ROTTMAN: When some beliefs are better

Dominic Rottman, Staff Columnist

By Dominic Rottman

Oct 3, 2016

Let’s begin with a simple thought experiment. Adam believes that no beliefs are better than others, while Sally believes that some beliefs are better than others. With whom do you agree?

If you agree with Sally, you believe that some beliefs are better than others. If you agree with Adam, you still believe that some beliefs are better than others, because by agreeing with Adam, you agree that “no beliefs are better than others” is a better belief than “some beliefs are better than others.” If you tried to subvert the question by refusing to agree with either, which, admittedly, is something I might try to do, that’s implying the superiority of your third belief to both those of Adam and Sally, still putting you in the camp of “some beliefs are better than others.”

Though this thought experiment may incite the ire of friends, acquaintances and strangers, its purpose is to lead an individual to the realization of the innate truth that some beliefs are better than others. This idea is not only a belief, but also a process that allows for both individual and societal progress, validated by simple truths. We know that 2+2=4 is a better belief than 2+2=5 because the latter is simply not mathematically true. To take this one step further, consider a society where animal abuse is commonplace and considered the norm. Most people would probably agree that a better society would be one where animal abuse is considered wrong on ethical principle. Believing that some beliefs are better than others gives us the courage to point out something that is not okay and say so with confidence.

What I’m trying to argue here is that it is okay — good, even — to say that some beliefs are better than others. Often it is more comfortable to say that no beliefs are better than others in an effort to be nice or not offend, but ultimately this benefits no one, as it may instead validate inferior, incorrect or even morally wrong beliefs. If we are to grow as individuals, it is necessary that we challenge our own beliefs and think critically about them. Change and progress are necessary for not just general happiness and well-being, but a deeper, more fulfilling sort of happiness — what Aristotle calls eudaimonia, best translated as “human flourishing.”

This goes beyond just challenging societal norms: gender roles, race relations, socio-economic divides, etc. It’s one thing to question collective, abstract ideas and beliefs that a large group of people generally hold, but it’s arguably more effective, if more difficult, to challenge each other directly, in person, as individuals. Society is, at its core, comprised of individuals, and therefore the work of human flourishing and societal change is best done on an individual basis. This may seem daunting in a world more densely populated than ever, but society doesn’t change overnight, and this is even more true when one avoids a conflict of beliefs by wrongly relativizing truth, even with good intentions.

Relativizing truth means “while x may be true for you, y is true for me,” especially when x and y are directly contradictory statements. This is different than agreeing to disagree. The former rejects change and progress in any previous or subsequent discourse on the subject, while the latter implies that though neither party changes their stance, a conflict of beliefs is acknowledged, and both parties are required to think critically about their own beliefs and those opposing them. A good service is done either way: Either one party exchanges their belief for a better one, or the argument for their belief is refined and improved as a result of a challenge.

One of my high school teachers, a Christian, once told me about a good friend of his, an atheist. He gave him a copy of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, not that he might convert, but that he might become a better atheist. He remained an atheist after finishing it, but finished it as a better atheist, one with more conviction after being challenged in his beliefs. Their intellectual relationship helped my teacher in many moments of cognitive dissonance, even those concerning his faith. An avid evangelist might view this situation as a failure, but in reality, both my teacher and his friend grew as individuals, which is what ought to happen after a conflict of beliefs.

To conclude, I’d like to issue a challenge to anyone reading this. Ask yourself: Are my beliefs logically consistent? What do I believe, and why do I believe it? This is just a start. It’s certainly no replacement for going out in the world and engaging in individual dialogue with one another. So the next time you experience cognitive dissonance, or encounter a conflict of beliefs, don’t try to avoid it — instead, embrace it with a smile on your face, for it is an opportunity to grow and flourish as an individual.

Dominic Rottman is a first-year in the College of Arts and Science. He can be reached at [email protected].

