Changes in Understanding Belief.

The following quote comes from a segment of the same TED Talks speech I shared in a previous post. I find this segment particularly interesting because in it she raises a valuable point on our understanding of the word "belief."

"I began to realize that belief -- which we make such a fuss about today -- is only a very recent religious enthusiasm that surfaced only in the West, in about the 17th century. The word "belief" itself originally meant to love, to prize, to hold dear. In the 17th century, it narrowed its focus... to mean an intellectual assent to a set of propositions, a credo. "I believe:" it did not mean, "I accept certain creedal articles of faith." It meant: "I commit myself. I engage myself." Indeed, some of the world traditions think very little of religious orthodoxy. In the Quran, religious opinion -- religious orthodoxy -- is dismissed as "zanna:" self-indulgent guesswork about matters that nobody can be certain of one way or the other, but which makes people quarrelsome and stupidly sectarian." 

The word belief has not maintained the exact definition it was originally paired with at the beginning of the English language. Instead it has evolved alongside mankind-- as have many other words. This reality of changing definitions is something that many are vaguely aware of but rarely pay proper attention to. Instead, we skip along through primary texts and translations pausing only to apply our own interpretations without purposely (unless we are required to) reflecting back on what certain words might have meant when the document was first compiled.

What would the world be like if we looked at all of our texts with an attentiveness to the cultural implications and definitions it was defined with? Would the interpretations we have of things such as the bible and Greek philosophers be the same as they are now?