Belief, Faith, Truth, and Science

[Larv]

In complying with Buffy’s directive to move this sub-topical discussion under Cummunity Polls to a new thread, I’ll start it here and call it “Belief, Faith, Truth, and Science.” As a point of departure I’ve copied Reason’s post #40 from the aforementioned thread:

 

I am a believer in the processes of evolution. As with all belief, this is a choice I make. Belief in anything is a choice, and there are a vast number of reasons why people choose to believe in this or that. Since none of us are experts in everything, or are all knowing, there is a certain amount of faith that is required when choosing to believe in something. The constant companion of faith is the unknown. The unknown is ultimately what generates the need for faith.

 

Science is an approach used to understand the nature of the universe in a way that seeks to verifiably remove the unknowns through the scientific method, which contains a strict set of rules, and employs exhaustive research, testing, analyses, data, and peer review to generate hypotheses, theories, proofs and facts. This is not done to discredit anyone's faith, or faith in general, or to attack religion or God. It is done because belief based in faith allows for too many unanswered questions. People who are followers of science are not content to allow those questions to remain unanswered. As an agnostic, a pragmatist, a realist, and a seeker of truth, I fall into this category.

 

Evolution is a natural process that, according to science, explains the age old question, "How did all this diverse life get here?" In reality, it is only trying to explain the processes by which living organisms have changed over time. The term can also be used when referring to the change over time of non-living things. Among the experts in the field, the one's who have done the exhaustive research and analysis, there is little doubt that evolution has occurred, and is ongoing. They would be happy to explain why they believe as they do and show you their work.

 

I am, by no means, an expert in the study of evolution. I've done no research, collected no data, and performed no anaysis. I, like most people, am relagated to the cheap seats as an outside observer. Yet I choose to believe in evolution because it is a process that is supported by an enormous amount of research, data, and evidence. These things are tangible, observable, and testable, and that gives them credibility. My faith in science is strengthened by it's credibility. And since I have not given myself to the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God, I do not feel bound by it's historical contentions, or constrained by fear that I am betraying my religious faith.

 

I choose to believe in a current understanding of the world around us.

 

Evolution is a part of that understanding, like it or not.

 

What you believe is limited by what you know!

 

 

In all due respect for Reason and his/her beliefs, I am quite confused about this matter of “believing in” scientific concepts like evolution. Perhaps my issue is pedantic; maybe I’m asking for too much from such common and ambiguous usage of words. Or maybe not. In this respect, Reason brings up some interesting usage conflicts concerning belief, faith, truth, and science. He/she seems to conflate the terms in ways that give me pause:

 

…there is a certain amount of faith that is required when choosing to believe in something.

 

Please help me with this one; it seems like circular logic to me. Of course you have to have faith to “believe in” something. But maybe there is a difference between that faithful kind of “believing in” and just the casual usage of “believing.” For example' date=' I might say “I believe we’re having roast beef for dinner.” But this does not imply that I “believe in” roast beef. I could have just as easily said “I [i']think[/i] we’re having roast beef..."

 

It is done because belief based in faith allows for too many unanswered questions.

 

Is there another kind of faith than the “belief based” version?

 

People who are followers of science are not content to allow those questions to remain unanswered. As an agnostic' date=' a pragmatist' date=' a realist, and a seeker of truth, I fall into this category [/quote'']

 

Truth? Doesn’t that require faith rather than knowledge? I do not know of any scientific “truths.” But I have heard of many religious “truths.”

 

Yet I choose to believe in evolution because it is a process that is supported by an enormous amount of research' date=' data, and evidence.[/quote']

 

Again, maybe it is just my problem, but the term “believe in” seems to be a vestige from those olden days of religion when the “bicameral mind” ruled and “consciousness” was prejudicially forbidden (which is my favorite model for differentiating “believing in” from “having knowledge.” See Julian Jaynes’ The Origin of Consciousness In The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind).

 

What you believe is limited by what you know!

 

If you substituted “understand” for “believe” I might agree.

 

Yes, these are philosophical issues, but important nevertheless to the integrity of science.

 

—Larv

[REASON]

Larv,

 

I'm glad to see that you are inspired by my post above.

 

It seems that what's at issue for you here is:

 

1) Is it possible to "believe in" some aspect of science?

2) Are there "scientific truths?"

