Trust is both important and dangerous. It is important because it allows us to form relationships with others and to depend on others—for love, for advice, for friendship, especially when we know that no outside force compels them to give us such things. Trust always involves the risk that the trusted person will not pull through for the trusting person. One therefore cannot assume, while trusting, that the trustee will do what one is trusted to do. Since people often can choose whether or not to pull through for each other, they often need to be trusted.
But since trust necessarily involves risk, it can also be dangerous. What we risk while trusting is the loss of that we entrust to others such as our self-respect which can be shattered by the betrayal of our trust. Trust may be risky and can be dangerous.
Trust is an attitude that we have towards people whom we hope will be trustworthy. For trust to be plausible in a relationship, the parties to that relationship must have attitudes toward one another that are conducive to trusting one another.
Disappointment is the appropriate response when one merely relied on someone to do something. People also do not, or cannot, trust one another if they are easily suspicious of one another. If one assumes the worst about someone, then one distrusts, rather than trusts the person. Trusting involves being optimistic, rather than pessimistic, that the trustee will do something for us, or for others perhaps; and such optimism is, in part, what makes us vulnerable by trusting.
Rarely, if ever, do human beings trust each other completely.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 altered the political, social, and economic landscape of the United States and the world. On that day, thousands of lives were lost, the structure of the U.S. economy was shaken, and the trust in a multi-cultural world has been shaken. With the coming U.S. elections a multitude of candidates are asking U.S. citizens to trust them with their votes. The old saying of a U.S. president comes to mind: “Trust but verify.”
As per Patrick Henry, men are not angels. We are all of us sinners if left to our own devices.
Science and religion potentially have much to teach each other about the issue of trust. Yet, for the most part, only religious authors and theologians have addressed the subject consistently and at length. Because the effectiveness of both scientific and religious institutions depends on trusting relationships, clarifying the nature of trust is not only theoretically interesting but has potentially significant practical ramifications.
Trust is central to the practice of both science and religion on many levels: personal, public, and institutional. On a personal level, trust permeates the scientific process insofar as scientists must rely on data, techniques, theories, colleagues, and collaborators. Without trust, the scientific process would grind to a halt like a machine drained of oil. Trust, which lies at the heart of faith, is also omnipresent in religion: between individuals and God, among members of a congregation, and between individuals of congregations and leaders.
Trust also has a public dimension in both science and religion. For personal trust is made possible by publicly encouraged practices and habits of thought that foster trust by encouraging perceptions of integrity.
Finally, both modern science and religion also confront institutional trust issues insofar as their institutions depend on a stable relation with the social world in which they are embedded. Trust is essential to the success of religious institutions at ministering to communities. Trust is essential to the relationship of a scientific institution and the surrounding community because of the capacity of research activities to affect public health and safety.
