Thursday, March 5, 2009

The problem with "believe in"

People sometimes ask me if I "believe in" evolution. My usual answer is that the question makes no sense. It's like asking if I “believe in” gravity. Gravity, and evolution, are out there, they don't need me to “believe in” them.

Maybe the problem is with the English language. Consider:
  1. I believe that Tolkien created orcs as characters in Lord of the Rings.
  2. I believe that orcs exist.
  3. I believe that orcs are ugly.
  4. I believe that orcs should be killed whenever we encounter them.
When anthropologists talk about non-material culture, we usually distinguish among these by referring to (1) and (2) as beliefs, (3) as a value, and (4) as a norm. Beliefs are propositions about what is true or false; values are about what is good or bad; and norms are about what is right or wrong. Although in English we can use believe to introduce all of these, only (1) and (2) are subject to empirical investigation. We can look for evidence that Tolkien created orcs; we can also look for evidence that they exist. We cannot look for evidence that they are ugly or that they should be killed whenever we meet them.

So no, I don't "believe in" evolution. Nor do I "believe in" trees, or rocks, or raccoons, all of which exist in the world independent of my "belief in" them. I take biological evolution to be a fact of nature, without which the history of life on Earth is incomprehensible.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments and feedback are welcome, as long as they conform to normal standards of civility and decency. I will delete comments that do not meet these standards.

After a year: genocide by any other name

And the name, I learned this week, is: The Dahiya Doctrine.  Mehdi Hassan explains here .