BELIEF A
WORD TO RETIRE By
Charles W. Cresswell I asked myself how I am supposed to learn belief. In stressful times in my life, the solace and calm claimed, and sometimes exhibited, by friends and acquaintances through their reliance upon belief made me examine why it seemed so necessary for me to seek answers I knew were not available. I have both flippantly, and with earnestness, sought an explanation from believers as to how one can be taught to believe. Ask yourself that question. Do you have an answer? If so, does your answer go something like this “I opened my heart, and belief flowed through me.” For me, the metaphysical question of
most importance is simply “Where do thoughts come from?” Most thoughts are
easy. Your senses are stimulated. It may be hunger, sex, cold, sight, sound and
a thought or thoughts come bubbling into your brain. Other times a cue of some
sort can be identified as the thought provoking mechanism. I know myself that I
seem to have certain thoughts arise if I’m uncomfortable (in an anxious mode).
Usually the thought that arises is the question “what is the most money I’ve
ever had at one time.” I have other similar thoughts that seem to be built upon
some self-protective need for my mind to change the subject when addressing
uncomfortable thoughts. Still, very occasionally, a thought will come to my
mind that because of its lack of context and explanation leaves me in awe of
the brain’s magnificence. Such a series of thoughts arose on my quest to learn
more about the epistemology of the word “Racism”. I researched the meaning of that word as a trained lawyer. Many
weeks passed without reaching a satisfactory understanding of the word. Then
the thought entered my conscious ( I use the word “conscious” only because of
its communicative significance. The knowledge I’ve gained as to brain function
makes it highly probable that categories such as Id-Ego-Superego &
Conscious-Unconscious will and are being changed as knowledge of brain function expands) WHY IS THE WORD
BELIEF, OR A SYNONYM, USED TO DEFINE RACISM? That thought, a literal bolt from the blue, was not
something I’d read. Pondering more and more I imagined the editors at
Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Funk and Wagnall’s trying to deal with this verbal
scorching potato. I imagined the gradient of thought in those various rooms. At
one extreme would be those that wanted a definition similar to this: Racism is
the thought that there are differences in race. The next editor might suggest
Racism: an archaic word used to describe differences in humans prior to the
understanding that races of man are non-existent. A third editor might opt for
Racism: Suggesting derogatory differences among groups of people based on
physical attributes such as skin color. On and on defining Racism became such a
tangled web that the only safe out was to define Racism using the word belief.
How exquisite! Belief and knowledge sweetly severed. Anyone is entitled to
believe anything. But the word carries with it the clear communication that the
believer in racial differences is not a worthy person. A worthy person would
examine that belief and gain knowledge to render a considered point of view.
Implicitly defining the word to imply that thinkers BY DEFINITION cannot
be racists. Defining Racism with the word Belief has led to this essay. “Belief-this act of mind has never
been explain’d by any philosopher.” David Hume 1739. A pernicious word. It is cloaked with a veneer of, if not
sacredness, at the very least, mild respect. Haven’t we all been shushed by an
older family member with “Please keep your thoughts to yourself. Everyone is entitled to believe as they
wish.”? Logically if you may believe as
you wish, the belief you chose to keep (and I must wonder again how you can
chose to believe in something) is entitled to something akin to respect. It
seems the belief itself, no matter how illogical or just plain stupid and
dangerous, has a measure of grace within itself. There are those who are unable
to accept how more and more genetic understanding expands our knowledge that
genes determine even our behavior. My own response is to point to the dogs and
their behavior created by human breeding over a few hundred years. Train your
alpha male puppy pit bull to be as playful and friendly as you can. I’ll train
my equally large Irish Setter to be as hostile and vicious as possible. No one would bet on the outcome
of a chance meeting of these two animals. Genetics trump training. Assuming one
could train an Irish Setter to attack without provocation, imagine the pit
bulls response. Tail wagging and submissive? I’d bet otherwise. Genetic evolutionists now understand
that there is inherent in mankind a need to find a cause for the events that
make up our lives. If a cause can be found as to why the hunt was unsuccessful,
knowledge is created and survival gains.
