Faith in Doubt

In a story from this week's Time magazine, we learn for the first time of Mother Teresa's private crisis of faith. As Teresa confessed in her own private letters "I look and do not see, -- Listen and do not hear." And more painful still:

Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love -- and now become the most hated one -- the one -- You have thrown away as unwanted -- unloved. I call, I cling, I want--and there is no One to answer -- no One on Whom I can cling -- no, No One. -- Alone... Where is my Faith -- even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness -- My God -- how painful is this unknown pain -- I have no Faith -- I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart -- & make me suffer untold agony.

Incredibly, given Teresa's saintly life and steadfast allegiance to the Church both in terms of its spiritual authority and the rightness of its teachings, this dark night of the soul was no passing phase. On the contrary, it was the private wound that consumed her thoughts throughout her adult life, even in the midst of her increasingly public ministry to the poor and the sick and the outcast.

On the one hand, this is a shocking story. For some, such as Christopher Hitchens, it is further confirmation of Teresa's duplicity and further proof that religion is nothing but a human fabrication. Like the rest of Hitchens' writings on religion, this explanation is far too easy by its failure to acknowledge the true complexity of the human psyche. What Teresa's religious torment shows, which is a truth illustrated in its most focused manner in the vast existentialist literature on the subject, is that religion can never be reduced to simply a matter of belief or unbelief. Indeed, as Kierkegaard taught us almost two hundred years before, doubt is the necessary companion to faith.

It is precisely this doubt and anxiety that has drawn generation of readers to the spiritual writings of one of Teresa's own Catholic contemporaries Thomas Merton. Merton's classic modern spiritual autobiography The Seven Storey Mountain tells the tale of his conversion, and his subsequent writings as a contemplative Trappist monk demonstrate how an authentic faith is no panacea. On the contrary, from the vantage point of the Trappist monastery in rural Kentucky, Merton remained deeply engaged in the modern world as his commitment to a life of contemplation forced him to speak out on various issues ranging from the civil rights movement, to nuclear armament, and eventually even the need for greater inter-religious cooperation and dialogue.

While Merton was held up as a model of the modern man who only came to religion after years of spiritual wandering and futility, Teresa's more straightforward good works and obedience have been seen as a sort of counterpoint. It was thought that her work with the poor left her little or no time for the self-obsessed quest for authenticity that was the hallmark of Merton and the great bulk of his contemporaries. Now we discover that just as Merton's solitude was the means by which he became the critical voice of cultural engagement, so too was Teresa's public life of good works the inevitable and necessary flip side to a penetrating, scathingly honest, and deeply personal internal spiritual quest.

For perhaps what is the closest analogy to this newfound window into Teresa's soul, we should recall the classic story from the Spanish existentialist Migel de Unamuno, "Saint Manuel Bueno, Martyr." This story, which is set in a small provincial Spanish town in the early twentieth century, is about a simple but saintly parish priest who faithfully carries out his priestly duties by visiting the sick and instructing the faithful. He is beloved and revered by his parishioners. But through it all, he harbors his own secret burden -- namely, he cannot bring himself to believe the very truths he proclaims to others. As Unamuno writes of Don Manuel, he "feigned belief, even if he did not feel any." Don Manuel's faith was a willed unbelief and a deliberate hypocrisy, but the paradox was that it was precisely by this ruse that he lived such a life of integrity and was such a source of blessing and inspiration to others. By asserting a truth that he could not even bring himself to believe, others stood as witnesses to his goodness and were saved from his own private despair. Thus, his lie established a truth in a reality that even he himself could not see.

This is the profundity of faith. With these existentialist forbears in mind, what we might say about Teresa's private spiritual agony is that far from suggesting a "startling portrait in self-contradiction," as the Time journalist David van Biema writes, is that it is only now that we may know Teresa as our fellow sojourner on the path of life. It is by her doubt that her true faith is confirmed; and it is by that fuller and more honest accounting of her faith that her true vocation as a saintly witness is confirmed.

If only we had more faith in doubt, we might move beyond the dogmatic certainties of the believers and unbelievers alike. Perhaps such uncertainty requires too much of us, as both Teresa's public and private life would confirm. But anything less is dishonest.

