4/14/10

Belief: It's a choice

A few weeks ago I watched an episode of The Colbert Report, an intelligent, cynical and hilarious take on the day's news, when something Mr. Colbert said stuck out to me profoundly. While criticizing conservative commentators and the myriads of chain-email-believers dead set on Obama being the Anti-Christ, he said, "It doesn't matter if they're reading the original birth certificate, they still won't believe he's a citizen!" Uproarious audience laughter erupted.

I chuckled too, but not for the same reason. The principle behind what he's saying is true of all sides: we all choose who we follow and what we believe.
SIDE NOTE: If any of you have parents, siblings or distant uncles who follow those aforementioned conservative or liberal commentators (who will remain unnamed here since the names aren't important), and gape open-mouthed at the latest "REPUBLICANS ARE RUINING YOUR COUNTRY! BE VERY AFRAID!" or "OBAMA = THE DEVIL" in ALL CAPS Comic Sans font emails that they unfailingly forward to you, or if you are that person, don't worry... this blog post isn't about the sides, but a commentary on the process of decision.

It need not be said that information and opinions are available in an overabundance. Any media that seeps into your brain originates from another person who has an opinion or point of view about something. Each has a motive of sharing that piece of media too, and I think all motives (whether moral or sinister) can be traced down to one of these three: 1) to convince you of a different way of thinking, 2) to earn money,  or 3) simply to share information.

It also doesn't need to be said that with all this overabundance of information that much of it directly conflicts. For example, NPR reports one aspect of the infamous Health Care Bill and interviews professionals and legislative representatives and you get one thing, and FOX interviews other professionals and legislative representatives and you get information directly negating the other! Another example is religion. Many who grew up going to one Church heard and learned a list of doctrines only to read and hear later in life apparently legitimate research claiming it can "prove" that very doctrine or source of scripture to be false. Another example happens to each of us in one way or another. A conflict arises among friends or family, and each person has their own version of what happened and inform you of such. The same thing happens in court when a person is on trial for a crime; a judge/jury must hear all sides of the issue and make a decision on who is right, and what is correct.

Who or what do you believe? On what basis do you decide what's "correct"? The person or group who has more "evidence" at present? The person or source you heard first (or last)? Why do two people who experience the same event, or hear the same story, or read the same piece of legislature, or go to the same church, etc. etc., come out with such different --and often directly opposing-- information?

As I mulled over that comical, but profound statement by Mr. Colbert, I have realized that our decisions as humans are not based upon fact. They're based upon belief.

We would all like to think that what we believe is "truth." But if you take any piece of legislature, any religious doctrine, any court trial, or any other piece of information that's up for interpretation, you could make a table list of directly conflicting points of view or "facts" on each side like this:
You can have equal amounts of evidence, or you can have more evidence weighted on one side or the other. But evidence alone cannot make something true or false enough for someone to believe View 1 or View 2 (or View 3, 4, or 956) alone. Some choices are irrational. Some choices are spiritual. Some choices are logical and deductive. Some choices are emotional.

The truth is this: you choose what to believe. 

A friend of mine told me recently the most profound bit of counsel her mother gave to her when she was a teenager. Her mother said, "Be careful whom you choose to listen to." We each choose to listen to one side or the other. There is no original thought, but that what we hear whispered or shouted into our minds. We choose what information to let in, what to believe, and whom to follow.


And it doesn't matter if you have the proof of evidence in your hand --whether it's a birth certificate or a book-- if you don't believe it in the first place. 

3 comments:

Jaime Lynne said...

Very well said! I applaud your points and your eloquent proof. I "choose" also to believe that belief at its core is a choice.

Chris said...

Brilliant post Anna!

I have thought about this a lot as well and I think you get right down to the bare bones of it.

We don't have time to become experts on every subject. Some people have spent their whole lives just trying to contribute something to one little sub-category of science or religion.

We have to trust someone. Trust and faith are very similar. Really independent people don't want to admit that they can't always make the most informed decision. Even they need to choose to trust someone.

With complex political issues I don't think it's helpful to assign an overall "true" or "false" label.

Liberalism or Conservativism is not "wrong" or "evil" (even though my father would passionately contend the former is indeed evil). It's a different approach which will yield a different balance of results, some positive and some negative.

I think you're right though.We consciously choose what to believe. To me it seems that Liberals tend to be very idealistic and passionate and Conservatives seem to be more grounded and aware of our real limitations. Liberals think Conservatives are greedy and heartless and Conservatives think Liberals live in lala land. Both sides, I think, have an important place.

Anna Crowe said...

Thank you Jaime and Chris!

Chris, I agree with you about Liberalism and Conservativism, and my father sounds the same as yours. :) "Myopic-ism" doesn't help anyone. And on the other hand, a person can be so open-minded that his brains fall out.

And when it comes to complex political issues, what I was referring to is when I would hear comments like, "This bill will not raise taxes" from one person, and another person says, "This bill will raise taxes..." the interpretation and comments of the bill directly conflict. The bill either does or doesn't raise taxes, but since I can't read the bill (because 1-they don't make them available and 2-it's so full of legalese that only a professional can understand the content), I have to trust one side or the other. One side's interpretation is correct and one is incorrect, and we as the general public only find out who's right after the bill's implemented.

But as for the overall concept of complex political issues and bills (i.e., health care), I agree with you in that it's not about correct/incorrect or true/false because "What is best for the country in the long term" is extremely subjective and arbitrary. No one knows what's "best" because choices are always made and we won't ever know what would have been different had different choices been made.

I suppose we're all making "educated guesses" at that point 'eh? Boy, I'm really waxing philosophical here.

:D