Two points: a) The strength of the need for causation can be traced on
the same Bell Curve that b) reflects both individuals and racial group’s
abilities to determine causation. I will refer to Arthur Jensen’s THE G FACTOR
as his work is far more complete and persuasive on “intelligence” than anything
I have read. I view myself as being outside the third standard deviation on the
left side of the need for causation curve. I am a member of the Triple Nine
Society and by definition within the 4th
standard deviation on tests designed to measure G. Most psychometricians are satisfied that G is the single most
important factor in identifying those able to determine a scientific basis for
causation. When I’m being as introspective as possible I ask myself why I have
no faith in a higher being. My response seems to be over and over that I don’t
need a cause for my existence. I’m blessed with the genetic make up to love
life with everything that it has brought me. I can’t know the cause for some
events and postulates. That realization itself is sufficient to deter a search
for “Belief”. Conversely my individual G make up, that Jensen says is primarily
inheritable, drove me to read at least ten books directly on the subject of
belief. These are foot noted. How many people actually think about what it is
to believe? Of those, how many seek to answer the question “how do we come to
believe?”. Of that probably small
number, how many actually sit down and research the issue of belief and the
causes of belief? My
hypotheses is that where one resides on the bell curves of the number and strength of beliefs is inversely
proportional to one’s place on the G bell curve. Flip the belief curve over,
place it on the G curve, and I will bet there is a high factor of correlation
between the two. Only belief in God may skew the results. We are different.
Throughout my share of personal
difficulties, inquisitiveness about God existed, but belief did not. My Grandfather was a submariner with Admiral
Nimitz on the USS Narwhal in 1913. My father flew in China during WW II and was
a test pilot for Boeing. Neither was religious. My children are not religious,
except my daughter who suffered TBI when she was a young teenager. In my
opinion it is specious to suggest that if one doesn’t come from a religious
environment, that fact determines one’s need for answers to causation. I was
born without the need to believe. WHAT
DOES THE WORD BELIEF COMMUNICATE? 1.
I believe the Cowboys will win the Superbowl. 2.
I
believe Mary was a virgin. 3.
I believe my professor’s proof of Archimedes’s
hydrostatics. 4.
I believe in a superior being. 5.
I believe I’m getting sick. 6.
I
believe the first witness but not the second. I am consciously not
using the words believe or belief in everyday conversation. The habit is so
ingrained that progress is slower than I had hoped. The Oxford American
Dictionary defines BELIEF as “the feeling that something is real or true.” The
same dictionary describes KNOW as to “have in one’s own mind or memory as a
result of experience or learning or information.” What
is being communicated by example 1 the Cowboy reference? Likely it is not a
feeling if we accept the modern view that a feeling or feelings are merely
bioregulatory responses. We are fairly confident that the speaker follows the
NFL. With a few well placed questions we can determine the speaker’s investment
of time into his statement. If the speaker lives in Dallas, the credence we
give his statement is diminished significantly. If he gambles significantly, we
may give his statement of belief far more credence as we know research
approaching a scientific method has taken place. The belief in Cowboy
superiority can hardly equate with Antonio R. Damisio’s statement “we tend to
hold beliefs about certain kinds of matters- mostly, as it turns out about
matters of life and death. The proper subject matter is almost any topic that
gravely affects our well-being, in both the physical and spiritual senses.” P.