Comments

[Squirtapotamus]

So do I understand your purpose in engaging me as "one atheist to another" was to tell me "the only pragmatic route" is to shut up? Am I suppose to "modify the rhetoric" by letting Christians proclaim the ignorance without calling them on it? This is what will produce peace in the world?

I'd call this appeasement. Democrats do this in Congress and they get there ass handed to them by the Republicans every time.

It's time to stand up and fight.

[Squirtapotamus]

Yet I hear your apology for your surliness and I appreciate your patience in engaging me in this debate, since obviously it's just you and me on this thread, Ace having long ago decided he's made his point in capital letters and has nothing more to say.

You talk about the "them" who will make the difference, not "us". Yet we're all humans. I realize each one of us has to take responsibility for waking up the planet. The movement is afoot. I see the evidence about me. I know that the challenge I gave Ace has planted a seed if even just unconscious. Slowly, the change we are looking for will follow. We are the ones that we've been waiting for.

[Squirtapotamus]

The funadmental premise of all Abrahamic religions is that Humans are fundamentally flawed and in need of salvation. This premise is the root cause of all the heartache that people inflict on one another.

Contrast this to the pagan, taoist, hindu, buddhist and animist religions, where you find human's place in this world to be in natural balance with nature. There is no "make wrong" inherent in their doctrine. These religions promote peace and tolerance in ways unfathonamble to the judeo-chri­sto-muslim varieties. So I ask myself why the ancient Jewish culture is the one which dominates in my country? Why not Toltec? Why not Chinese? We have the imperial Romans to thank for this.


It all occurs in a cycle. After the dark ages came the enlightment. Today we have entered another dark ages. The "fundies", as you put it, have gained control and are working their evil ways. Yet when I choose to protest, it is I that is accused of being the "fundie". When I choose to resist the label of "sinner" and proclaim my natural place in this world, it is I who from one side gets condemned to hell and from the other side get accused of being arrogant and intolerant.

At least I'm not being burned at the stake.

[nippersdad]

I hear you and understand your sensitivity to and outrage about christian, fundie talking points.

The fact that they are unwilling or unable to follow the precepts set forth by their own Savior is not your fault. They are, for the most part, an intellectually lazy, fearful and clubby type of group requiring a leader. It shouldn't surprise you, therefore, that they react in the ways that they do. It is very TRIBAL of them. Understanding this and countering it requires a tolerance of minutiae in furtherance of achieving common ground. Tribalism is primitive, but it has groundrules. Attack the legitimacy of their leaders on their own terms and you WILL win the debate.

You and I belong to a different tribe with fundamentally different views and no leaders. We are, individually, on our own, which renders us less able to withstand attack. This does not mean that we individually should in any way emulate the actions of their tribe. Rather than making it an emotional exercise, we need to change the rules of the debate and make it an intellectual exercise.

Ace was honest about his religious views. When challenged, he was willing to look within and see that the motivations for his faith might not be as ethereal as he would like. Once this revelation hit him, he ceased to go on the "attack." He perceived that he was in violation of one of his tribes own groundrules; this effectively changed the rules of the debate.

If you are to have any success in dealing with the other tribes, you will need to recognize that you have yet to achieve that which Ace did. Whatever you wish to call it, your strongly held belief in a lack of faith or lack of God or whatever; this IS a dogmatic position. Further, it is a DEFENSIVE position reliant upon arguments given to you by your "enemy," using tactics and even wording provided by your "enemy." Defensive "wars" are never won.

[nippersdad]

Actually, I should have said that your RESPONSE is a defensive position....

BTW, virtually all organized religions use the carrots and sticks of an afterlife to keep adherents in line. There is a universal acceptance of human frailty within them all. Buddhism, in particular, has a fabulous dialectic to it. Tantric Buddhism, the melding of Hindu and Buddhist doctrine, IMHO, is endlessly fascinating.

I think that the various myths put forward in them are really quite beautiful and am endlessly fascinated by their artistic nature. In fact, therein lies my primary preoccupation with religion itself. This in no way lessens my respect for their primary moral function, just informs opportunities for discussion like this one.

[Squirtapotamus]

OK, nice interaction Nipper's dad, Nipper must really love you. Thanks for engaging me.

