Belief: Fact or Fiction

While gleaming through past essays looking for material to incorporate into a speech, I stumbled upon this gem I wrote in my philosophy class. I find it goes hand in hand with my last blog about religion, but with a more factual approach. It even comes with citations! (*leans over shoulder* "Wait, she's using citations now??" "Well she is in college after all.... now shush, I'm reading.) Granted, they're not really applicable because you don't have the text I was using as a reference but I decided to leave them anyways because it makes me look smart. AND because I'm lazy. But mostly because I'm lazy.

As a kind of background, part of the reason I decided to pursue writing was because of my philosophy teacher. He was a pretentious man who often spoke of his time as a professor in Germany, waved his glasses around to emphasize whatever he was talking about, and had the most unique laugh.... and quite possibly my favorite professor to date. Half the enjoyment from his class came from watching his mannerisms while he taught. And, of course, the other half came from what he taught. He was brilliant and a wonderful man to listen to. After turning in my last essay of the semester, he pulled me aside and asked me what I was going in to. At that time, it was Anthropology. I had hopes of becoming the next Indiana Jones but with curves. He pondered, shook his head, and gave me the kindest compliment of my writing to date. Considering how smart he was and how highly I viewed him in my mind, I was like a starstruck fan. My idol had just told me I was a brilliant writer. "You should pursue writing." For a year that statement followed me. And now here I am.

So for a taste of something different... here ya go

Belief: Fact or Fiction?

            “Hurry up,” my mom calls. “Your macaroni and cheese is about finished.” As an eager five year old child, I rush down the stairs in time to see my mother taking the pan off of the stove. Curious as to the magic of cooking macaroni and cheese, I gaze into the pulsing red coils. “Don’t touch the burner. It’s hot.” Being a young pre-school student, I didn’t know that red indicated the temperature of an object, nor did I know that metal could be heated up using various methods. All I knew was that my mother told me not to touch it. Did I believe her? Being a curious heathen and the cause for my mother’s gray hair, of course I didn’t. I set my splayed hand on top of the burned and received welts and blisters that took weeks to heal. The experience for my brother, however, was different. Being a mama’s boy, he believed everything she said. When she told him not to touch the hot burner, he accepted that it was a hot burner because of his trust in our mother. What worked for him did not work for me. The same goes for the ethics of belief. Clifford and James are both right; yet they are both wrong. I feel that a resounding yes, in the case of James, or a resounding no, in the case of Clifford, cannot be applied straight across the board. Concerning the ethics of belief, each person is different and requires different amounts of faith or fact.

            Religion has always been a sensitive subject no matter what the field. In science it is awkward and disregarded, in philosophy it is as intriguing as it is varying, and in politics it is shunned like the vegetables on a child’s plate. This attitude has much to do with the lack of physical proof to the existence of God, revelation, priesthood, and so on. When someone claims enlightenment, they can only explain how they are feeling. Religion is based predominantly on warm fuzzy feelings and the soft whisperings of the Spirit. Never can they present someone with a material reason to their altered state. Yet, does this prevent us from asking for proof? In religious texts such as the Bible, the number of devout followers mirrors the number of the slightly less eager, more doubtful people asking for a sign. The amount of proof required to believe varies from person to person. With some individuals a feeling of hope and charity is enough for them to follow someone like Buddha or Gandhi. With others, it would take heavenly choirs and the ministering of angels before they were a follower of deity. Clifford mentions that one should thoroughly investigate a belief before justifying that belief (The Ethics of Belief 1063). However, any Christian, Hindi, or Pagan would tell you they investigated their belief through praying, fasting, and reading of scriptural text, proving Clifford’s point to a certain degree. Yes we need to investigate. Yes we need to ensure our beliefs to be true. The type and amount of confirmation required for a belief is where we start entering the gray area. What will work for some will not work for others; the amount required to testify to some will not testify to others. Therefore, with the unique conditions of the human mind, it is impossible to determine one uniform answer upon the ethics of belief.