326 MEMORY, BRAIN AND BELIEF Harvard University Press 2000. We, within a high degree of
probability, know much about the speaker of belief 2. Eric Hoffer described him
in his book THE TRUE BELIEVER. The speaker rigidly claims to know something
that is both scientifically impossible, and upon which he has performed no
analysis. I question what sort of feeling, other than fight or flight, one
might get when Mary’s sexual status becomes a topic of conversation. What human
feeling, if any, led to such a belief? The answer surely must be that belief 2
is simply a logical and straight forward step created after securing the belief
that the Bible is literally the word of God. Analytically, contrary to Oxford’s
definition, many beliefs are not in any way about feelings. They are logical,
thoughtful conclusions based on what lawyers like to refer to as a fact not in
evidence. In this example, the fact (belief) being the infallibility of the
Bible or its Christian priesthood. Belief 3 communicates that the
speaker has reached his ability to understand. All of us who are thoughtful
love the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake. Yet without exception (How
do I know this? This is not the place for an Epistemological discussion) every
thinking individual knows there are many people who are more knowledgeable in
areas where they lack. No matter how high we may score on tests of G, others
have scored higher. Others have scored lower and nevertheless embarrass us with
our inability to portray the new dew on a landscape as they can. Example 3
speaker has made a leap of faith that his professor does indeed understand
Archimedes, though the speaker cannot know that because of his own inability to
understand Archimedes’s proofs. The speaker really is expressing faith. Faith
is an important word. It communicates in today’s society. Statement 4 at least tells us the
speaker has given some thought to the concept of God. Persons such as this
would make my first group to determine if there is a genetic predisposition in
mankind to require even an unexplainable cause. This speaker probably was
exposed to the formal religious idea of God, but in an attempt to acquire more
knowledge formulated a personal causation for the unanswerable (at this time)
questions. I find it of low probability that this paper is convincing that the
use of the word Belief has become so banal and over used that its use should be
abandoned. I find it probable that most reading these thoughts will think about
the word Belief and its use. Speaker four is entitled to his faith in a Higher
Intelligence, and admiration for joining the issue. Is the bioregulatory
feeling we describe as Awe the source for faith? Of what use can the feeling of
Awe be for natural selection? Statement 5 is closest to the
dictionary definition of Belief. I have embraced the concept of Bioregulation
much as a new convert. Not as a leap of faith, but as a significant new idea
for me to help answer the question “Where do thoughts come from.” The Neuro guys will give us more and more
knowledge about what many people seem to feel are differences in both site of
origin and type: Emotion and Thought. Do we feel with our heart? If so, when
the brain is put to rest under anesthesia, why doesn’t the heart feel and
remember for us the sensations we experienced? Heart transplant survivors to my
knowledge make no claims that they “feel” differently or have new “feelings”
with their new heart. I submit during
general anesthesia we experience no feelings. Our computer is down. We are not
dead. The older reptilian parts of our brain function. We breathe, our heart
beats. We experience no feelings, nor are we able to capture “feelings” such as
pain from our memory i.e. the time we were under general anesthesia. Before
discussing Bioregulation, I want to point out that statement 5 is so ambiguous
as to be seriously misleading. Does the speaker intend to communicate that it
is probable by factual analysis that he will become ill shortly? Did the
speaker just visit a school where flu was rampant and expects to be infected?
Is the speaker a victim of a Shaman’s curse? Does the speaker have physical
feelings that his experience tells him are preludes to illness? Probably the
latter would be most people’s interpretation. Those interested in what I
understand as bioregulation may start with the following: A complex bioregulatory network could be more easily
comprehended if its essential function could be described by a small
"core" subsystem, and if its response characteristics were
switch-like. We tested this proposition by simulation studies of the hypoxia
response control network. We hypothesized that a small subsystem governs the
basics of the cellular response to hypoxia and that this response has a sharp
oxygen-dependent transition. A molecular interaction map of the network was
prepared, and an evolutionarily conserved core subsystem was extracted that
could control the activity of hypoxia response promoter elements on the basis
of oxygen concentration. The core subsystem included the hypoxia-inducible
transcription factor (HIFalpha:ARNT heterodimer), proline hydroxylase, and the
von Hippel-Lindau protein. Simulation studies showed that the same core
subsystem can exhibit switch-like responses both to oxygen level and to
HIFalpha synthesis rate, thus suggesting a mechanism for hypoxia response
promoter element-dependent responses common to both hypoxia and growth factor
signaling. The studies disclosed the mechanism responsible for the sharp
transitions. We show how parameter sets giving switch-like behavior can be
found and how this type of behavior provides a foundation for quantitative
studies in cells. Kohn KW,
Riss J,
Aprelikova O, Weinstein JN, Pommier Y, Barrett JC. Laboratory of Molecular
Pharmacology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda,
Maryland 20892, USA I understand hypoxia.
