Belief, Unbelief, and Disbelief

I don’t believe in gravity. Yes, I realize that if I drop my sandwich, it’ll splatter all over my shoes; but that doesn’t require my assent to happen. Equally important, if I refuse my assent, if I actively disbelieve in gravity, my disbelief won’t influence the outcome. My willingness to grant intellectual credence to gravity doesn’t change that rain falls downwards, that planets orbit stars in predictable patterns, and that gravity is constant and calculable.

Right-wing media generation has recently turned heavily toward propagating politics based on “belief,” as in this image. One could make spirited arguments about what “belongs” means regarding Hilary Clinton’s legal culpability, Joe Biden’s health, or Donald Trump’s probity to lead. But this image short-circuits all such arguments by removing them from the domain of evidence, and redefining them as “beliefs.” Nothing has to have truth value anymore, or meet legal definitions; “belief” alone is sufficient.

This isn’t new. Over two years ago, Dr. Ibram Kendi wrote that then-President Donald Trump used “belief” language to exempt himself from evidence-based discussions. Faced with evidence that Earth’s climate is disastrously warming, a conclusion which faces almost no scientific dispute, or that police demonstrably use force against Black Americans disproportionately, Trump responded equally: “No. No. I don’t believe it.” Facts didn’t matter, only his individual belief. Reality, in Trumplandia, required the executive’s personal assent.

Unfortunately for this approach, evidence contradicts belief. Even as the former President vocally disbelieved in global warming or systemic racism, our 24-hour news cycle bombarded us with images of forest fires, withering droughts, crippling economic inequality, and police standing on Black Americans’ throats. Like my hypothetical sandwich, scattered all over my previously shiny Reeboks, this evidence proved that racism and global warming, like gravity, is real, whether I give it my intellectual assent or not.

That’s the problem with belief. We believe when there’s an absence of evidence: we believe that there is, or isn’t, a God, for instance. I find the idea of a sublime and transcendent organizing intelligence more persuasive than the Law of Very Large Numbers. But by definition I don’t know, and neither do you. Sometimes we believe despite evidence: I believe democracy is better than tyranny, but arch-segregationist George Wallace was democratically elected, so… meh.

Perhaps it helps to think religiously. “Faith,” the apostle Paul (or whoever) wrote, “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” This means belief in a transcendent source of justice which will repay loyalty someday. But one needn’t have religion to understand this; people with no hope of transcendence believe religiously in concepts like liberty, fairness, and art. We disagree on what these truths mean, but we believe in them.

We don’t, repeat don’t, “believe” facts. Objective, measurable reality isn’t contingent upon our assent: I don’t believe in maps, for instance, I simply trust their authority. Likewise, I have strong opinions about science and technology, but I don’t believe in them, I simply acknowledge that skilled professionals have tested them. Certainly scientists, cartographers, and other experts are sometimes wrong. But experienced critics test their beliefs constantly, ensuring false facts are purged, regardless of others’ beliefs.

We’re witnessing this become truly absurd in our lifetimes. It’s one thing when journalists ask powerful people in decision-making positions whether they “believe in” Keynesian economics, Just War Theory, or God. These are areas where we must make decisions in the absence of verifiable facts. But our politicians get asked, straight-faced, whether they “believe in” global warming, vaccines, resource depletion, and the economic roots of war. That’s literally asking them whether they agree reality exists.

As I was writing this essay, I received news that several Nebraska state senators are petitioning for a special session to “debate” vaccine mandates. One senator, Dave Murman of District 32, claimed that “Despite what has been in the news lately, these particular vaccines have not been approved by the FDA.” Per the FDA’s own website, this is altogether false. Senator Murman, his vision circumscribed by beliefs, officially asserts something that goes against testable reality.

I recall scientists forecasting the disastrous consequences of global warming at least as far back as 1988. In my lifetime, the evidence has gotten only more robust and ironclad. Yet we remain paralyzed from action because some people refuse to “believe” the evidence presented by experts and analysts. They think facts stand waiting for approval. Meanwhile, our democracy, our health, and our planet continue rotting, because like gravity, these facts don’t care about official approval.