Ken Hurley
Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. – George Carlin
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken
Steve Martin has said, “I believe in eight of the ten commandments… I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome, natural things that money can buy. … I believe the only good laugh is the laugh you get from a professional comedian.” Funny guy.
“You gotta believe!” was the catchphrase of the 1973 New York Mets relief pitcher, Tug McGraw. Tug helped lead the underdog Mets to the World Series, where they lost in seven games to the Oakland Athletics. Perhaps, belief just isn’t enough. Or, would the Mets not have made it to the World Series without their belief they could do it?
Incredulous is the opposite of credulous, which means “believing too easily.” Both words come from the Latin word credere, which means “to believe.” Incredulous is stronger than skeptical; if you’re incredulous of something, you refuse to believe it, but if you’re skeptical, you’re merely doubtful. I know lots of skeptical doubting people. A few are even named Thomas. Things tend to get unpleasant when the skeptical doubters show their incredulity.
Is belief a choice? I believe so. Can you evaluate and apply methods for determining what’s credible? I believe so. You can choose to question something, which can create doubt. After questioning something, one may infer a reasonable conclusion that can ultimately change beliefs if you reevaluate your reasons for believing. Some skeptical doubters question too often. They are so skeptical they don’t even believe in themselves. They do not learn to make reasonable conclusions. They have been taught that to ask questions is all that is needed to appear intelligent. However, we do have matters already clearly settled. Well targeted meaningful questions do not allow you to believe whatever you choose. You cannot believe there’s an invisible fairy in your closet, no matter how many questions you ask or how responsibly and consistently you doubt and reevaluate. If you conclude there is an invisible fairy in your closet, it is an unjustified belief and an unreasonable conclusion. If you like, I have contact info for the asylum that I’ll share with you. However, there is an exception. If you are a three year old — enjoy your imagination!
Occasionally, I’ve witnessed that some skeptical doubters claim they have high standards of evidence. They compare themselves to the “Show Me” state. They make the claim because none of the available evidence fits what they believe should be reasonable. None of the available evidence would convince the skeptical doubters of a just conclusion because they believe the available evidence doesn’t point to what they believe is a reasonable conclusion. Skeptical doubters sometimes do not trust the facts. Or they point out a flaw in the method used to determine the facts. The fact that someone claims to follow a system of inference does not mean they actually follow it. If something is not consistent with their claimed system of inference for a specific belief, either they’re deluding themselves or they are being irrational and likely are blinded by their bias. There are skeptical doubters who are good at being critical, yet struggle with thinking. May I offer a quote attributed to Carl Jung: “Thinking is difficult, therefore let the herd pronounce judgment.” This is often misquoted as, “Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.” Are freethinkers part of a herd? How do you reconcile your identity as part of a herd? Or do you reject the word “herd”? Do you believe yourself to be a “lone wolf”? Can there be a herd of lone wolves? How do you describe the space between “lone wolf” and “herd”? All part of how we choose what to believe.
Our cell membrane receptors are flexible, and that flexibility can alter sensitivity and conformation. When we feel emotionally stuck, there is an opportunity for biochemical change and possible growth. When we choose to change our thoughts, we can experience a rush of neurochemicals and become open and receptive to other pieces of sensory information that may have been previously blocked by our beliefs. As Oprah would say, “An aha moment.” As others would say, “revelatory.” When we change our thinking, we change our beliefs. When we change our beliefs, we change our behavior. When we change our behavior, well, you get the idea.
Humans choose what to believe every day. They may decide to stay comfortable and keep what is familiar. Or they may choose to reach for something new and out of their comfort zone. Humans tend to choose what to believe based on what they think is reasonable. They decide what they think is reasonable by what aligns with what they value. They might value time, money, compassion, respect, or a sense of a beautiful and well-lived life. Or they might value a sense of superiority, racist actions, misogyny, hurtful ideology, and a belief in the invisible fairy in the closet. Irrespective of where you align on the belief spectrum — the more you know, the better decisions you make.
However, there does seem to be an eternal conundrum encapsulated in the simple yet profound phrase, “to believe or not to believe.” The choice to embrace a belief or to reject it is a fundamental aspect of the human experience, guided by a complex interplay of psychological, cultural, and intellectual factors. I find the exploration of belief, skepticism, and the motivations behind both deeply compelling.
Belief serves as a foundational pillar of human cognition, providing a framework through which we interpret the world, construct our identities, and navigate through the myriad complexities of existence.