The pieces of the puzzle fit for me when I view the brain as containing
established systems that constantly monitor and affect us. This effect must be
in all ways we as humans can describe. I get a feeling of hunger. My bioregulation
system has worked well. My tummy growls and I can feel it send signals for food
to my brain. This feeling cues an emotion of happiness as I get ready to enjoy
the cold New York strip with left over tzaziki sauce. My brain’s regulation
systems continue their responsibilities. My Sweetie struts in her new shoes and
skirt from Niemans. My Bioregulation system alerts the Boys and feelings
cascade as I categorize and label these various emotions. All this because I have been genetically
programmed to respond to my brains regulation.
I also undoubtedly have been able to modify in some unknown manner these
basic bioregulations through
experience. Probably by the use of
cues. Her sweet “later big guy” is cue enough to damper the sexual
bioregulation system. Statement 5 does not communicate a key ingredient. Is the
speaker actually feeling ill? If so, the speaker is highly likely to be asking
his audience for conversation relating to the feelings he is experiencing. It
might be heart arrhythmia, unknown pain in the liver area, light headedness,
something that needs to be discussed. But where are we if the speaker is
expressing a probability based on the fact he has been completely well for the
past year? In many groups of people such a statement may be based on the very
real fear of the speaker knowing he will become ill shortly because a curse or
spell has been cast. If I’m walking in a strange neighborhood and my walking
companion states “I don’t believe we’re safe here.”, what I want to know is if
the statement means “I have a physical feeling of insecurity and anxiety” or “I
don’t feel different, but my analysis of where we are leads me to conclude that
statistically it is an area of higher crime”. We would normally pay much more
attention to the statement expressing an immediate feeling, than one of general
air filling conversation. Statement 6 is crucially important,
but inserting “belief” is laziness and serves little. When we speak of the
“belief” of a witness, we as the judge of that statement bring to the table
first and foremost G. Some in the audience may not realize the vast difference
statement 6 makes if made in a jury room, or as a quip in a movie theatre. The
importance of the jury room statement should never be trivialized. A society of
law depends on a recognition and acknowledgment of truth. Those who recognize
the importance, even if in different degree, would first judge the speaker. Is
he smart? Was he paying attention? Is he part of the witnesses group or groups?
Does he have an agenda? Is he an innate leader? Is he clothed with authority?
Do I like him as a person? Is he trying to do the right thing? After the
speaker passes the decent person test, we should engage him in his analysis of
his statement. The give and take of good faith competing analysis is uppermost
in my structure for a society I desire. What we expect in this situation is
that the speaker acknowledges that his judgment was as thoughtful and
analytical as he was capable of forming. Belief is too often rigid and like a
chip on one’s shoulder. Knowledge is flexible and invites more knowledge. THE WORD BELIEF SUGAR COATS WHAT
SHOULD BE DESCRIBED AS DANGEROUS STUPIDITY Walking with my friends in the Santa
Fe Museum of Art I asked what was a “Keeper of Secrets”. This reference was
repeated throughout the placards explaining various sub-Saharan African
exhibits. As the explanation labored on, I blurted, “Oh they mean the witch
doctor!” The realm of magic and
superstition. Burundi's albinos flee witchdoctorsRUYIGI, BURUNDI | ESDRAS NDIKUMANA -
Oct 14 2008 12:32 Mail and Guardian South
Africa’s Online News Richard
Ciza was alerted by neighbours last week that a posse was looking for him. He
ran and hid for two days in the forest of eastern Burundi.
I chose the most appalling, brutal, egregious example of “Belief”
I could find. I was going to use Thabo Mbeki and his South African health
minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang who tells
those with HIV to eat garlic and beetroot, but there are enough appeasers and
apologists already for South Africa’s Aids policy. Selling butchered albinos as
lucky charms ranks right up there with enjoyed cannibalism. Unfortunately
genetic determination is the high percentage of probability for these beliefs.
