By Edwin Cooney
In a recent musing, I drew a distinction between opinion and thought when it comes to all questions of outlook and action. Since then, a lady from the Granite State of New Hampshire (let’s call her “Granite Hills Judy”) sent me what I regard as a vitally important perspective on the importance of morality as we establish a system of beliefs.
Francisco Mejia Uribe, in addition to being a Goldman Sachs executive in Hong Kong, is also quite a powerful philosopher. Recently, Dr. Uribe quoted William Kingdon Clifford, a Victorian era philosopher, who asserted in an 1877 publication that “…We have an obligation to believe responsibly. …believing without evidence is always morally wrong,” he further asserted. Clifford offers three arguments in support of his assertion.
The first argument is that our beliefs influence our actions.
Second, Clifford insists that poor practices of belief formation turns us into careless, credulous believers who are inevitably influenced by whatever information we’ve taken in by poor belief formation practices.
Finally, as communicators of our beliefs, we have a moral responsibility not to pollute the well of collective knowledge that has been scientifically and logically gathered and investigated.
Although I’m neither a sociologist nor a theologian, in view of the above, I invite you to join me in considering the following questions.
What are the main sources of our primary beliefs? Are they spiritual or secular?
Finally, what forces compel any one of us to endorse or even alter a belief or even a set of beliefs?
Although I don’t write or talk about it much, I am first and foremost a Christian. I didn’t discover my religion; I was indoctrinated into it at birth by the men and women who cared and nurtured me. Although this indoctrination itself may be in violation of Clifford’s insistence that I diligently investigate this fundamental belief before endorsing it, my respect for and appreciation of those who indoctrinated me follows Clifford’s third argument “…not to pollute the well of collective knowledge.” Thus I guess my sense of spirituality is what has always been my most gentle guide through life.
As to what compels me to endorse or alter a belief or set of beliefs, I’m most affected by an ongoing set of behavioral circumstances. When I was young, I was most influenced by the morality of social conservatism. That gradually shifted when I came to see that conservatives, contrary to their insistence, had no monopoly on morality. Henceforth what a person or political party did for most people became more important to me than political doctrine.
Next comes the question of evidence. There are several types of compelling evidence. They are scientific evidence, empirical or evidence gained through experience, circumstantial evidence (normally regarded as the weakest type of evidence), logical evidence, cultural evidence and finally, spiritual evidence.
Scientific evidence is primarily materialistic evidence usually observable, calculable and above all, provable via demonstration.
Empirical evidence is gained through knowledge of one’s experience of human behavior given a set of conditions and circumstances. Its nature is largely psychological.
Logical evidence is that kind of evidence that is created in the wake of the occurrence of a series of activities.
Cultural evidence is largely, if not wholly, dependent upon the mores of society. I was recently reading a book that covered the history of the Soviet Union during Stalin’s time. Whatever advanced Soviet Communism was defined as automatically moral. Anything anti-Soviet was immoral. On the other hand, President Reagan, as head of the world’s most capitalistic society, labeled the Soviet Union “…an evil empire.”
Spiritual evidence is largely behavioral and only measurable within a spiritual context. The belief that we ought to love our neighbor as we love ourselves lies at the center of Christian as well as other religious beliefs. Nevertheless, one doesn’t have to be religious to endorse humankind’s most precious admonition.
Sadly, we live in a time that is dominated by political, cultural and even religious fear. Fear, the father of anger, subsequently is in a position not only to pollute the well of collective knowledge, even worse it threatens to poison our attempt to gather future knowledge. Over 200 years ago, General George Washington was scolded by the president of Princeton for distributing anti-smallpox vaccine to his troops. If God hadn’t wanted men to get smallpox, asserted the clergyman educator, he wouldn’t have created smallpox. Obviously, Princeton’s good reverend (I believe his name was Timothy White) failed to realize that God gave a gift to humankind much more significant than smallpox. God gave us the capacity and willingness to use our knowledge of science to conquer many diseases.
Changing one’s mind, or if you prefer, altering one’s beliefs can be, and usually is, a painful process. After all, we invariably invest ourselves in what we believe.
I’m convinced that amongst the bravest of us all are those who really and truly dare to re-examine and even confront our beliefs, especially if we’re willing to look beyond our own prejudices.
Oh, by the way, why don’t you go first and let me know what it’s like! Remember, we’re all being watched over by Judy of the Granite Hills!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment