This I Believe...

This past fall I was introduced to the This I Believe organization through an essay contest at the college I attend. I had planned on submitting an essay for the contest, but I had difficulty pinpointing exactly which beliefs I wished to get across in my essay, given the limited amount of time/words allowed. The This I Believe organization collects essays in which people discuss their own personal beliefs and ideals which guide their everyday life. I highly suggest checking out their website and reading and/or listening to some of the essays as the vast majority I have discovered to be enlightening and inspiring. Here's a link to the site: This I Believe

As an exercise for myself, and to help hone my own articulation of my beliefs, I decided to do a series of blog posts, each one highlighting and discussing a single personal belief in a specific ethic, ideal, or concept. I invite anyone and everyone to comment upon these posts with any sort of feedback or critique in order to help me better understand my writing, but please, keep criticism constructive. I will delete comments that simply bash or degrade my thoughts rather than providing helpful insight into other points of view.

To start off this series, I thought I might go with "I believe... that it is not enough to simply say 'I believe in [blank]'." Beliefs, even those beliefs considered to be 'blind faith' still have a reasoning behind them. I believe it is not enough to simply say 'I believe...' Instead, I believe that if one has truly examined their beliefs and that these beliefs really do guide their everyday life, then one should be able to articulate their beliefs in a fashion understandable to pretty much everyone. Now, this isn't to say that a person has to convince someone else that their beliefs are the 'right' or 'only' way, but rather to be able to express clearly their reasoning that guides them to follow each particular belief. Not only should a person be able to say "I believe in [blank]," but also "I believe in [blank] because [blankety blank blank]."

For instance, I feel that people who say "I believe in God just because I do" haven't really explored their own belief system. Even if the answer is "I believe in God because it's what my parents taught me," that is still a reasoning that the person finds valid and purposeful in their own life. Likewise, saying "I just don't believe in God" is an equally vague statement, whereas "I don't believe in God because I have found no empirical evidence that God exists" offers a view into the reasoning behind that person's belief. I think this particular example is one of the major reasons why I consider myself a true agnostic...I feel unable to provide reasoning behind whether I do or do not believe in a higher power. However, I am able to provide reasoning behind why I neither believe nor disbelieve: "I believe I am truly agnostic because I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God and I feel that it is impossible for humans to prove so either way due to the very nature of God being omnipotent and infinite whereas humans are finite and not omnipotent." Though that seems a long-winded way of stating my belief in regards to God, it is the best way I am able to state my belief while also giving a reason for that belief.

Another example would be "I believe that people are inherently neither good nor bad, but that their choices lead them one way or another." This statement is fine if just stating one's belief, but I feel that in order for a person to really understand themselves, they have to be able to expand upon that statement. Being able to explain why one believes what they say they believe gives more depth to that belief, strengthens the concept for themselves as well as allows others to understand their mentality. Being able to understand other people's reasoning for their beliefs is extremely important to understanding how to relate to them as well as to reconcile any differences of opinion. I think that often the reason why our personal beliefs cause us to clash so violently with others of opposing views is that we are unable to articulate why we believe what we believe. Often times we are able to relate with the reasoning behind someone's belief, even if we do not agree with the belief itself. Say that one person strongly opposes the death penalty and another strongly supports it. Initially, those two people would clash, not understand each other, and would feel animosity towards each other. While strong opinions often can never fully be reconciled, I do believe it is possible to learn to respect the opposite point of view and at least to understand where that person is coming from. If the person who supports the death penalty states "I believe in the death penalty because it is the only real way to stop dangerous criminals from committing further crimes," then at least the other person could possibly understand, respect, and maybe even empathize with that person's reasoning. On the other hand, if the person who strongly apposes the death penalty states that "I believe the death penalty is inhumane because there have to be better ways of rehabilitating criminals," then likewise this can start a dialog which could lead to the possibility of mutual respect and understanding, even if there is no final agreement. Just stating "I believe" and then countering with "I don't" leaves no room for discussion and gives the impression that one is unwilling to hear or even try  to understand another point of view.