Why can’t first world persons leave these folks to their own way of life? Mankind’s need for cause takes
varied and often frightening forms. My analysis into Belief inescapably leads
me to the knowledge that the word has become a useless crutch. Outside the
Boeing plant in Renton, Washington sits the Museum of Flight. When I walked
into the first exhibit, the contrast between the duplicate of the Wright
Brothers Kitty Hawk plane and the SR-71 Blackbird not thirty yards away made
the feelings of Awe and Astonishment come to me. After the guide explained
these planes, and the lapse of a mere approximate six and one half decades
separating the two, again the hugely exponential increase in human knowledge
was a thought welling up. We all can to some extent or another analyze this
increase. For mankind the need to use the word belief also exponentially
decreases. We as a species know so much more as each day passes. Our need for
“Belief” as causation should go the way of the devil, spells, witchcraft and
that ilk. MEMORY, BRAIN, AND BELIEF
edited by Daniel Schacter and Elaine Scarry is as one might expect from a
conference of intellectuals brought together under the umbrella of Harvard
University. The first chapter starts with the statement “We would like to
discourage the demand for a context-independent definition of belief in any
particular circumstance as equivalent to the identification of the
contingencies which allow that belief to be attributable.” P. 28 (I wonder what
context these authors think necessary to understanding the belief of selling
Albino body parts as expressed in the news article-other than DANGEROUS
STUPIDITY?). Much of the book therefore avoids
defining “belief” except through dictionary references such as page 2
“Webster’s dictionary defines belief as ‘confidence in the truth or existence
of something not immediately susceptible to a rigorous proof’ “. I like the
hooker “not immediately susceptible to a rigorous proof”. Does this mean that
beliefs can only apply to something not susceptible to proof at anytime? That
would be a ludicrous reading of Webster’s definition. The words are
self-explanatory. Belief can be used when one is lazy, or not smart enough, or
simply not behaviorally inclined to gain knowledge. If the something in
question is not now susceptible to proof- such as God-then the word faith
should be used. The editor’s at Webster know what they are doing. Those who
used the word “belief” are taking a significant and undeserved shortcut in
their communication. Unsurprisingly to me, Daniel Damisio of the Department of
Neurology, college of medicine, University of Iowa barbs the chapter one
authors with his statements on pages 325 and 326 of the same book “Although
none of the participants asked to have his or her definition of the term
‘belief’ endorsed by a vote, it became
apparent, as the conference evolved, that a certain consensus was being
reached.” Read the book for his explanation of this consensus. Note my earlier
comment as to this author. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz
put into words this idea that we genetically require causation as he points out
that humans don’t just stand “in dumb astonishment or blind apathy” when
viewing this world. The principle of conservatism which states that “we have a tendency to reject evidence or ideas
that are inconsistent with current beliefs, especially those we consider
central and important.” is a foundational underpinning for my disassociating me
from the word Belief. Heuristics is also a term used closely with the word
Belief. Heuristics helps explain the brains workings. When we say that “my
intuition is” we really are talking about the heuristics of the brain.
Availability, representativeness, and anchoring are often the actual brain
functions fashioning what we describe as intuition. Bring a number into the
brain unrelated to the “cause” the brain needs to have, the number will become
anchored and the number or one similar will find its way into the “cause”.
Available information easily obtained will be used by the brain to find the
“cause”. Finally the new cause will be associated with what we already know to
be true. This is the role representativeness plays in heuristics. When an
informed person becomes aware of the shortcuts that genetics have programmed
the brain to perform, that person would be skeptical of the initial “cause”
that bubbles to the surface of the brain. We have to have intuition. We are
programmed that way. No wonder most scientifically important discoveries are
counter-intuitive. Leonardo suffered for science. The heuristic mind believes
the sun goes around the earth. It is obvious to anyone who simply observes. The
genius breaks through Conservatism. Are we free to believe? No. This is
not the place to attempt to go through the literature of races and the
differences in how brains function. Suffice it to point out that as early as
1903 The Frenchman Levy Bruhl after reading the translation of a Chinese
historical work sought to determine whether not the Western idea that there is
a universal concept of “logic”. He concluded that the ancient Greek “logic”
used in western civilization was not universal. In fact group beliefs were far
more important in societies such as Chinese and Africans- even when these
beliefs were shown scientifically to be preposterous. HOW NATIVES THINK (1926).