The label "Athiesm" was created by the Thiests. Most Athiests don't normally use the word unless debating believers. They also use labels like Free Thinkers and Brights and Secular Humanists, and on and on. There is no accepted doctrine or creed that Athiests proclaim other than their lack of belief in God. A lack of belief is NOT a dogma. A lack of belief is not a "belief deeply held".

Tolerance is a great thing in theory. In practice it only enables the insanity to continue. You'll notice there is NO tolerance coming from the other side, I either belief as they do or I am condemned to hell. So I've concluded that being all nicey nicey makes no difference. When I see a BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN proclaim his creed on this blog, I'm going to question it. This is all I have done. Ace proclaimed his belief in everlasting life and I simply asked why so many Christians continue to die if belief brings everlasting life? Seems like a rational inquiry. His response? BILLIONS OF PEOPLE BELIEF AS I DO SO THEREFORE I'M RIGHT. Ok then, I would ask if it is true the sun revolves around the earth? After all, before the time of Copernicus a majority of the people believed this truism. Therefore it must be true. But as Copernicus so bravely pointed out, at great risk to his life, that perhaps the Earth revolves around the Sun. The response to Copernicus's assertion was IDENTICAL to the response I received from Ace. Majority rules.

My point is that a majority of people aren't necessarily right and agreement is a weak test for reality.

Yet when I point this out, in much the way Copernicus pointed out the error in belief regarding the relative position of bodies in the solar system, it is I who is attacked for being intolerant, not Ace. Ace gets away with condemning me to hell. I get accussed of being intolerant.

[songtraveler]

"It is by her doubt that her true faith is confirmed," writes the profound Mr. Robbins of Mother Teresa.

As the Caveman says on the commercial,
"Yeah, I've got a response to that: WHAT?"

[Merlin7]

Just so, songtraveler. It's pathetic to watch the religious perform mental gymnastics so they can continue clinging to their absurd beliefs. This mental illness -- this Father Figure Projection Syndrome afflicting the "faithful" -- is probably the main threat to the continued survival of the human species. The United Nations should launch a global effort to protect children from religious indoctrination, to treat the afflicted and to minimize the political power of religious institutions around the world.

[nippersdad]

I disagree. Mankind requires both a physical and a mental framework in order to remain upright. The various "mental gymnastics" may be as absurd as the vestigial tail that we all possess, but that does not mean that the framework itself is unnecessary.

In fact, it is the very absurdity of some of the "mental gymnastics" which bond the faith itself. Doubt can be a far better motivator for some than certainty, hence, the fear of an afterlife. Recognition of similarities found within the religious frameworks of different communities is what will bring the faiths together; what may, in the end, bring the peace that they all espouse.

In the end, as with Mother Therese, it is what they do, not the absurd forms their beliefs take, which make for a better world. The method you espouse would only seek to replace the highest and best of the religious traditions with the U.N. Why remake a wheel which has existed for millenia? It didn't work in Soviet Russia or Communist China and it won't work now. Rather, why not seek to improve what exists and employ the U.N. as the facilitator it was created to be.

[tcagle]

Sorry, Michael Palin - I meant Graham Chapman.

[tcagle]

Michael Palin and Hunter S. Thompson got "cannonized".

[richw23]

I'm an atheist raised as a Christian, and I resent the years of being indoctrinated into a superstition I was too young to reject (other than extreme boredom) until I became old enough to think.

None of that reduces my admiration for Mother Teresa or empathy for the helpless downtrodden of the world. I'm sorry she had to be tormented because she didn't realize that she, in herself, was a good person victimized by superstition. I'm sorry also that here wishes weren't heeded about destroying here letters

As far as doubt, I have no evidence one way or another for the cause of 'creation', if you want to call that doubt. What I am sure of is that to postulate the nature of 'God' and what he wants is absurd. I can only assume mass hysteria and mass hypnosis passed down from generation to generation.

[seawolf77]

Even Mother Theresa believed it was a crock. It's like Mick Jagger saying Rock and Roll is bullshit. The hook, the promise of everlasting life, get's even the smartest in the end. Why? Who can say that life isn't better on the other side. No one. Who can say it's anything. No one. But billions of people would have you believe they can. Why? Cause they don't want to be dead. Get over it people, your faith is based on the most selfish of desires. You want to live forever. PERIOD. You are as fake as Ted Haggard.