3) Can you have "faith" in science?

 

While I understand your concerns, I stand by my statements as properly worded and concise. I would recommend that you make sure that you clearly read a statement before you question it.

 

It is done because belief based in faith allows for too many unanswered questions.

 

Is there another kind of faith than the “belief based” version?

 

I didn't say "belief based faith", I said "belief based in faith." What I should have said is "belief based in faith alone." That would have been even more concise.

 

It would appear based on your other replies that you have some preconceived notions or definitions for the following terms: belief, believe, believe in, truth and faith.

 

In order to properly communicate, I suggest we agree upon a definition of terms. Below are some links to definitions from a dictionary website. Please review and let me know if these definitions are agreeable to you.

 

Belief - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Believe - Definitions from Dictionary.com (includes believe in)

truth - Definitions from Dictionary.com

faith - Definitions from Dictionary.com

 

If I may assume that you are willing to be agreeable to the standard definitions of these words, I will answer the questions above as follows:

 

1) Yes. It is possible to be persuaded of the truth of something studied scientifically. It is true that the Earth revolves around the Sun; It is true that microscopic bacteria can cause illness and even death; It is true that copper is a good conductor of electricity; etc. It is easy to "believe in" these scientifically verifiable assertions because they can be proven.

 

2) Yes. See 1) above. Read the definitions. Truth as fact is a goal of science. Scientists spend their lives in search of truth in whatever their field of study. And while they aren't always able to get at the facts, they are often able to draw some very sound conclusions. But, I could go on for days and days ennumerating truths about our natural world and our universe that have been generated through science.

 

3) Yes. According to the definition, I can have confidence or trust in science and the scientific process. Look around you. The effects of science are everywhere. Because science is governed by rules, research, testing, analysis, and peer review, it becomes a very credible source of information. Credibility breeds confidence, trust, and faith.

 

This is not to say that it is wrong for someone, such as yourself, to have belief, faith and trust in things that are not able to be tested or analyzed through scientific study.

 

All I'm suggesting is that belief is a choice. I feel it's a choice typically made based on knowledge, experience, education, environment, family values, upbringing, etc. One is not obligated to their beliefs. Beliefs can change based on a change of knowledge, understanding, or circumstance. And, one may be unwilling to modify their beliefs inspite of those changes. That's what makes belief a choice.

 

I am not attempting to apply any judgement to anyone's personal beliefs. I was simply explaining the basis of my belief relative to the Evolution Poll.

 

P.S. I also stand by my signature. My son still believes in Santa Claus because he doesn't know that Santa Claus isn't real. I suspect though that his belief about that will soon change.

[Lancaster]

I agree with Larv on the last quote. What you believe is not limited by what you know. I think the massive community of Christians in the United States is proof of this. Not one of them knows that God exists, but they all believe that he does. Like Larv said, rip out that "believe" and throw in a "know."

[Larv]

Hi Reason,

 

I always struggle when someone asks me if I ”believe in” evolution. I usually say something stupid, like “Do you believe in water?” I find it philosophically necessary to differentiate what comes to us from religion (the bicameral mind) from what we gain from science (the conscious mind). I mentioned in my opening post that I use Julian Jaynes’ hypothesis as a way to make this differentiation.

 

As a scientist, I try to avoid using terms like “believe in” and “scientific truths” as matter of choice, and if you do not choose to do so then I’ll respect that. I make this distinction because these terms seem contextually ambiguous to what I understand science to be all about. They seem to come from the religious context, where they may be faithfully applied.

 

It seems that what's at issue for you here is:

 

1) Is it possible to "believe in" some aspect of science?

2) Are there "scientific truths?"

3) Can you have "faith" in science?

 

Yes' date=' word usage is on the table for debate. In science, some words are loaded with trans-contextual meaning. “Believe in,” “faith,” and “truth” are good examples. These words are also part of common speech: “I believe in rock ‘n’ roll,” I have “faith” in democracy”... So I suppose they find their way into scientific lexicon.

 

1. People “believe in” a lot of things; science certainly is one them. But science itself is not in the business of “believing in” anything. In fact many scientists are in the business of dispelling “beliefs,” if they can, by way of scientific methodology.

