Almost a year ago, someone sent me a quiz to help determine which values were most important to me. Among the top 5 values it came up with for me was authenticity. This was also the single top-5 value I shared in common with the person who sent me the quiz.

Valuing authenticity actually seems to be a trend among young people today. A survey sent out to Gen-Z participants concluded authenticity was their most important value with 92% of respondents reporting it was very or extremely important to them.

I can’t be certain what attributes others are thinking of when they describe authenticity, but here’s how I would define it:

Authenticity is being genuine and honest in how someone presents themselves. For an authentic person, what they say and what they do reflect what they internally believe and value. I think of an authentic person as being outwardly honest and transparent. An authentic person does not lie to protect people, misguide others for altruistic reasons, or hide the ugly side of themselves or the things they love to maintain a positive image. With an authentic person, what you see is what you get, which I find very refreshing.

I think one reason why authenticity is so important to me is because I don’t feel as alone when someone is being authentic. When someone has a strong filter between their genuine thoughts and what they choose to say and do, I feel like it impedes connection. I no longer know what someone is really like— only the facade they choose to express themselves with. That filter also seems to go both ways. When someone isn’t transparent about their thoughts, you can never know if they really understand you or if they are just acting like they do.

Another value that to me feels very related, but I would give a slightly different connotation is that of integrity. While I would characterize authenticity as being an external transparency regarding who we are, I would describe integrity as being an internal consistency regarding who we are. Someone who has integrity aligns their observations, beliefs, values, and actions to eliminate hypocrisy (inconsistent judgment), cognitive dissonance (contradictory conclusions), and other forms of self-deception. When someone has integrity, they use consistent reasoning which makes it easier to identify contradicting beliefs & values which are then resolved.

One thing that differentiates this definition of integrity from what is commonly thought of is that this form of integrity is agnostic to any specific set of values. Someone does not have to value kindness, altruism, or being honest with others to have internal consistency and integrity. They only need to be honest with themselves. In this sense, authenticity and integrity can be mutually exclusive. Someone can be transparent and open about themselves, behaving in accordance with their momentary beliefs while not being internally consistent. Alternatively, someone can be very thoughtful and have a great deal of internal integrity, but not value openness, transparency, or honesty with others.

Sometimes I think it’s difficult to know whether someone is being authentic or is acting with integrity. I don’t think it’s something I can know with certainty as I’m not privy to others’ naked thoughts, but I feel like consistency of expression is usually a pretty good indicator of authenticity. If someone changes their behavior or self-described beliefs and values according to the environment, they may not be the most authentic. Part of me wonders if this is one reason why people don’t seem to like politicians who are wishy-washy or change their views a lot. It’s hard to tell if a politician really changed their mind on an issue because they learned something new (internal integrity) vs if they are just changing their stance because they think it could be more popular (being inauthentic).

Authenticity and Integrity are, to me, two sides of the same coin. They revolve around truth and honesty. Integrity is the attribute I value the most. One might call it my “core” value. It is so important for me that my thoughts, beliefs, values, and actions be in harmony. If there are any values I “choose”, this is that value. Perhaps I choose integrity because it matches my personality as a perfectionist. Perhaps I choose integrity because it’s what I’ve always believed was “moral” or the “right” thing to do. Or perhaps… I don’t really “choose” to value it. Maybe It’s simply something I naturally value because of my nature and I simply choose whether or not to adhere to that value.

Anyway, why am I bringing any of this up? Well, over a year ago I had a conversation with someone where they told me I chose not to believe in their church. At the time, that claim really got under my skin. I felt angry, misunderstood, and exasperated. To be honest, I still do. A few days later, they sent me an email apologizing for saying I chose my beliefs. And then, just a few weeks ago, they made a blog post drilling in their original sentiment: “It definitely is a choice to believe or not to believe.” This put all of that back in my mind.

Perhaps they didn’t expect me to read that blog post. In truth, I only read it because someone else close to me told me about it. Perhaps they’ve changed their mind about it since sending me an apology. Or perhaps their apology was never authentic; they were merely saying what they thought they should say or what they thought I would want to hear, whereas they never internally believed that— they were sorry that they said that to me and that I took offense, but were really unapologetic about having that belief. Either of those last two cases lack authenticity.

The point of this post isn’t really to gripe, although that’s to some degree what I feel like doing… I do however want to address the conception that we can choose our beliefs. 

While I don’t think it’s possible, for me at least, to outright choose what to believe, I can make decisions to influence my beliefs. I can choose what sources I’m willing to let try to influence me. I can choose to remain willfully ignorant. What I can’t do is choose or shepherd my beliefs and still have integrity. I recognize way too much of the hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, and self-deception I would feel to try to take that route. The thought makes my moral compass scream. Various people in my life have hinted that they can choose their beliefs by using such methods and I can’t help but feel appalled. After every moral I was indoctrinated with from youth focused around upholding the truth, how some people don’t seem to care about what that is, objectively, astounds me. 🤬

I have learned that what was once described to me as “truth”, is not what I thought it was. There’s a hymn I liked to sing growing up called “True to the faith”. The first two lines of the chorus go like this:

True to the faith that our parents have cherished,
True to the truth for which martyrs have perished

And another line later on in the song:

We will cleave unto the truth;

I realize now that the truth referred to in these verses is not “objective truth” or the defense of things as they really are. It is a call to be loyal to and defend a particular dogmatic belief— to be true to the “faith”. For being the literal name of the song, I was surprised how blindsided I felt realizing that.

So back to the blog post that riled me up a bit; This person claimed that while there was a lot of evidence against the church that “seems” convincing, there is also a lot of evidence for the church— therefore one can choose which side they want to believe. You can choose to study apologetics and let it chase your doubts away, or you can choose to be a lazy learner and rehearse your doubts with doubters. If this is the case, why not simply “choose” to believe. After all, this person did and it’s brought them so much peace and comfort in their life. 🙄

Well…

I do not choose my beliefs.

And I suppose I realize now that that might be by choice, because I value integrity. I do not just pick a belief and then look for sources to validate me like a high school student writing a persuasive essay. Just because I can find other people that agree with a certain perspective does not mean that it is logically sound.

Giving the church I was raised in as an example. I have read and watched a great deal of apologetic material. I don’t find any of it convincing. It’s not my choice that I don’t find it convincing. I simply hold religious claims to the same standard that I do for any other claim. This is part of being internally consistent. Apologetic sources use the presumption of the church being true. Areas of academic research do not get that luxury. That is still why secular scholars have always denounced the Book of Mormon as not being historical.

While some postulate that spiritual or religious things should not be measured with the same scrutiny as areas of scientific experimentation and discovery, I would consider that hypocrisy. I could not choose to employ such a method without diminishing my integrity which is my deepest-held value.

If the tone of this post feels judgemental… Good. That means I’m being authentic. 😉 As unfair as it might be to expect others to value the same things as I do, it’s hard for me to help it. As a natural consequence of perceiving others as being inauthentic or not having integrity, it’s harder for me to trust them. It’s harder for me to connect with them. —And in turn, it’s harder for me to love them (authentically).