[rosemountbomber444]

I work in the health field and it is the most religious that seem to want to stave off death the most. Although they are nuts too, you have to give it to the Muslims that they really believe they are getting something good when they die.

Funny how God would not talk to Mother Theresa but frequently does so with Pat Robertson.

[Squirtapotamus]

"Don Manuel's faith was a willed unbelief and a deliberate hypocrisy, but the paradox was that it was precisely by this ruse that he lived such a life of integrity and was such a source of blessing and inspiration to others. By asserting a truth that he could not even bring himself to believe, others stood as witnesses to his goodness and were saved from his own private despair. Thus, his lie established a truth in a reality that even he himself could not see."

ESTABLISHED A TRUTH? ARE YOU SERIOUS? This is a man who willfully used superstitious LIES to control, manipulate, coerce, and steal from those who were foolish enough to trust in him. This FRAUD is perpetrated by every religious leader on this planet, including Mother Theresa. All the "GOOD WORKS" are nothing but a ruse to gain the trust of the gullible masses. Once the trust is established and the power of authority in place, then the money starts rolling in. It's the CON MAN's basic mode of operation. CON = CONFIDENCE.

[olamuz]

I've always had a problem with the word "faith". To me it implies a belief in something without any proof it really exists. For myself I have no faith in anything - but I believe in things like the spirit (God, Buddha, Zen, Jesus, Allah, whatever you choose to label it), I "know" that it truly exists because I've experienced it. If you sit quietly, do away with all thoughts about yourself or your everyday life and listen carefully to that thoughtless state that is not ego or self absorption, you may actually experience a presence that you can speak to, ask questions of, apply to for advice, a presence that will teach you - a presence that is very real and very responsive. Devotion is the key to finding this presence. But at some point this presence requires that you act, that you become the person you believe you are or can be. All saints became saints through their actions, not their "faith". Faith is a word spawned by religion and I do not trust it. As for Mother Teresa, her doubts were part of her path. Let us not judge her, let us not judge each other, let us practice kindness, compassion, tolerance and peace.

[nippersdad]

"Let us practice kindness, compassion, tolerance and peace." Wonderful!

[wondering]

Morality based on the fear of a supernatural spanking (or the promise of a Santa-like reward when you die) is NO morality at all.

It is no different from the conditioning one uses to control the behavior of dogs: wet on the carpet and I'll cuff your nose with a rolled up newspaper, sit up and beg and I'll give you a dog-treat. Does using the threat of punishment or promise of reward to promote a desired behavior equate with "morality" in dogs? Why then humans?

True Believers have a hard time understanding this simple fact: religion (or the belief in god) does not promote, nor is a basis for, morality in human beings. Some god-fearers accuse atheists of moral relativism (or no morality at all). In fact, the burden is on True Believers to explain why they act morally.

To better understand this point, ask yourself, "If I stopped believing in god tomorrow, would I still behave as a moral person? Or, would I feel free to murder, rape, and steal?"

True morality is based on reason and human compassion - not primitive irrational mythology. That is probably why Mother Theresa felt conflicted - she could sense the truth even if she could not express it.

Intersting, isn't it, that a doubter - a sometime atheist, in fact - could be such a moral being. Religion (and god) seem to have played little role at all.

[BuckBurris]

Good comments, wondering. I believe that morality stems from our recognization that , as social beings, we need honest relations with others inn order to have meaningful lives. That forces us to recognize certain responsibilities.
Unfortunately, there are some of us, sociopaths, who are not concerned with such things. All too often they become powerful business or politiccal figures. Some people are lazy, some refuse to think deeply, aand some lack normal human feelings. I pity such; they must be either very lonely or else their lives are so emotionally shallow that they might as well be dead. Perhaps their power quest is due to a desire for stronger, unusual stimuli, similar to that of sadomasochists. Perhaps, too, that is why those with dictatorial urges are so often associated with tyorture. They lack the conscience that every normal person has.
That conscience is the thing that makes most of us moral. It is the recognitionn of our belonging and need to belong to others.
Religion can pervert conscience. We see this in the acts of bigotry all around us. But some see connsciencce as God's voice inside ourselves.
God is not necessary for morality. But morality is necessary for a good God.