One of the factors leading to a diagnosis of autism in individuals is that they
are incapable of having the ability to put themselves in the position of others
to “belief” what others are “believing”. Here again lets rid ourselves of this
word “belief”. We agree all men can think. All men can attempt to gain
knowledge. All can have faith. All can accept or reject teachings as true,
untrue, or somewhere in between. All can spend varying amounts of energy on
learning. Would not autistics be potentially helped more if there were a
clearer understanding what specifically they cannot process about what other
persons have in their mind? The scientific trial used for autistics was simple.
Kids were given a tube labeled Smarties the candy. When opened, the tube
contained pencils. When asked what their friend would say was in the tube,
normal kids said Smarties. Autistic kids, who are unable to put themselves in
the place of others, replied that their friends would say pencils. Strange how
the mind can work at times. William James wrote THE WILL TO
BELIEVE as an address to the philosophical clubs of Yale and Brown in the
1890’s. He lays to rest “believing” as some easy inherent mechanism. Think
about what he says therein: “The talk of believing by our volition seems,
then, from one point of view, simply silly. From another point of view it is
worse than silly; it is vile. When one
turns to the magnificent edifice of the physical sciences, and sees how it was
reared; what thousands of disinterested moral lives of men lie buried in its
mere foundations; what patience and postponement, what choking down of
preference, what submission to the outer laws of icy fact are wrought into its
very stones and mortar; how absolutely impersonal it stands in its vast augustness-then
how besotted and contemptible seems every little sentimentalist who comes
blowing his voluntary smoke wreaths, and pretending to decide things from out
of his private dream! (Emphasis added)
Can we wonder if those bred in the rugged and manly school of science should
feel like spewing such subjectivism out of their mouths? The whole system of
loyalties which grow up in the schools of science go dead against its
toleration; so that it is only natural that those who have caught the
scientific fever should pass over to the opposite extreme, and write sometimes
as if the incorruptibly truthful intellect ought positively to prefer
bitterness and unacceptableness to the heart in its cup. ‘It fortifies my soul to know That, though I perish, Truth is so-‘ Sings Clough, whilst Huxley exclaims: “My only
consolation lies in the reflection that, however bad our posterity may become,
so long as they hold by the plain rule of not pretending to believe what they
have no reason to believe because it may be to their advantage so to pretend
[the word ‘pretend’ is surely here redundant], they will not have reached the
lowest depths of immorality.” And that delicious enfant terrible Clifford
writes: “Belief is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements,
for the solace and private pleasure of the believer… Whoso should deserve well
of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his belief with the very
fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy
object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away… It is sinful, because
it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind. That duty is to guard
ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence, which may shortly master our
own body and then spread to the rest of the town… It is wrong always, and for
anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” How easily James and his colleges could
substitute the word “faith” for “belief” when referring to religion. James the
skeptic in my reading has faith in God. He has knowledge. He lacks belief, as I
lack the belief. David
Hume said in his AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING
HUMAN UNDERSTANDING (1758) “A wise
man proportions his belief to the evidence.” Hume would likely join me in
the 21st century in discontinuing the word “belief”. His statement
today would be “A wise man proportions his knowledge to the evidence.” The
sounder and solid the evidence, the more we are assured that the word knowledge
is appropriate. Mathematics, statistics and especially expressions of probability
communicate far more of knowledge. Those who preach Counterknowledge worship
“belief”. The scientific method and evidence derived there from is an anathema
for them. The last book I will discuss is KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND WITCHCRAFT (1986) written by two Doctors of
Philosophy, Barry Hallen and J. Olubi Sodipo. I will bet money (my best
expression as to the probability of my thought being correct) that they forced
the facts to feed the theory. I admire the idea and premise. Delve into the
