People have all kinds of ideas about faith. One book I have is titled 'Why Should I Believe Anything At All?'

Some people think faith is something for folks who can't, or won't, think.

In fact, in this theory of faith, faith is the replacement for the work of thinking. Related to this, other people think faith is the opposite of knowledge, as if one can know something or one can just believe something (but not really know).

For instance, I can't know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I can believe anything I want about that. Further, if I believe in God, then that means I can't know that God exists.

Some people think faith is a credit card with God so they can get pretty much anything they want – if they only have enough faith.

Related to this, these kinds of people believe that if they just have enough faith, they will always be well, and they will succeed in whatever they attempt.

Other people think faith is a crutch for weak souls. Related to this is the famous saying attributed to Karl Marx that religion is the opiate of the people. Life is too harsh, too vibrant for such timid and fragile folks who dare not step out into life and take hold of it. They need something to keep them docile and in their places.

The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre described the condition of bad faith as a phenomenon wherein one denies one's total freedom and chooses to act as if forces were moving him or her around like some kind of object. The converse, of course, would be a good faith approach in which one shoulders the responsibility for one's experience, exercising choice in the circumstances of any given situation.

Essentially, the bad faith response to life is the one seen among people who consider themselves victims. Things happen to victims. Victims are passive. Victims are offended against, and a significant aspect of their identity is found in the circumstances of being victimised. This, then, is one way in which they validate their lives; they know they live because they have someone to blame for their situation.

Technically, though, a victim is someone who is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or other person, someone who is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed, subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment, or someone who is tricked or duped.

That's what Webster's Dictionary claims.

Further, organisations exist to help those who are genuine victims, such as Victim Support in the UK (http://www.victimsupport.org.uk) or the National Center for Victims of Crime in the USA (http://www.ncvc.org). Truly, there are people who have been the objects of crime, and those people can benefit from the kind of support available through such organisations.

This definition, at first, seems as if it could accord with Sartre's definition of bad faith – in which one gives up choice and responsibility for one's own experience. However, what at first glance seems to fit, leaves out the possibility that a person can rise above one's circumstances and thrive precisely because of them. This is what is seen among resilient people; consequently, the subject of resiliency is a significant area of research among personality and social psychologists alike.

What makes one person a victim but another person an overcomer? Put another way, what is the ground of bad faith as opposed to the ground of good faith?

Such a construct is likely multi-determined; that is, there are many reasons.

One possible contributory to the good or bad faith response to life might be seen in the concept of a locus of control. If someone has an internal locus of control, he or she has learned through experience, and likely even very early experience, that they can explore the world, move things around, and make things happen for themselves.

On the other hand, some people may have been more timid as infants, and very early on they may have avoided such things, waiting for their needs and curiosities to be met by others – or not.

The baby that is a challenge and continually gets into things is the one developing an internal locus of control, but the baby who coos passively, about whom many might comment, "What a good baby'', that is the one who might just be developing an external locus of control. These are, of course, generalisations.

Regardless of how one comes by a bad faith approach to life that generates the victim identification, it can change. Jean-Paul Sartre would say that there is always underlying the bad faith perspective a realisation that we each do, in fact, have a choice.