We Believe

In the United States it’s not uncommon to come across yard signs that start with the proclamation “In this house, we believe…”. What follows is a list of, what most take to be, progressive talking points associated with the Democratic Party. Each time I pass by one of these I can’t help but be confused by why beliefs are called upon to say anything about women’s rights, black lives, and science. Equally, as the midterm elections are in full swing and the the ramping up of the 2024 presidential elections is underway, hearing friends and family conjure the same language to express their political affiliation and support for candidates is just as perplexing. Why relegate any of these things to beliefs when what they are is feelings and/or thoughts?

For those that are familiar with reciting the Nicene Creed during a Catholic mass, the “We believe” signs may come across as somewhat satirical if one didn’t know better. There’s a reason why claims of faith make sense in a church, but smell a little off when it comes to expressing progressive values. The foundation of religious belief is not based on reason, but instead on revelation due to supernatural phenomenon. Liberalism is supposed to be rooted on the explicability of reality. Progressivism thrives on conjecture and refutation, not dogmatic ideology.

There is no way to access the knowledge claims necessary to be part of a faith other than through faith itself. Belief is how one “knows” Jesus is God or that Mohammed is a prophet. There is no other way to come to conclusions like these other than using the doorway that commands a “leap”. Rationality may follow from faith claims (some faiths may do this more than others), but religion will never be completely rooted in rationalism. It will always be opposed to it on some level though, because there will inevitably be something that is necessarily sectioned off from the grasps of good explanation.

As of now, I can only think of one reason why any liberal minded person would call their thoughts and feelings beliefs; they are anxious about not knowing how to defend their position. (For the sake of clarity, I’m not implying liberalism is indefensible, but only that individuals lack infinite knowledge.)  By calling their thoughts and feelings beliefs, they attempt to place their ideas in the same domain as religious faith. A realm that’s so special it alleges to supersede rationality and, therefore, criticism. If the world is knowable though, no such place is necessary. The Truth doesn’t need magical realms to protect it. Additionally, such a place only impedes progress because it can’t kill off bad ideas. On the flip side, if the world is peppered with irrational facts then there is no way to come to know anything via reason, because there would be no way to understand when to apply rationality and when to abandon it. The world would be absurd.

Self proclaimed liberals would do themselves a favor in the long run if they would focus on their actual origins of reason and other enlightenment values. Sentimental beliefs will only prove to create indefensible weak points despite its marketability.