that. I wanted to be a member, though I seriously doubted I could remain fully on the covenant path. I believed I would attend church but still marry a man.

One Sunday afternoon earlier this year, I journeyed up to Salt Lake City to search the cemetery for David O. McKay’s grave. I had read his biography and was convinced he was a prophet and a great man. I found his final resting spot under a marble tombstone, and then I decided to go down to Brigham Young’s personal cemetery. The personal cemetery was closed, but two sister missionaries recommended I go to Temple Square. I complied and took a tour of the conference center. I had a wonderful time. And as I headed back to Provo, I felt prompted to prepare to enter the temple.

At the same time, I restarted my quest to understand early church history. The example of early Latter-day Saint women in polygamous relationships moved me; they sacrificed everything for their faith, often suffering loneliness, isolation, and disapproval. Foregoing sexual relationships with men was a small price for me to pay to carry on their legacy. My resolve strengthened.

I’ve been lucky these past few years—lucky to have friends rooted in the gospel, lucky to have been at BYU, lucky to have a wonderful family. Not everyone is lucky, of course, and luck unfortunately doesn’t transmit. However, there are lessons I’ve learned that have helped me stay rooted in the gospel.

1. Community matters. One of my friends interviewed me about my experiences at BYU. I mentioned that acceptance was important in changing my outlook. She asked if my testimony depended on acceptance. It shouldn’t, but it would be difficult to stay in the faith if I weren’t accepted. Let me be clear: acceptance does not equal permissiveness. You don’t have to agree with a person’s every choice to accept them; you just need to acknowledge their humanity in all its complexity. For those with same-sex attraction, the fellowship of the saints is important. We shoulder each other’s burdens which makes testimony building easier.

2. Ask about the meaning of words. Some like to say BYU is “unsafe” for gays. I’ve never felt unsafe here, so what do they mean? Are they referring to physical safety? If so, what examples can they provide? I suspect “unsafe” is merely a euphemism for disliking the honor code. The same goes for BYU’s alleged lack of “inclusivity.” Again, inclusivity sounds nice but is vacuous. All communities have boundaries. Removing all boundaries empties these communities of substance. Sexual difference sits at the center of Latter-day Saint theology. To remove it would undermine the theology of the Church.

 3. Discipleship cuts across political boundaries. I have friends across the political spectrum. Some are leftwing, others are rightwing. Many of these friends and professors, irrespective of political commitment, supported me and reminded me of the blessings of temple covenants. All have firm testimonies of Jesus Christ and His gospel. It’s best not to assume that political affiliation determines faithfulness. The Church is not the province of one political tribe. All who obey His commands can and should be welcomed with open arms.

4. Don’t crucify your mind. Our American culture does not provide much encouragement towards obedience and sexual restraint. Those voices that do offer such positive motivation deserve respect and amplification. Helpful works include Conscience and its Enemies by Robert P. George, a devout Roman Catholic who has taught at Princeton for many years. Ralph Hancock’s talk “Love Wins and Charity Loses” helped me, along with Valerie Hudson’s feminist defense of heterosexual marriage. No argument is won by reason alone, but reason is a powerful tool to reinforce gospel teachings.

5. Love and lust. Gay-identifying men and women often assert their orientation is about love, not sex. I question the truth of these assertions. I’m a male in my early 20’s; of course, it’s about sex. Civil marriage recognizes sexual relationships. The love expressed in them differs from the love expressed for parents, siblings, children, grandparents, or friends due to sex. We shouldn’t demonize sex, but we should think critically about accepting “love” here as the sole driving force. Love and sex can’t be separated. And sexual desire, unconstrained, often leads to disaster (ask Anna Karenina). Since physical infatuation serves as a wellspring of romantic love, romantic love benefits from healthy constraints.