[nippersdad]

All laws, whether religious or secular, are written for the lowest common denominator. One who cannot conceive of actually committing rape will, nevertheless, admit to the necessity of having laws against it. Therein lies the need for the cosmic threat of having a newspaper hit you in the nose to make you do right. Not everyone requires the threat, but most recognize that there are those who do.

[PaxMundis]

"True morality is based on reason and human compassion - not primitive irrational mythology. That is probably why Mother Theresa felt conflicted - she could sense the truth even if she could not express it."

There is, of course, nothing "reasonable" about compassion. That is the point that JC and the Buddha were trying to make - that it would be easier to just look out for oneself, but it is right to do so. The fact is that unless we realize our connection with others - whether through religion or some other philisophical worldview that transcends pure reason - we have no reason to treat each other well.

"Intersting, isn't it, that a doubter - a sometime atheist, in fact - could be such a moral being. Religion (and god) seem to have played little role at all.
"
I see. You have read her mind? Doubting doesn't make one an atheist.

I don't care what kind of God you believe in, or if you believe at all. All I would say is that you have to realize that the world is connected. In other words, get over yourself.

[AceInTheHole]

With all due respect, Mother Teresa is ,as all people of faith are, subject to the the "dilemma of faith" that is discribed in the Scriptures of Hebrews 11:1,6.

(1)NOW, FAITH IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR, THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN.
(6) BUT WITHOUT FAITH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE HIM, FOR HE WHO COMETH TO GOD MUST BELEIVE THAT HE IS, AND THAT HE IS A REWARDER OF THEM THAT DILIGENTLY SEEK HIM.
And Jesus said in Luke 7:50.
"THY FAITH HAS SAVED THEE; NOW GO IN PEACE."

To have and maintain FAITH is a on going BATTLE for many. Even St Paul said that he had to fight, THE GOOD FIGHT OF FAITH.

I BELIEVE THAT FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO FIGHT TO WIN THE "GOOD FIGHT OF FAITH", THEY SHOULD REST ASSURED, THAT THE REWARDS WILL BE FAR MORE GREATER THAN THE PRICE OF THE FIGHT.
AS IT HAS BEEN SO OFTEN STATED, ANYTHING WORTH HAVING, IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR ,AND THAT ENCLUDES THE PROMISED REWARDS OF HAVING FAITH IN SOMETHING FAR GREATER THAN OURSELVES. FOR MANY ARE CALLED BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN TO WIN AND HAVE THE GREAT TREASURE THAT COMES FROM HAVING FAITH.

Life has provided me with many battles, to win or lose, I fought to survive on the mean streets of Chicago. I faught in Viet Nam for my country but now it has been stolen from me. These fights in the end, may prove to be in vain. and my "Good Fight of Faith" may very well be the only fight that proves not to have been in vain. So I must ask the question, in the end, which fight is really worth the blood sweat and tears?
And the I answer I came to is, THE GOOD FIGHT OF FAITH! for once you win it, no one can steal the rewards from your victory, which is ever lasting life.


With that said, This is a slogan I heard in church the other day.

"All WE WANT FOR CHRISTMAS, IS FOR OUR TROOPS TO START COMING HOME"

[nippersdad]

And this last revelation is that which will make her canonization worthwhile.

[Squirtapotamus]

If the reward for having faith is everlasting life, then why is there so many christian tombstones scattered throughout the world? What? One has to 'die' first before having ever lasting life? Why this is logically ABSURD.

If Jesus died for my sins, then what about the other 10,000 Jews crucified by the Romans around the same time, did they die for my sins too? No? I see, because Jesus was special. He was the offspring from the rape of a virgin by a God who's divine plan was to finally kill his son (for three days) to absolve the sins of mankind. This is logically ABSURD.

You can have faith that the SUN will rise in the east and this faith will serve you well as a verifiable prediction of tomorrow morning.

You can have faith that the SON of God will return to rule over the world but this faith will do nothing but justify your onw religious bigotry.

If Jesus answers prayers, then why does he ignore the pleas of amputees?

Faith in superstitions is logically ABSURD.

[nippersdad]

That is why they call it faith. The issue is not whether Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad or whatever exist, but whether or not the teachings of these people can bring a warlike species together to live in harmony.

The existence of Religion sates many fundamental human needs, needs which are similar across the species. In the end, all religions can find common ground in this fundamental truth and bring the peace that they all espouse in their highest forms.