 

2. There are no “scientific truths” that I know of. “Truths” are the business of religions, wherein they deal with absolutes. Science can’t get to the absolutes; even absolute zero is unattainable. (And I’ve never heard a scientist say, for example, “I believe in absolute zero.”)

 

3. Yes, of course, one can have “faith” in science. But that’s only one’s choice, and it’s not science’s problem.

 

It would appear based on your other replies that you have some preconceived notions or definitions for the following terms: belief, believe, believe in, truth and faith.

 

Yes, I do, for scientific purposes. I also avoid terms like “goodness,” hope” and “love” when I am trying to operate scientifically.

 

1) Yes. It is possible to be persuaded of the truth of something studied scientifically. It is true that the Earth revolves around the Sun; It is true that microscopic bacteria can cause illness and even death; It is true that copper is a good conductor of electricity; etc. It is easy to "believe in" these scientifically verifiable assertions because they can be proven.

 

But once it was “true” that the earth was flat. Furthermore' date=' some people would say that only a Supreme Being could possibly know what is “true.”

 

Truth as fact is a goal of science.

My Occam’s razor needs to shave off that “Truth as” part. It’s redundant and unnecessary.

 

All I'm suggesting is that belief is a choice.

Of course I agree. I “believe in” choice' date=' too.

 

Maybe I fuss too much about correct word usage. If so, then that is pedantic of me. I’m always on my guard against the intrusion of religion.

 

P.S. I also stand by my signature. My son still believes in Santa Claus because he doesn't know that Santa Claus isn't real. I suspect though that his belief about that will soon change.

My point exactly!

 

—Larv

[Buffy]

...each non-contradictory result would add to the probability of the hypothesis and ultimately...we would arrive at a point where its 'certitude' and even its 'truth,' was so probable that we could not refuse our assent.

--Marquise du Chatelet

 

Smart lady.

 

No belief required,

Buffy

[Larv]

"...each non-contradictory result would add to the probability of the hypothesis and ultimately...we would arrive at a point where its 'certitude' and even its 'truth' date='' was so probable that we could not refuse our assent.[right']--Marquise du Chatelet[/right]

 

Smart lady.

 

No belief required,

Buffy

Well, yes and no. I 'believe' it is 'true' that she said that, but I don't agree with her that high probabilities of 'certitude' necessarily amount to the 'truth.'

 

—Larv

[Buffy]

Well, yes and no. I 'believe' it is 'true' that she said that, but I don't agree with her that high probabilities of 'certitude' necessarily amount to the 'truth.'

Uh, that's actually her point of putting the word in quotes, Larv! In science there is no truth! An incredibly high probability is just fine, thank you very much!

 

Is it so hard to comprehend this idea? Why is there such an obsession with imposing notions of "truth" and "belief" on science? Science says they are meaningless concepts, and trying to force them upon the definition of science is --probably self-serving--misrepresentation at the very least.

 

The enemy of your enemy,

Buffy

[Larv]

Uh, that's actually her point of putting the word in quotes, Larv! In science there is no truth! An incredibly high probability is just fine, thank you very much!

 

OK, my mistake for not getting her point.

 

Is it so hard to comprehend this idea? Why is there such an obsession with imposing notions of "truth" and "belief" on science? Science says they are meaningless concepts' date=' and trying to force them upon the definition of science is --probably self-serving--misrepresentation at the very least.[/quote']

I'm not sure whom you're addressing here. I'm 'the choir' to your remarks. Is there something I'm not comprehending?

 

—Larv

[Buffy]

I'm not sure whom you're addressing here. I'm 'the choir' to your remarks. Is there something I'm not comprehending?

Nah, just me mindlessly blathering to the congregation. Choir is doing just fine...

 

Hallelujah, :cup:

Buffy

[Larv]

Why is there such an obsession with imposing notions of "truth" and "belief" on science?

Could it be evidence of the bicameral mind struggling against the evolution of consciousness?

 

—Larv

[WuffenCuckoo]

The purpose of science, as I understand it, is to discover the underlying laws governing the 'real world'. (I take it for granted that such laws exist and can be discovered). We do that by creating (inventing) a model and using the model to make predictions about the real world. We test the models by doing experiments (with the model telling us what to keep constant and what to vary). When many predictions are borne out (repeatably, by many experimenters), we declare that the model seems to be 'isomorphic' (in some way) to the real world. This declaration elevates the model to a 'theory'. Through invincible ignorance I will conflate the terms 'model' and 'theory' and use them interchangeably.

