The terms faith and belief produce a tremendous amount of confusion in most people's thinking. Those with a scientific mind-set tend to think of faith and belief as bad terms to be avoided and certainly never to be guilty of using in anything but a negative way. (See below.)

Those who are participating in a folk religion tend to think the level of their faith/belief is a direct measure of their worthiness as a member of their church/synagogue/mosque/temple.etc. They get plenty of reinforcement of this point of view from their religion's leaders. And this is a primary reason faith/belief has such bad press among the fans of science.

But as with so many key words necessary for thinking about important ideas these uses end up misleading, and misdirectingy thinking.

For a science of ethics the short answer to the initial questions is: Believe nothing with more conviction than the evidence warrants.

For an article that lays a good foundation for considering this issue study with Steven Schafersman before you procede further.

Because human beings are the ultimate reference system every statement they make about the outer world must be based on faith/belief. This results because people cannot directly experience the universe, but can only interpret it. Therefore, they learn everything through successive approximations. They observe with their various senses. They interpret their observations. They make assumptions (usually without realizing it). And then revise interpretations based on further observations. Without observation one doesn't have a clue. This is why the empirical process is critical. Human beings always function from a position of ignorance. Therefore, knowledge, ideas, models, choices, etc. always have an element of uncertainty about them. Nevertheless, persons must think. They must conceptualize. They must choose. Individuals must make decisions in spite of their lack of certainty. These decisions rest on their best efforts and their best understanding. But in the final analysis all decisions must rest on faith and belief.

However, there are different varieties, or levels of faith and belief. On one end of the spectrum is blind faith and unquestioned belief. These are the forms of faith/belief that must be avoided by any who seek to achieve a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning. On the other end of the scale is essential faith and belief. For this kind of faith/belief experience is used to improve knowledge, ideas, models, and choices as learning occurs. New experiences and new information bring new knowledge. But unless the tentativeness of one's understanding of all things is recognized, it may be almost impossible to see the need to change ideas as knowledge grows. And the working assumption for a science of ethics is that a sustainable feeling that one's life has meaning cannot be achieved unless one takes the approach discussed above. Sustainable can only be achieved when one's fundamental assumptions are congruent with reality and with each other -- which means they incorporate the rule to change with new information. They must be satisfying while also being flexible. One's ideas must be free to change as necessary with new information and insights because we can never have more than part of the picture. Positions cannot be rigid but must be able to evolve when data and better paradigms become available.

But how does one accommodate faith/belief with science? What is the relation between faith/belief and the scientific method? Traditionally scientists have said that the goal of science is the search for truth. Because scientists search for truth, they frequently think they have found it. The laws of physics are such examples. However behind every truth is an assumption and an assumption depends on faith/belief. And generally persons are not even aware of most of their assumptions. The foregoing has routinely diverted scientists and others from better understanding and utilization of the world around them. For example it has been written, "...science... does not produce believers of its practitioners. Do scientists really believe in atoms? Do they believe that the California fault system is a function of plate tectonics? Stated as plainly and simply as is possible, the answer is, 'NO!'" "Scientific theories are tools, not belief systems. It is incorrect (and misleading to others less well informed) to state something like, 'I believe in the Theory of Evolution.'" "There is no doubt that evolution occurs."[1]

For me the foregoing is not merely a matter of semantics. This presentation is an easy target for post-modernist criticism.

What does the author mean by belief when he says, "It is incorrect...to say ...I believe in the Theory of Evolution."? Particularly when he follows with the statement, "There is no doubt that evolution occurs." He claims that scientific theories are tools, not belief systems. But to say there is no doubt that evolution occurs makes clear that one does in fact believe in evolution. "No doubt" equals a belief. In reality the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that only a dogmatic, and/or uninformed person could doubt it. But the essence of belief is not the evidence that supports it. Evidence only distinguishes between warranted beliefs and unwarranted beliefs. What characterizes a belief is the way one feels about an idea, concept, theory, etc.

