From Plato’s Cave to Descartes’ Malignant Demon to the Wachowskis’ virtual world of the Matrix, our assumptions of what we know (and think we know) about “the real” continue to be challenged. I’ve studied epistemology extensively, and I still can’t quite tell you exactly how I know what I know, or what I know, or whatever. And I think we’re all pretty much in the same boat.
Herein lies the importance of critical thinking. A critical thinker holds their beliefs with an open hand, and doesn’t stop examining, questioning, and studying, and doesn’t assume that they’ve figured out all the mysteries of the universe, because they want their beliefs to conform to reality as much as possible. A critical thinker bases their thoughts and actions on the best explanation of the evidence, requiring the application of logic, and the use of reason.
• Belief vs. Conviction
There is a crucial distinction between belief and conviction. Belief and conviction, while related, differ significantly concerning the need for evidence. Skeptics will commonly uphold the idea that one should have good reason (i.e., a reason for belief based on logic, evidence, and the best explanation of the data) to believe something. Generally, I think this is true. Why believe something if you have no good reason to believe it? But there are some things we believe which (I contend) we may believe without requiring sufficient evidence.
Consider two guys: Bill and Ray. Bill believes in the existence of aliens. Ray believes that one day humans will figure out how to safely travel the speed of light like in Star Wars. Does either of these guys have sufficient evidence to warrant their respective beliefs? I would argue that they are basing these beliefs more on a “hunch” or a “gut feeling.” That’s not to say there’s no reasoning at all behind their beliefs. Bill might consider how enormous the universe is and how little of it we’ve been able to study, and based on this fact, coupled with his understanding of how life evolved on Earth, he could understandably come to believe that there are (or were) lifeforms of some sort elsewhere in the universe. Likewise, Ray might consider the fact that our scientific understanding and technological advancements are increasing at an exponential rate, and base his belief on the thought that it’s only a matter of time before we figure out how to travel at lightspeed.
But what if these beliefs became convictions? Belief is a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition: “I think this is true.” We don’t always have control over what we believe, and we don’t always hold on to beliefs strongly or dogmatically. Conviction, on the other hand, is firmly held belief that prompts one to action. All convictions are beliefs, but not all beliefs are convictions.
Imagine if Bill’s belief in aliens turned into a conviction that motivated him to spread the word about aliens, and try to convince other people to believe as he does. Imagine further that, as Bill proselytizes, he judges and condemns anyone who doesn’t believe in the existence of aliens. Imagine yet further that Bill alters his lifestyle to accommodate the day when aliens will visit our planet. He builds a spare room for the aliens when they arrive. He refuses to date or marry someone who doesn’t share his belief in aliens and his hope in the great and glorious Day in which the aliens will come to earth and show us the way to enlightenment.
Now, Bill’s otherwise harmless and perfectly okay belief in aliens has become completely irrational, not because the evidence has changed, but because this unjustified belief, rather than merely serving as a form of emotional or psychological relief or satisfaction, has become a foundation upon which Bill has based his life, attitude and behavior: a foundation lacking proper rational support.
When an unjustified belief becomes a conviction, since the belief rests on a foundation that lacks support, the conviction will likely lead to further beliefs or doctrines – matters of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy – that are even more irrational than the initial conviction. The history of religion is replete with examples of this. Belief in god, based on faith or personal experience or something like, as William Lane Craig says, the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit,” or other such non-rational foundations, has taken otherwise well-intentioned people and led them into holy wars, bigotry, hatred, judgmentalism, mass suicides, the denial of science, “God Hates Fags,” racism, the justification of slavery, The Inquisition, the oppression of women, the indoctrination of children, genital mutilation, and the rejection of medicine in favor of prayer to cure illness and disease.
Once the distinction between belief and conviction is understood, a further distinction must be drawn; namely, between belief and suspicion. By “suspicion” I mean an inclination toward thinking something is true, but not necessarily full-fledged belief or intellectual assent. Considering Bill and Ray once again, perhaps referring to their beliefs as suspicions – i.e., they suspect that their respective propositions are true – is more accurate. People do this all the time. Bill might suspect that O.J. Simpson did in fact murder his wife. Ray might suspect that the Chicago Cubs will never win another World Series in his lifetime. Bill and Ray may not have conclusive proof to support these inclinations, but I wouldn’t consider either person irrational for holding such a suspicion.
I contend that holding a belief apart from proof is in itself not diametrically opposed to a life of truth-seeking, freethought, or critical thinking. Believing “just because that’s what I believe” is intellectually neutral. Belief runs contrary to critical thinking when:
1. one refuses to subject their belief to rational scrutiny and critique;
2. one refuses to examine the evidence against their belief;
3. one refuses to examine the evidence for opposing beliefs;
4. one refuses to examine said evidence objectively;
5. one claims to possess knowledge and proof when in truth they have neither;
6. one is in love with their paradigm too much to change it;
7. one continues to ignore overwhelming evidence in order to keep their belief;
8. one believes their belief is true because they believes it;
9. one acts with deep conviction on a belief for which they have no evidence.
2. one refuses to examine the evidence against their belief;
3. one refuses to examine the evidence for opposing beliefs;
4. one refuses to examine said evidence objectively;
5. one claims to possess knowledge and proof when in truth they have neither;
6. one is in love with their paradigm too much to change it;
7. one continues to ignore overwhelming evidence in order to keep their belief;
8. one believes their belief is true because they believes it;
9. one acts with deep conviction on a belief for which they have no evidence.
(This is not an exhaustive list, but should suffice for the purposes of this entry.)
Dead-Logic 