6. God asks for sacrifices. God loves us unconditionally. Consequently, He asks us to do hard things. The more I live, the more convinced I am of this truth. Jesus asks us to take up our cross and follow Him; He does not say there will be no cross. Our life was never going to be simple and straightforward, and we knew that coming to Earth. He doesn’t promise us endless bliss in this life or happy endings. The scriptures are replete with those who suffer for the faith, many of whom die for their faith. Most of us (including me!) don’t sacrifice that much. We are simply asked to keep his commandments.

And honestly, being attracted to other men pales in comparison to other challenges. As I’ve opened up about my challenges, others have opened up about theirs. And it astonishes me what people suffer, ranging from family problems to mental health issues. After listening to so many of these struggles, many of my own were put in perspective and so I could count my many blessings.

Recently, I had the opportunity to receive my endowment. I’m dramatic, so I invited as many people as possible. As it happened, this was the last day before I left Utah for the foreseeable future. This meant leaving friends and family for a long time. As I passed into the Celestial Room, I felt overwhelmed. One by one, friends came up and said their goodbyes. As we parted, I remembered that the purpose of the temple is for these relationships to last forever, no matter what happens here on earth. And as I go back to the temple, I feel the peace that all will be set right in the end. Definitely worth the sacrifice.

The post Queer and Covenant-Bound: Paradox Resolved appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

What if, after every sacrifice, weighing the costs and rewards, you are left with a great and final sacrifice, with only one reason—God said so?

This reality is foundational to the Abrahamic faiths. We sacrifice even when it makes no sense, even when it takes everything we have when God says so.

This concept is increasingly foreign in the secularized West, where our opulence allows us to believe we can have it all. So why give up anything?

Why indeed?

In the recent film “His Only Son,” Abraham faces these very questions. “His Only Son” is a touching film that delves into the experience of faith and explores the notion of sacrifice. Nicolas Mouawad, who portrays Abraham, delves deep into the reality of Abraham as a man and surfaces with both the honest struggles and honest strength that comes from his faith and relationship with the Lord.

In a post-screening Q&A, Mouawad explained that he had to remove the idea of Abraham as this great historical figure, to discover how the real person Abraham would have reacted in these moments. That work pays off because we can’t fully appreciate Abraham the figurehead if we can’t first see the real grappling of Abraham the person.

When it comes to matters of faith, it’s rare for a film this well-made to “get it.” Well, they get it in all its beauty, all its nuance, all its struggle.

But this push to have everything is an illusion. Christians understand this in Jesus’ injunction that “no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” Both Jewish and Islamic traditions have similar teachings.

You simply cannot enjoy both indulgence and temperance. And when you worship a God of mysteries—a God whose ways are higher than ours—we will be asked to sacrifice things that make no sense other than that we are sacrificing them for Him. 

The script, written by David Helling, who also directed, takes Abraham on the journey from his home to the mountain where has been asked to sacrifice his son. During his travels, he remembers his time with Sarah and their struggle to have a child. Abraham remembers the many sacrifices he made to the Lord with the promise that an entire nation would come from his seed. And now the Lord asked him to sacrifice the one thing he had sacrificed everything for. Devotion to God is the ultimate sacrifice. 

The widespread presence of Abrahamic faiths in the United States, along with their common narrative of sacrifice and familial bonds, offers a fascinating framework for examining the relationship between religious devotion and the concept of sacrifice.

In a study of seventy-seven religious adolescents from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim families, participants reported making sacrifices for their faith in various domains, including societal expectations, popular culture, comforts and pleasures, time and activities, and peer relations.

They reported several reasons for being willing to make sacrifices, such as connecting to a higher meaning or purpose, connecting to God, connecting to the faith tradition or community, fulfilling expectations, and avoiding problems. These individuals of faith brought to their life the experience of Abraham. 

And by sacrificing for others, they feel themselves lifted up. In a recent set of interviews about the relationship between sacrifice and self-care, Anokie, a Native American Methodist, said about his marriage, “I think we would agree [caring for others] is an investment [for which] we are richly rewarded” and his wife concurred, “No matter what you do, a lot of times you think you’re doing it to help others, but you end up getting so much for your time.”

