In an age of manipulation, no proof is ever conclusive. “Where’s the evidence?” is a question I often hear. It’s one filled with subtext, the purpose of which is to deflect or delay a necessary process of making room in one’s mind for a possible truth alien to one’s belief system. For the stubborn skeptic, even when vast amounts of evidence are shown, it is never enough. It’s only anecdotal, it’s not scientific (whose science?), it’s CGI or deepfake…
No matter. In this new reality we find ourselves in, no proof is conclusive anymore. Thus, true discernment is now the ability to listen without prejudice or judgement, regardless of what proof exists. “Do you believe in this?” is another question often asked. But as with the need for conclusive evidence, the relevance of beliefs to such discussions is swiftly eroding.
I never ask anyone to believe anything, simply to expand their consciousness to make room for the possibility in question. To refrain from judgement till they have gained sufficient understanding of the subject.
No one is calling for blind faith. Indeed, a distinction has to be made between faith and conviction. My observation is that faith is often applied in relation to an outside entity. Conviction comes from within, an inner knowing. We are usually asked by others to have faith, whereas inner conviction can only come from ourselves.
Now, marry inner conviction with the unearthing of evidence through research, and we have a potent concoction. But isn’t this confirmation bias? Well, I would suggest the dismissal of a possibility due to skeptical reluctance can also be such. Those who don’t want to believe something tend to look only for evidence that it’s not true. Beliefs can be indoctrinated, knowing cannot. Knowing comes from inner conviction, which only strengthens with every bit of evidence one gathers.
So I no longer need or want to believe. I simply have a desire to know, and continue to hold space for possibilities that resonate.
