How do we come by our beliefs? Simple upbringing and anecdote? Experience? Logic?
So many of our beliefs are inculcated before we “come of age” that we might have difficulty distinguishing between them and those we eased ourselves into through the course of growing up. And then, strangely, there appear in the mix acquired by tradition and aging those beliefs somehow tied to “logic.” Logically held belief and faithful reasoning: Aren’t those among the ironies of human ironies?
That’s why I ask you about the origin of belief, any belief and beliefs in general. One key to the origin of a certain kind of belief seems to lie in abstraction, and that is social belief, not only how we perceive the role and status of others but also how we accept actions for or against them.
We might have difficulty, for example, understanding why someone might be for a particular law, or we might wonder how anyone can be against it. And although I usually refrain from addressing current news in favor of long-term concerns and issues, I want to mention the argument centered on Kate’s Law, which is an amendment to section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to the reentry of removed aliens. Specifically, under “(b) Reentry of Criminal Offenders,” subsection 4, the Act states:
“for murder, rape, kidnapping, or a felony
offense described in chapter 77 (relating to peonage
and slavery) or 113B (relating to terrorism) of such
title, or for 3 or more felonies of any kind, the alien
shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more
than 25 years, or both.”
In absentia: The most directly affected human being related to this Act was the now deceased Kate Steinle, a San Francisco resident who was killed by a person to whom subsection 4 would apply. Then, of course, her tragic loss affected her family and friends. Now, some people oppose this “law” because they believe it will cause harm to immigrant communities. But the Act is very specific: three felonies of any kind or for “murder, rape, kidnapping.”
Let’s say you are for the Act. Is it because you knew Kate personally? Or is it a larger issue for you, that even though you did not know her, you empathize with her father who watched her die in his arms. Or is it in general a matter of bias of some kind?
Let’s say you are against the Act. Is it because you see no relationship between Kate’s death and immigration of any kind? Is it because you are a recent and illegal (undocumented?) immigrant or that you have a personal relationship with an immigrant or with the immigrant community at large?
But Kate’s Law isn’t the central issue here. Belief is.
“In absence” is one of the ways by which we adopt many beliefs. We can believe by abstracting ourselves and by applying a logic that is in itself based on belief. Because we are neither omnipresent nor omniscient, we deal with much of the world in abstractions. From those abstractions we “reason ourselves into belief” and accept our reason as universally credible.
In almost every instance of social relationships and opinions on the nature of others and how they should be treated, we seem to rely on an ironic tie between faith and logic, with either underlying the other and both dependent upon our proximity to or affinity for others. Removed from being personally affected, we believe we can apply reason to judgment. We can decide even when those affected, or we, stand in absentia.
Absence might be a foundation on which many beliefs rest. With no personal experience we are free to hold anything as true because nothing in our lives contradicts such belief.
So many of our beliefs are inculcated before we “come of age” that we might have difficulty distinguishing between them and those we eased ourselves into through the course of growing up. And then, strangely, there appear in the mix acquired by tradition and aging those beliefs somehow tied to “logic.” Logically held belief and faithful reasoning: Aren’t those among the ironies of human ironies?
That’s why I ask you about the origin of belief, any belief and beliefs in general. One key to the origin of a certain kind of belief seems to lie in abstraction, and that is social belief, not only how we perceive the role and status of others but also how we accept actions for or against them.
We might have difficulty, for example, understanding why someone might be for a particular law, or we might wonder how anyone can be against it. And although I usually refrain from addressing current news in favor of long-term concerns and issues, I want to mention the argument centered on Kate’s Law, which is an amendment to section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to the reentry of removed aliens. Specifically, under “(b) Reentry of Criminal Offenders,” subsection 4, the Act states:
“for murder, rape, kidnapping, or a felony
offense described in chapter 77 (relating to peonage
and slavery) or 113B (relating to terrorism) of such
title, or for 3 or more felonies of any kind, the alien
shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more
than 25 years, or both.”
In absentia: The most directly affected human being related to this Act was the now deceased Kate Steinle, a San Francisco resident who was killed by a person to whom subsection 4 would apply. Then, of course, her tragic loss affected her family and friends. Now, some people oppose this “law” because they believe it will cause harm to immigrant communities. But the Act is very specific: three felonies of any kind or for “murder, rape, kidnapping.”
Let’s say you are for the Act. Is it because you knew Kate personally? Or is it a larger issue for you, that even though you did not know her, you empathize with her father who watched her die in his arms. Or is it in general a matter of bias of some kind?
Let’s say you are against the Act. Is it because you see no relationship between Kate’s death and immigration of any kind? Is it because you are a recent and illegal (undocumented?) immigrant or that you have a personal relationship with an immigrant or with the immigrant community at large?
But Kate’s Law isn’t the central issue here. Belief is.
“In absence” is one of the ways by which we adopt many beliefs. We can believe by abstracting ourselves and by applying a logic that is in itself based on belief. Because we are neither omnipresent nor omniscient, we deal with much of the world in abstractions. From those abstractions we “reason ourselves into belief” and accept our reason as universally credible.
In almost every instance of social relationships and opinions on the nature of others and how they should be treated, we seem to rely on an ironic tie between faith and logic, with either underlying the other and both dependent upon our proximity to or affinity for others. Removed from being personally affected, we believe we can apply reason to judgment. We can decide even when those affected, or we, stand in absentia.
Absence might be a foundation on which many beliefs rest. With no personal experience we are free to hold anything as true because nothing in our lives contradicts such belief.
RSS Feed