The study’s authors conclude that religious belief can help turn sacrifice into self-care, a process they describe as a “genuine transformation of motivations.” Latter-day Saints already understand this idea in the words of Joseph Smith, “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.”

Sacrifice traditions within Abrahamic religions demonstrate the importance of prioritizing faith and devotion to a higher power. These traditions can serve as an example for others, showing that making sacrifices for one’s beliefs can lead to personal growth, resilience, and a stronger sense of purpose. By understanding and embracing the concept of sacrifice, individuals can learn to prioritize the most important aspects of their lives and cultivate deeper connections with others, their faith, their communities—but most importantly, their God. 

On this Easter week, we are reminded of the ultimate importance of sacrifice. Of God sacrificing “His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish.” Sacrifice can be contradictory, soul-wrenching, and meditative. But it is the foundation of our faith. “His Only Son” inspired me by seeing how a faithful man could come to understand a mighty sacrifice he was asked to undertake. We must resist the cultural winds that tell us we can avoid sacrifice. We will sacrifice something. Let’s make sure it’s not God. 

The post Embracing the Unthinkable: The Paradox of Sacrifice in “His Only Son” appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

From early childhood, many of us have grown to view conflict as negative—something to be avoided at all costs if we want to live happily. Therapists commonly report conflict avoidance as one of the most prevalent intimacy problems that come up in couple counseling sessions. While conflict is an inevitable and necessary part of relationship functioning, individuals sometimes go to unhealthy lengths to prevent, minimize, or avoid arguments, paradoxically creating greater conflict for the relationship down the road. 

A recent national research study, published by the Wheatley Institution and the Austin Institute, sheds some light on pornography-related conflict as both a possible motive for concomitant concealment and the seemingly paradoxical result. 

The sample for the study, collected in the summer of 2020, was recruited from across the U.S. to represent people of various ages, races, education levels, religions, and geographic regions. To be included, participants must have been at least 18 years old and in a committed relationship (i.e., seriously dating, cohabiting, or married). Eventually, there were two samples used—one with 3,750 individuals and another with 713 male-female couples. 

The authors of the study found that 1 in 5 couples experience conflict in their relationship due to pornography use. And this is not surprising, since other research indicates that just over 50% of young adult women believe that pornography viewing is unacceptable behavior, whereas almost 9 out of 10 young adult men report using pornography to some degree. 

In essence, half of young women are seeking ideal pairings with 10% of men—the ones who don’t use pornography. Of course, many women don’t end up pairing with these distinctive men, and for that reason, pornography use can readily become a source of relationship tension for many couples. And subsequently, many individuals keep pornography use hidden from their romantic partners—evading the risk of relationship conflict or disapproval. The authors call this lack of openness about pornography use “pornography concealment.”

Indeed, results suggested that partners are largely unaware of how often their significant other uses pornography. Results exhibit that women consistently underestimate both softcore pornography use (i.e., sexual material with simulated sexual acts that does not explicitly show genitalia) and hardcore pornography use (i.e., sexual material with full depiction of actual sex acts and nudity) by men. By comparison, men consistently overestimate the softcore and hardcore pornography use by women, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

These data show that, generally, men and women do not seem to be on the same page, when it comes to an awareness of each other’s pornography use. To go deeper into couple dynamics surrounding pornography use, the authors of the recent study analyzed couples data from the 713 heterosexual couples to see if partners are more in tune with each other’s pornography use within their own relationship. Overall, most couples were likewise surprisingly unaware of their partner’s pornography use, as illustrated in Figure 3.

While slightly more accurate than the general estimates cited earlier, these results indicate that when partners are utilizing pornography alone, the majority of their partners are unaware of either the nature or extent of such use. For example, only about one-third of women correctly assessed their partner’s pornography use. Altogether, these results indicate that pornography concealment is a common practice in relationships today.