The theme of belief and faith is a recurring motif in literature, often dealing with the concepts of human consciousness of conviction, doubt, and existentialism. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov (1880), the character Dimitri Karamazov grapples with intense implications of faith and theodicy when he says: “‘But what will become of men then?’ I asked him, ‘without God and immortal life? All things are permitted then, they can do what they like?’” These questions often lead to ambiguous conclusions, and could be interpreted to mean that God is the source of a transcendent prohibition that limits human freedom. Theists have used the questions to argue that the alternative to belief in God is moral nihilism. To which skeptical doubters tend to say, “bunk.” Individuals who claim no god do not act immorally any more or less than “believers.” We can be good without god. It’s easy if you try. Dostoevsky’s exploration of belief delves into the intricate relationship between morality, suffering, and the human longing for transcendence, embracing the profound stakes inherent in the decision to believe or not to believe.
The decision to believe is intricately linked to the empirical verification of hypotheses, the accumulation of evidence, and the openness to revision in light of new discoveries. The scientific method, with its emphasis on observation, experimentation, and peer review, offers a structured framework for evaluating and refining beliefs in accordance with the best available knowledge. The realm of scientific inquiry is replete with moments of groundbreaking belief, skepticism, and paradigm shifts, as exemplified by the Copernican revolution, the theory of evolution, and the counterintuitive revelations of quantum mechanics, but not an invisible fairy in your closet.
Conversely, the decision not to believe, whether in religious doctrines, societal norms, or conventional wisdom, is often motivated by skepticism, critical thinking, bone-headed stubbornness, and the investigation of established dogmas. Individuals may choose not to believe something due to inconsistencies in evidence, the absence of compelling rationale, or a rejection of inherited or imposed beliefs that do not align with their personal experiences or ethical principles.
The act of resisting belief and challenging prevailing narratives is often portrayed as a catalyst for individual autonomy and intellectual awakening. In George Orwell’s 1984 (1949), the protagonist Winston Smith struggles with the oppressive imposition of “doublethink” and the manipulation of truth by the totalitarian regime. His quest for independent thought and resistance against coerced belief serves as a poignant reflection of the human spirit’s capacity to question, defy, and seek liberation from ideological tyranny.
The decision not to believe is an essential component of the rigorous pursuit of all things reasonable, as it fosters an environment of critical inquiry, skepticism, and the continual interrogation of hypotheses. Scientific progress is propelled by the willingness to challenge established paradigms, confront cognitive biases, and embrace uncertainty in pursuit of deeper understanding. A few examples of scientific discoveries that were initially met with skepticism are the theory of plate tectonics, the existence of bacteria, and the necessity to wash your hands, especially if you are a surgeon.
The dynamic interplay between belief and skepticism serves as a testament to the ebb and flow of human cognition and the perpetual quest for knowledge, coherence, and existential meaning. The tension between faith and doubt, conviction and skepticism, offers the opportunity for introspection, debate, and the evolution of human understanding.
The decision to believe or not to believe is a fundamental aspect of the human condition, reflecting the perennial quest for meaning, authenticity, and understanding. The relentless pursuit of empirical truth and the enduring humanistic inquiries into faith and skepticism all serve as testimonies to the gap between acceptance and doubt, conviction and inquiry.
The perpetual sway between belief and skepticism offers the chance for introspection and maybe even conviction, even when doubt continues to resonate. The perennial quest for knowledge, meaning, and understanding is one that drives the curious to explore the boundless realms of the known and the unknown. And, of course, the known unknowables.
As Steve Martin said, “I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there is a game on. … and, I believe in equality for everyone, no matter how stupid they are.”
When I’m asked, “Do you believe God exists?” I usually answer, “Yes, the same way I believe Mickey Mouse exists.” I’m also asked. “Do you believe in life after death?” I answer, “Yes, there is a lot of life after death, just not yours.”
So was it an intact bullet from an “AR-style rifle” or shrapnel that caused Mr. Trump’s ear to bleed during the heinous assassination attempt? Based on the available evidence, I believe it was shrapnel. However, I also believe that claiming it was an intact bullet serves a much more compelling narrative, regardless of the truth.
So, how much does it matter about your personal beliefs? Not much. Until you discover others may believe similarly. That can feel good. Then what? The beginnings of a small church? A cult? A herd? The MAGAs? Freethinkers? A country that claims we’re the greatest ever? A peace-oriented ideology? A destructive ideology? Belief is a choice. The more you know, the better decisions you can make. At least, that’s what I believe today.
###
“YOU GOTTA BELIEVE!”
