I can't recall what I had for dinner last Thursday, I couldn't tell you who won the Super Bowl three years ago, and I have no idea where I was when 9/11 happened. However, for some reason, I can remember a conversation I had with my classmate one day in preschool. We were sitting on the carpet and I struck up a conversation about a commercial I saw for a kids' National Geographic magazine. I pointed out that in the commercial, there was a lizard running across water. "That's fake," my friend remarked, "I asked my dad and he said that lizards can't run on water". "No," I pleaded, "It shows the lizard running across water in the commercial". Even at that age, the disconnect between his beliefs and mine got me really frustrated. He didn't believe me even though, in my eyes, the evidence I had was enough to trump his. In hindsight, neither of us had sufficient evidence to back our claims, but we stuck with our beliefs. Now, every time I get into a heated philosophical debate, I take a moment to reflect on the fact that I'm handling the situation exactly the way I would have as a 4-year-old.
I suppose that what I'm trying to get at is: beliefs should be backed up by knowledge. Beliefs should not only be based on facts, but also have an airtight segue as to why that knowledge would lead to that belief. For instance: fossil records firmly support the claim that a species' gene pool varies from generation. Since this is the main premise of evolution, you can knowledgeably and confidently say that you believe in evolution. On the contrary, you can't use this logic to say that since you did a rain dance and it rained afterward, you have a superhuman connection with nature because this belief is not fully supported by the evidence. I'm rambling, but the underlying point is:
DO: use your knowledge to derive your own set of beliefs
DON'T: form beliefs and then try to justify them with facts
As a physics major, I try not to have any beliefs. Beliefs, in my opinion, pervert the knowledge we have to advance some ulterior motive. You use the phrase "...believe in evolution." However, no one needs to believe in evolution since it is supported by facts and observation. I apologize for the lecture, but this topic inspires me. I like this post since it conjured thought which is evident by my post.
ReplyDeleteI agree that evolution is the truth whether one believes in it or not, but I don't think using the term "believe" is superfluous in this case. I think you're assuming that "believe" should only be used when there's uncertainty, or when it is a matter of faith. I think it can be used regardless of the probability of its truth (e.g. "I believe that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow").
Delete