 

There is usually a spectrum of models because science has evolved. If your model of the world is that it is carried on the back of an elephant that is standing on a turtle (and its turtles all the way down), and you are satisfied with a poetic view of the universe, that is fine. But if you want to calculate eclipses, then it is not good enough and you need to advance to something like the Polemaic system with its crystalline spheres and epicycles. (I will ignore cartesian vortices). If you want to send a rocket to Saturn, then you need the Copernican model and newtonian mechanics. If you then want to calculate how neutron stars waltz around each other, you must have einsteinian mechanics.

 

Each model must be driven to the point where it breaks down, when it must be either extended or replaced with a new paradigm. Where you stop depends on what you want (or need) to understand. It is strictly pragmatic. Belief has nothing to do with it. Independent, repeatable, verification of the predictions provides the 'truth'.

 

If your world view is that the earth is 4000 years old and that darwinism is wrong, you are welcome to your view. But, don't pretend that you can study any real biologically-based science or be a paleontologist with that limited view. If you do try to do that, you are a charlatan because more cogent models exist and have been tested many times and in a multiplicity of ways against 'reality' and are consistent across many (if not all) other scientific disciplines. Of course they may have some apparent inconsistences - but resolving them is part of the game of science.

[REASON]

I agree with Larv on the last quote. What you believe is not limited by what you know. I think the massive community of Christians in the United States is proof of this. Not one of them knows that God exists, but they all believe that he does. Like Larv said, rip out that "believe" and throw in a "know."

 

Actually, Larv suggested to substitute "understand" for "believe". To me that's somewhat redundant considering what one believes is typically consistant with their understanding.

 

Your point is well taken and your example is good. I would contend that what you know encompasses what you don't know. If it could be proven that God either does or doesn't exist, how would that affect belief in God? But, since that is impossible to know, it doesn't make for a good example.

 

Essentially, all I'm stating is that knowledge affects belief. it is not intended to be a rule, but rather a rule of thumb. Finding a falicy in the statement does not make it untrue as a rule either. If you consider it's meaning, you might find that it is applicable more often that not.

[Larv]

 

"What you believe is limited by what you know!"

 

Essentially, all I'm stating is that knowledge affects belief.

Reason, I have come around to your way of thinking on this statement. I imagined this test situation: A Christian fundamentalist, by way of religion, happens to become a neo-Darwinian biologist, by way of science. In this case I would expect that person to limit what he/she believes by what he/she knows. I might even expect that person to shave off those old beliefs altogether, given the power of Occam's razor. Who was it who said "Knowledge is power"?

 

—Larv

[REASON]

Larv,

 

I've considered your statements and have come to the conclusion that understanding the use of language is key to communication. This is no real revelation for me considering I'm married with children. It is most important to get at the meaning.

 

I will agree that it is improper to use the term "believe in" when talking about known quantities, even though people do it all the time. I think that when a question is asked such as, "do you believe in evolution," the questioner is simply wanting to know if you believe that it exists or has validity. When people state that they believe in God, I feel they are stating, in most instances, that they believe God exists or has validity. "Believe in" is simply a statement of confirmation. When I stated above that "I believe in the processes of evolution," I was simply trying to convey that I believe those processes exist or have validity.

 

I always struggle when someone asks me if I ”believe in” evolution. I usually say something stupid, like “Do you believe in water?”

 

Are you suggesting here that evolution just is, such as water just is? If so, I would agree with that.

 

I find it philosophically necessary to differentiate what comes to us from religion (the bicameral mind) from what we gain from science (the conscious mind). I mentioned in my opening post that I use Julian Jaynes’ hypothesis as a way to make this differentiation.

 

I find your choice to defer to Janes' bicameralism theory interesting considering his assertions are highly controversial. He provides little evidence other than historical writing, and his book was not submitted for peer review prior to its release. He claimes that religious thought, and mental disorders such as schizophrenia, are remnants of the bicameral mind state where the individual was hearing self-generated mental commands. Somehow, I don't imagine conflating religious thought and schizophrenia will go over very well among the faithfull.

 

1. People “believe in” a lot of things; science certainly is one them. But science itself is not in the business of “believing in” anything. In fact many scientists are in the business of dispelling “beliefs,” if they can, by way of scientific methodology.