Yoruba culture in Nigeria and extract the secret confessions of the top forty
Masters of Medicine (Onisegun) to “prove” African Philosophy. “Aje” is the
Yoruba word closest to witch. The authors work
with the forty greatest Masters of Medicine is summed up on page 107 of
their book “The answer to the
original question, then, is that there definitely are many aje who are onisegun
or babalawo, in fact the most powerful
amongst the onisegun or babalawo. And since the gentlemen with whom we
are holding our discussions are considered to be among the most powerful of the
onisegun in the area, the implication is definite and clear. Many amongst them
are knowingly aje. But they dare not admit it in an open and direct manner. The
closest they can come is to state it in the hypothetical found in the final
sentence of quotation 26.(the quoted material being ‘he should have seen the
idi of what he wants to use the medicine for…as aje and alujanun, any medicine
which I put my hands on must be good.’).” Where Hallen and Sodipo force the facts is
because they make the mistake of using the word belief to be equal to the
Yoruba word gbagbo which they define in English as “agreeing to accept what one
hears from someone.” The English word Knowing in Yoruba is mo. Actually as the
book explains; a Yoruban can only know something that he himself has actually
seen. Everything else is gbagbo to some extent or another. Curiously for me
oral history for the Yoruban is gbagbo, not mo. I would really be interested in
some basic knowledge. Will a Yoruban accept the Copernican theory of the
universe? From the knowledge gained by reading this book I would find probably
not. Anyway this discourse is off point. Hallen and Sobido start with the
Oxford English Dictionary definition that ‘believe’ has three primary meanings:
(1) accept as true or speaking truth (2) think, suppose (3) have faith in the
existence or efficacy, advisability of, etc. As they admit identifying the
humdrum meaning of ‘believe’ in English “may prove problematical”. At page 54
they acknowledge “If one attempts to
collate the various usages, it becomes apparent that ‘the general notion represented by the English verbal concept of
belief is complex, highly ambiguous, and unstable’ (Needhan:43) To ‘believe’
can mean to trust, to assess something as true, or to have faith (though what
this means, even in a Christian context even Needham finds confusing).
Philosophers and religious thinkers who have tried to clarify the meaning of
‘believe’ have, again, proposed such diverse alternative analyses that The overriding
conclusion is that more than two hundred years of masterly philosophical
application have provided no clear and Substantial
understanding of the notion of belief (Needham:61).” The authors of KBW chose to accept my example 3
above for Belief. That choice makes the comparison of knowing-believing and
mo-gbagbo sensible. Philosophy it ain’t. CONCLUSION CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE
IN. Barack Obama and his advisors knew this phrase was not the empty
rhetoric the Republicans thought it was. First the word “change” brought Bush
and the emotions associated with his presidency to the candidate’s audience. It
was and is a war cry, a call to become a True Believer, a call to accept Obama
on faith. First and foremost those who use the word believe do not want to
engage in meaningful conversation. No indeed, when I say I believe something,
in this politically correct society-end of discussion. The Democrats know that
believe and belief means many things to many people, they are emotional words
leading to heuristic conclusions. These words stifle knowing give and take
based on facts. They encourage Counterknowedge among the faithful. I anticipate being able to end the habit of using the word belief.
Change comes through knowledge. Friday, November 14, 2008 Charles W. Cresswell Six
impossible things before breakfast : the evolutionary origins of belief Why people
believe weird things : pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our
time Belief and unbelief : a
philosophy of self-knowledge 3rd. ed. The will
to believe : and other essays in popular philosophy The essential David Hume. Edited
with an introduction by Robert Paul Wolff. Knowledge, Belief and Witchcraft: Analytic experiments in African
Philosophy. Barry Hallen and J. Olubi Sodipo
with a new forward by W. O. Quine; and a new aftrerward by Barry Hallen. How can we explain the persistence of irrational beliefs? : essays in social anthropology/ G. V. Loewen; foreward by Elvi
Whittaker. Counterknowledge: how we
surrendered to conspiracy theories, quack medicine, bogus science and fake
history/ Damian Thompson Why people believe weird
things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time/ Michael Shermer;
foreward by Stephen Jay Gould MEMORY, BRAIN, AND BELIEF edited by
Daniel Schacter and Elaine Scarry
Charles's trout fishing site |
home