            “This shows that deadness and liveliness in an hypothesis are not intrinsic properties, but relations to the individual thinker” (The Will to Believe 1149). With some ideas they are impossible to deny, such as the existence of Abraham Lincoln or the face value of the change in your pocket (The Will to Believe 1150). Even though we may say something to that degree, it is within our being that we know this to be true. This defines the live and dead theory of a hypothesis according to James. A hypothesis is dead if it has no appeal. A hypothesis is living if there is some possibility to the statement. With this idea in mind, James also ventures to say that the liveliness of a hypothesis can vary from one person to the next. In order to be living it must “appeal as a real possibility to him whom it is proposed” as well as “make an electric connection with your nature” (The Will to Believe 1149). He uses the example of Mahdi. To an individual raised in a predominantly Protestant country, the idea of the Redeemer makes no connection with what they have been raised to believe in. To an Arab, however, this idea is very much alive. James is thus saying that the beliefs of one individual can vary from the beliefs of another. What applies to one has no application to another.  In addition to the idea that our beliefs come from our genetics, I feel that they also come from our culture, our family, and the way we are raised. Clifford may turn up his nose as this “may help to kill or keep alive fatal superstitions which clog his race” but, as with the Mahdi example, I feel this is not the case. Be it my anthropology influence, I believe that our beliefs come from several different influences. In this I agree with James that we cannot choose our beliefs. They are just there in our subconscious mind, governing our daily actions. Some things may appeal to one person and not the other due to several deciding factors. Using our earlier examination of religion, we can then conclude that the existence of deity may be very real for some but not for others. The idea of hot burning coils and a truthful mother may appeal to some but not to others. The application of the living/dead theory as proposed by James can help differentiate the amount of proof needed to believe in something. If something to us is living then we can easily believe it with little persuasion. If something is dead then it is near if not impossible to internalize such a belief. With that being said, the idea of deity may be living within some while it may lay dormant in others unless acted upon by a torrential outside force; this outside force being the thorough investigation mentioned by Clifford. This idea of differentiation reiterates the absurdity of generalizing everyone’s beliefs opposed to catering them to situational experiences. “The maximum of liveness in an hypothesis means willingness to act irrevocably. Practically, that means belief; but there is some believing tendency wherever there is willingness to act at all” (The Will to Believe 1149).

            To say that every individual always affects the whole is to say that every can of chili always gives you gas. When it does happen it is unfortunate, uncomfortable, and definitely displeasing to those around you. However, it only happens occasionally under the right circumstances. When it doesn’t happen no one is put out and you get to enjoy a nice can of southern goodness or, in this case, entertain a personal belief. The methods at which the individual expresses their views can affect the whole but, again, this does not always happen. Just as beliefs vary from person to person, so can the degrees at which they affect a group of people vary from person to person if affected at all. If I were a strong, devout, self-religious “bible-basher” constantly proclaiming by views in the middle of town square, I would create a huge impact on the public. However, this may not apply to the ethics of belief as much as it applies to the ethics of ignorantly stupid people. If I were to privately entertain a belief in Jesus Christ or Confucius, what “evil born of such a belief” (The Ethics of Belief 1064) is yet to be determined by this student of philosophy. This assumption made by Clifford is the same as all other topics discussed within my words; they are situational. The world that Clifford presents concerning the infection of others beliefs is also very bleak and depressing. Granted, Clifford expresses that this poisonous means of thinking applies to those who have not thoroughly investigated their beliefs. But who is to decide what a thorough investigation constitutes? What may seem extensive to one may be minimal to another and vice versa. So to assume that every idea that goes without research is hazardous is not without its exceptions. We must take into account the ethics of the individual and how they govern themselves. In my experience, I have come across people of the same faith who administer themselves unto the public in extremely opposite ways. While one may go about their way quietly, exemplifying the ideals of their religion with actions, another may be boisterous and judgmental of those who are different. We must keep in the mind the uniqueness of the human kind and the variations in which we carry ourselves.

            There will always be the exception in the human experience. “I” does not always come before “E” even before “C”. Ox to oxen is not as box to boxes. So to say that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (The Ethics of Belief 1065) is to make a very irrational and finite judgment. If this were the case, then I would have been justified in melting my palm into a fleshy wound. If you would have told me, as I stood there clutching my hand to my chest, crying rivers of tears, that I did the right thing, I would have placed your hand upon the burned and asked you how right it felt. Now, with more knowledge to back up my irrational lash out of anger at your ignorance, I can confidently say that there is a time and a place for belief and faith as there is for fact and exploration. There is also variation among what people will and will not believe as well as the proof required for them to believe. The ethics of belief are entirely personal to the individual and variable to the whole.