 

Science itself is a process or tool and therefore can't "believe in" anything. I might argue that scientist do "believe in" the scientific method or else they wouldn't use it.

 

My Occam’s razor needs to shave off that “Truth as” part. It’s redundant and unnecessary.

 

I distinguished "truth as fact" on purpose because I often hear people refer to truth where there are no facts, such as God's truth. I equate truth and fact, as you must, if you consider the statement redundant.

 

2. There are no “scientific truths” that I know of. “Truths” are the business of religions, wherein they deal with absolutes.

 

If truth and fact are synonymous, than it would follow, based on your statement above, that there are no scientific facts, and that facts are the business of religions. It is a fact that the sun is composed mostly of hydrogen. Would that be a scientific or religious fact? Religion does not provide facts, it seeks to conjure belief without facts through faith.

 

3. Yes, of course, one can have “faith” in science. But that’s only one’s choice, and it’s not science’s problem.

 

Having faith in science is not expressed in behalf of science. It is a confirmation for one's own purposes. I agree that it is a choice. I would also suggest that it is a well informed choice.

 

But once it was “true” that the earth was flat. Furthermore, some people would say that only a Supreme Being could possibly know what is “true.”

 

I would argue that it has never been "true" that the earth was flat, only believed as such. This is because their belief was limited by the knowledge they had at the time.

 

Belief does not equal truth by default. Belief only reveals one's perception of truth.

[REASON]

Reason, I have come around to your way of thinking on this statement. I imagined this test situation: A Christian fundamentalist, by way of religion, happens to become a neo-Darwinian biologist, by way of science. In this case I would expect that person to limit what he/she believes by what he/she knows. I might even expect that person to shave off those old beliefs altogether, given the power of Occam's razor. Who was it who said "Knowledge is power"?

 

—Larv

 

Thank you Larv. A little validation always feels nice. :)

[Larv]

Reason, thanks for your comments, I think we are in pretty good agreement. Common usage of terms of faith tend to creep into our scientific lexicon. And I don't like being pedantic about it; I probably have a hair trigger when it comes to guarding science from religion.

 

 

Are you suggesting here that evolution just is, such as water just is? If so, I would agree with that.

Yes, one might even say it's all about "the flow." In any case, evolution is every bit as natural as water.

 

I find your choice to defer to Janes' bicameralism theory interesting considering his assertions are highly controversial.

Yes' date=' Jaynes has been harshly criticized. I have followed some of the controversy. My fascination with Julian Jaynes' hypothesis comes out of my perceived need to explain the difference between "scientific consciousness" and "religious proto-consciousness." From my relevant readings of history I find a clear distinction between what we regard as cultural and individual "consciousness" today and what was perceived by ancient cultures as a "bicameral" reality (or mindset). What I mean by this is that the mind of a bicameral person is controlled by a kind of culturally induced hallucination, according to Jaynes, while consciousness broke free of that. What he tried to do was to find evidence of the breakdown of the bicameral mind in the syntax of pronouns evolving through historical literature. So I see ancient literature as a laboratory for making this distinction. (I happen to see human consciousness as strongly tied to our symbolic language.)

 

Obviously, scientific objectivity (a Jaynesian "consciousness") has gradually displaced religious subjectivity (Jaynesian "bicamerality") as a way to understand nature and "reality." I could add more to this but it may driff too far off topic.

 

Science itself is a process or tool and therefore can't "believe in" anything. I might argue that scientist do "believe in" the scientific method or else they wouldn't use it.

Can a scientist "trust" the method without "believing in" it? Is it lexicon creep? Or does it even matter?

 

I distinguished "truth as fact" on purpose because I often hear people refer to truth where there are no facts' date=' such as God's truth. I equate truth and fact, as you must, if you consider the statement redundant... Religion does not provide facts, it seeks to conjure belief without facts through faith...Belief does not equal truth by default. Belief only reveals one's perception of truth.[/quote']

I see your points and mostly agree.

 

—Larv

[REASON]

Thank you as well, Larv.

 

I've enjoyed the discussion. I've learned some things as well along the way.

 

One thing you did not reply about which I am still curious has to do with your opinion regarding truth in science or "scientific truth."

 

Would you be willing to expound on that a little?

 

REASON