However, couples are not oblivious to the potential for pornography concealment. One in every three dating women reported that they were worried that their partner was withholding some details about their pornography use, and one in four married women and men reported some worry about this issue. Research confirms that even this kind of wondering about concealment can reduce trust and increase conflict in relationships over time. That worry and decrease in trust that partners experience are likely reasons why couples experience conflict regarding pornography. 

As far as the motive behind concealment, one in four men reported hiding or withholding their pornography use from their partner due to either fear of their partner’s reaction or not knowing how to communicate about it. Concealment is often initially intended for a stabilizing purpose—to avoid or minimize conflict, and to reduce the pain and further harm that regular disclosure might involve. However, concealment efforts to avoid conflict early on can paradoxically create more severe and increased conflict down the line. 

While it is true that some men can overwhelm their wives or girlfriends from constant disclosure about temptation and struggle (better directed at a male accountability partner), this research also suggests that self-concealment from one’s partner is generally associated with lower relationship satisfaction and decreased commitment and is negatively associated with relationship well-being. While pornography concealment serves as a short-term conflict buffer, it becomes a poor strategy for long-term relational intimacy and stability. 

When reading these results, some may think that pornography concealment is not affecting their relationship because their partner doesn’t use pornography—or doesn’t use it that much. Unfortunately, thoughts like these may prolong pornography concealment and prevent important conversations from taking place among couples. While the study does not suggest that most couples are purposefully hiding things from each other, it does highlight the importance of initiating intentional conversations about pornography. Open and honest conversation is a crucial catalyst for behavioral change and alignment between romantic partners.

Though concealment can increase couple conflict regarding pornography use, it is important to acknowledge that concealment is only one contributing factor to the impact of pornography on relationships. Interestingly enough, couples who are on the same page with pornography use might also be included in those couples that have a conflict regarding pornography. That is, even couples who are open and honest about their pornography use may be at risk for decreased relationship quality.

For example, data from 30 national surveys collectively show that pornography use is almost always a predictor of poorer relationship quality. The recent report echoed this finding: as the relative frequency of pornography use increased, couples experienced a consistent decline in relationship stability, commitment, and relationship satisfaction. 

Couples, where both partners report that they do not use pornography at all, had the highest levels of relationship stability, commitment, and relationship satisfaction, with 90% of these couples reporting that their relationship is stable, committed, and satisfying to them. 

Taken together, the results from the recent study lead us to suggest that couples may not understand as much as they think about each other’s pornography use, with many partners concealing use to avoid increased conflict. However, contrary to the concealer’s intent, pornography concealment may play a key role in increased relationship conflict and is associated with decreased relationship stability, satisfaction, and commitment. Acknowledging that those in the healthiest romantic relationships tend to be those who avoid pornography altogether, openness regarding pornography use may be a helpful long-term strategy to promote relationship well-being.

The post The Paradox of Porn Concealment appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The post The COVID-19 pandemic is displaying the need for paradox in politics appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

[Video: Undecided Voters]

We elect representatives to get an in-depth understanding of the issues and make decisions on our behalf because most people don’t have time, resources, or ability to do it themselves; but it turns out that the same in-depth knowledge is needed in order to successfully evaluate and choose a good representative, which we are already by definition unqualified to do.

So we elect someone we think we can trust.

But when they get the in-depth understanding that we sent them there to get and it leads them to choose differently than we, the less informed, think we would have chosen, we feel betrayed and vote them out, even though theoretically that is exactly what we sent them there to do in the first place.

If we were qualified to evaluate whether our representatives were making the right decisions then we wouldn’t need representatives in the first place. That is why people fall back on party affiliation and ideology.

As Winston Churchill is purported to have said: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried…”

That is one reason why limited government, with issues being handled at the most local scope is superior to big, unlimited government. People are most qualified to evaluate candidates and issues closest to them. Big government brings one-size-fits-all solutions that will never be able to account for local differences and needs.

It is discouraging that low-information voters often decide elections.  But the fact is that few of us have sufficient information to make truly informed decisions. While we may not be low-information voters, it will always come down to intangibles and making decisions without sufficient information.

In other words, it comes down to an act of Faith.