[AceInTheHole]

YES 'EVERLASTING LIFE" WHEN THIS 'TEMPORARY LIFE" IS OVER. CLEARLY EVEN A MORON KNOWS THAT THIS LIFE IS JUST "TEMPORARY" AND SELDOM LAST OVER 90 OR SO YEARS, WHICH IS JUST A DROP IN THE BUCKET WHEN COMPARED TO EVERLASTING AND ETERNAL LIFE THAT HAS BEEN PROMISED TO THOSE WHO HAVE THE HUMILTY AND WISDOM TO HAVE A LITTLE FAITH THE SIZE OF A MUSTARD SEED. BUT OF COURSE THERE WILL BE THE DOUBTERS, NON BELIEVERS AND NA SAYERS WHO THROUGH THEIR PRIDE AND MISGIUDED HUBRIS WILL NO DOUBT HAVE TO REAP THE REWARDS OF THEIR UNBELIEF. YOU KNOW THE OLD SAYING THAT WE REAP WHAT WE SOW. BELEIVING OR NOT BELIEVING WILL ALL BE RECONCILED IN DUE TIME FOR EVERYONE OF US BECAUSE ONE THING FOR SURE IS THAT WE ALL WILL HAVE TO DIE ONE DAY AND THEN WE WILL SEE WHAT THE TRUTH IS. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WE WILL SEE IF BELEIVING WAS WORTH IT OR IF NON BELEIEVING WAS WORTH. WILLINGLY OR NOT, IT IS A CHANCE THAT NO ONE WILL ESCAPE.

[Squirtapotamus]

It is people like Ace here who are so sure of their "everlasting" life that they act beligerant to those of us who want to live this "temporary" life free from their infantile superstitions.

Ace. When You die (and you will regardless of your absurd beliefs) they'll put you in your grave where you'll decompose. Your biomass will be consumed by the next generation of life on this planet. This is how Life persists "everlasting."

That is until the sun supernovas, then all the biomass of planet Earth will be vaporized.

WILLING OR NOT, IT IS A CHANCE THAT NO ONE WILL ESCAPE.

[Merlin7]

Reading these posts -- the rationalizations people use to cling to their irrational beliefs in God, gods, angels, devils and other imaginary beings -- is so depressing. If so many of you stubbornly insist on believing in things that simply aren't there -- beings whose existence in not supported by a shred of objective evidence -- then there is really no hope for our species. We are simply chimpanzees playing with hand grenades -- nuclear weapons -- and that is bound to end badly.

[nippersdad]

It is not belief in the Gods, angels, devils or lack thereof which could lead to such an end, but the abuse of such concepts by those who do not believe in anything but self interest to cynically push others into actions dissonant with their beliefs. Thus have all of the most tragic chapters in human history unfolded.

When the nuclear holocaust arrives, it will not be a person of deep and informed religious faith who signs off on it.

[Merlin7]

Of course, the person of "deep and informed religious faith" is one who believes as you believe. And all the others, in turn, think that theirs is the true faith and all others are bogus.

As to your allegation that "It is not belief in Gods, angels, devils or lack thereof which could lead to such an end . . .", how could you possibly make such a statement? Do you not keep up with the news? Have you not read history? It is precisely those beliefs that have fueled most of humanity's wars.

[Squirtapotamus]

What? It is absolutely the belief that MY GOD is better than YOUR GOD that will trigger the nuclear holocaust. That person will justify the action with a deep and informed religious faith.

You are right in one point. Religious believers believe for one reason, self interest. Their belief serves as the justficiation for religious bigotry.

A rational athiest is smart enough to know a nuclear holocaust is a bad idea.

[RAMHaiti]

"Who am I that you should forsake me" sounds like something Jesus said just before he died on the cross.
I believe when St Peter tried walking on water Jesus said something like "Ye of little faith". All humans have their limits.
The general public never completely believes no matter how many miracles you show them.
So far, only God has had complete faith. We, simple humans, are just trying at best.
Imagine performing a few miracles or saving some people, and then one time you can't save someone. There's got to be a bit of trauma involved, a little self doubt, no matter how many people you saved in the past, no matter how many miracles you've performed. Whether you're a doctor or a mystic whenever you fail, there's a bit of doubt.