A Belief's Proof for an Emotional Justification

Why do human beings believe in things that are not (or cannot) be proven?

Beginning around 35,000 years ago Paleolithic representational art emerged in upper Europe. Faceless sculptures of well fed, nude, and commonly pregnant women were found in Austria and France. They are known as the ‘Venus figurines.’ Their exaggerated sexual characteristics imply not only a strong focus on the importance of female fertility, but also an idealization of the female identity as the giver of life. It appears quite clearly that events led these early people in Europe to worship the ability of women to birth children, and that these Paleolithic peoples believed that there was some power given to women enabling their bodies to gift life. These figurines and this idea of feminine worship began far before the concept of proof was created. Thus, perhaps human beings believe in things that cannot be proven, for there is truly no proof to be found. Some things may just occur or be in such a way that there is no answer for how or why. This notion then leads to a following question: Why must human beings attempt to prove the things that they believe in?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the scientific method was invented around 1810 and is described as follows: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. There is no natural law that states: all seen occurrences must be provided with a definition through the scientific method. There is no requirement that a set of facts must be analyzed and their relationship to one another be found. Therefore, there must be an emotional reason why humans seek proof for their beliefs. A study was conducted by the University of California, Los Angeles, that illustrated emotions connected with belief, disbelief and uncertainty effected specific parts of the brain. The analysis found that contrasting belief with disbelief yielded an increased signal in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is involved in linking factual knowledge with emotion. It brought to light that when a belief is shown, or more correctly, felt to be true, the believer then associates a positive emotional response with the idea. If their idea is valid, they become heightened emotionally. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, no aspect of our mental life is more important to the quality and meaning of our existence than our emotions.

If all of these factors are true, then one must then deepen the concept. If proof and belief are so directly connected emotionally, then why must one have beliefs at all? Why not just have raw emotions? The answer is a matter of rationality. The clearest notions associated with rationality are coherence and consistency, but they are held in a sphere of belief. The number of goals that are logically possible for one to attempt at any particular time is virtually infinite, as well, the number of possible strategies that one may employ in pursuit of these goals is even larger. Belief seems to provide a balance between the solid rational portions of existence and the unjustified and volatile ones of emotion. Belief holds a place in the realm of irrationality and emotional intensity. It is that realm of unexplainable certainty where one finds a severe lack of proof, and because of that fact, all many wish to do is find what is not present: the factual basis of something not tangible but emotionally defensible.

Same-Sex Marriage: The Controversy of Our Generation

Why are so many people uncomfortable with the idea that many problems don't have a single solution? Give an example of a current controversy in which there are different factions arguing that theirs is the one RIGHT answer and explain why there is in reality no one right answer to the issue.

‘There is a storm gathering.” There is a storm gathering that will make doctors choose between their faith and their job, a storm that will encroach on the rights of individuals, a storm that will leave parents helpless to stop its influence on their children. This is the warning issued by the National Organization for Marriage. This storm is Same-Sex Marriage.

There are many who are convinced that the institution of same-sex legal unions will negatively affect the whole of the American nation. These warnings about the perceived dangers of homosexual marriage are predominately the opinions of those who affiliate themselves with conservative views and Christian ideals. The largest portion of their fear is said to be that the “marriage covenant” is being infringed upon; that the sacred bond between a man and a woman is being broken and the result will be the disintegration of the family foundation, eventually leading to a fall in social order.

However, points have been made that these opinions are not valid and that they are influenced by motives not readily available to the public eye. It has been said that the fear the opponents of gay marriage have is less of gay marriage itself and more the fear of a breakdown. A breakdown of the traditional heterosexual family causing a shift in the role of women and the church in society. Denying someone the right to marry is seen as a denial of religious freedom and marriage benefits (i.e. joint ownership, medical decision making, etc), as well as a form of minority discrimination. But that means nothing to someone who feels that their values as an individual are being challenged and their families are being put at risk.

Whatever one’s opinion on the subject may be, it is clear that a satisfactory resolution for this idealistic conundrum will dubitably be reached. Those that are morally or religiously opposed to same-sex marriage will be offended and refuse to recognize the legal union. Contrastingly, those that openly support it will be joyous. Arguments can be made in regard to who is truly qualified to make decisions on who is allowed to marry. Or even what marriage is. Due to the simple fact that every individual will have a personal opinion on marriage makes finding one answer impossible. It would be like having the Supreme Court decide which ice cream is better: vanilla or chocolate? It cannot be done.

What is morally right or wrong resides wholly with an individual. It is the individual who decides for themselves what they believe and what they are comfortable with. Thus, there can be no ‘right’ answer reached in regards to same-sex marriage. For when all is said and done, people will always disagree on what is ‘right.’