About the Contributors

Dominic Rottman, Former Author

Ziyi Liu, Author

Comments (7)

The Vanderbilt Hustler welcomes and encourages readers to engage with content and express opinions through the comment sections on our website and social media platforms. The Hustler reserves the right to remove comments that contain vulgarity, hate speech, personal attacks or that appear to be spam, commercial promotion or impersonation. The comment sections are moderated by our Editor-in-Chief, Barrie Barto, and the rest of our editorial team. You can reach Barrie at [email protected].

Share your thoughts...

All The Vanderbilt Hustler picks Reader picks Sort: Newest

7 Comments

Newest

Oldest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Jeff

2 years ago

You sir or ma’am, are an idiot… to suggest that anything other than 2+2=4 is a universal fact. Not an opinion or belief… a belief is something that is subjective outside of fact… while a fact is a fact. No person should allow their beliefs infringe upon another’s individual rights (constitutional). Thus, the more a power/influence a person holds the less their beliefs should impose upon their decisions about others rights. It is simple.

John

8 years ago

I’m not sure if your thought experiment runs. I could hold Adam’s position, and when encountering Sally’s say to myself, “I do not have enough information to determine which belief is better, so I will suspend judgement on this matter. In essence, I admit that I might be wrong and her belief might be better than mine.” I can still hold Adam’s position and not assert it as being necessarily better than Sally’s. Now if you say that suspending judgment on this matter is a belief that I hold to be better than rendering judgment (attempting to start a regress), then I will retort that I am not holding any particular belief on this issue. I have two possibilities that, while mutually exclusive, I give equal possibility to both. Thus, I am still consistent and it is still possible to hold Adam’s position.

Also, to make your Aristotle impact work you should probably link it to a character trait. That is, after all, what Aristotle’s project is about: cultivating good character (cultivating virtue). Which would go something like, “not dismissing untrue beliefs as untrue in a deficiency of certainty, and holding too closely to your beliefs without recognizing counterarguments is an excess of certainty”

Man with the Axe

No one really believes that no beliefs are better than others, no matter what they might say in the midst of an argument.

Typically, the sort of person who makes that claim is a progressive who believes in moral relativism, and especially cultural relativism. But if you asked this person whether he believes that slavery is just as good as freedom, or that subjugating women is as good as giving them equal rights, or that throwing gays off of buildings is as good as allowing them to marry, he would either say he doesn’t believe these things are just as good, or he would lie and say that he did just to keep from losing the argument.

Dominic

Concerned Citizen

Rottman,

I found many of the points raised in this article deeply troubling. Beyond the sheer fallacious bedrock upon which your argument has been constructed (everybody knows that truth is relative and that we don’t live in a world of absolutes), I found much of this essay deeply problematic and triggering. I will elaborate with greater specificity below.

First, when you say, “[t]his idea is not only a belief, but also a process that allows for both individual and societal progress, validated by simple truths,” you engage in unabashed ableism and come off as insufferably bourgeois. Consider a reader with lesser cognitive faculties or even with less educational attainment than yourself. Such a reader may be deeply wounded by your claims that these truths are “simple” or obvious. Be careful to think below your ivory tower.

Next, you claim that “[w]e know that 2+2=4 is a better belief than 2+2=5 because the latter is simply not mathematically true.” This error might be best responded to anecdotally. When I was a child, my parental guardian (note how I chose not to impose socially constructed gender roles upon my caretakers as you later do to C.S. Lewis, who very well may have been triggered by such careless pronoun use) promised to buy me a pair of feminist zines. To my dismay, come December 25th there was but one beneath the Holiday Tree. To this day, the second natural number continues to be one of my primary triggers.

Finally, you implore the reader to “[a]sk yourself: Are my beliefs logically consistent? What do I believe, and why do I believe it? This is just a start.” By your violent imperative for self-examination, you violate the Safe Space of one’s very own personhood. In calling for this inquisition of one’s beliefs, you risk unearthing damaging psychological trauma and triggering experiences. This is absolutely double-plus-ungood.

Please consider the above, and check your privilege.

Reply to Concerned Citizen

you must be a troll

i.e. fact is simple… and should stand above social constructs… because it is factual.