When we tie it into our worldview and make choices based on it, that is a belief as indicated before. Behind every fact, truth or proof is at least one assumption. Accepting this assumption is an act of faith, even if this is tentative acceptance. Although in the case of science this faith is normally based on many lines of evidence and shared conclusions by careful thinkers it is no less an act of faith involving a belief.

WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 1949, includes among its definitions of belief: "A conviction or persuasion of truth; intellectual assent; as, claims unworthy of belief. The thing believed; specifically, a tenet, or the body of tenants; doctrine; creed."

For faith: "That which is believed; especially a system of religious beliefs." And, "Belief, faith mean the act or mental state of one who assents to something proposed for acceptance."

Here "proposed for acceptance" is the key point. In science nothing is "proposed for acceptance" in an unquestioned and unquestionable way. But all of science presents ideas that are accepted with varying degrees of doubt. And the fact that this doubt must always be present does not argue against the fact that faith and belief are also an essential element in their acceptance.

However, the history of science is one long story including example after example where scientists did not discard their worn and less useful tools when better theories were presented -- ones that provided more accurate predictions, applied more generally, explained more data, were simpler, but conflicted with a theory they had originally proposed, or at least accepted for a long time. Worse yet we see frequent examples of scientists lusting after fame and recognition just like the rest of humanity, and altering or hiding their research to help them achieve their goal. To look at these persons and say, "They were not good scientists, at least in this case," is to miss the point.

Unless we recognize that under every fact there is a human being and at least one assumption that is based on beliefs, we have no criteria to help people differentiate: between justified beliefs and unjustified beliefs; between valid beliefs and invalid beliefs; between tentative beliefs held tenuously and dogmatic beliefs held unreservedly; between beliefs that change with more data and experience and those not open to change with any amount of new data.

Failure to recognize that all ideas have a belief component denies us the opportunity to examine this area from a scientific perspective. An essential opportunity is then lost to establish a theory of belief that can differentiate good beliefs from bad beliefs. Without a theory of belief there is no way to ensure that individuals will receive the support to distinguish between which scientific "tools" are better than others, and that the scientific method requires that scientists and all who would work to build and maintain a science of ethics not lose their ability to discard ideas that have been shown to be less useful. We know that many scientists hold onto ideas that will not stand up to the foregoing standard of proof distinguishing a good belief from a bad belief. An enlightened person must do better. But because we have neglected to establish criteria for evaluating beliefs it is difficult to help people examine how they think about their beliefs, and become able to discard or change them when necessary.

However, the story gets worse. Not only have scientists been deceiving themselves when they say scientific theories are tools, not belief systems, it turns out that the most fundamental belief of science is flawed. When scientists say, Science is the search for truth, they commit themselves to a false goal. Current understanding of the universe and how it works shows that truth lacks the objectivity and generality ascribed to it by scientists. It is only when the foregoing is recognized that it becomes clear that the whole scientific effort has been skewed.

The actual definition of science should be: Science is the search for congruency (what Edward O. Wilson calls consilience in his 1998 book, CONSILIENCE: The Unity of Knowledge). When the foregoing is recognized we see that a hidden element becomes central. That hidden element is that human beings are the ultimate reference system. It is this insight that provides a foundation for a science of ethics. It also allows one to put the post-modernist view into proper perspective. Articles like "Why I do NOT Believe in Evolution" [1] that provide the straw targets upon which post-modernists expend their pointless arrows. They write that there is no such thing as objective truth. They say science is a product of the power structure it serves, and scientific "laws" would come out differently in a different culture.

There is some truth in what post-modernists say, but it is a truth that misses the point by much more than the error it replaces. Post-modernists got fixated on the erroneous assumptions of science and missed the opportunity to understand the nature of objective reality. It's true that the theories, laws, and hypotheses of science reflect the society in which they developed. But these theories also must account for the real behavior of the objective world. It is this element that allows science to grow beyond the prejudices, and blindness of any culture and move closer to congruency with objective reality.

Most scientists assume a materially based, universe controlled by cause and effect. They have labored long, and looked more deeply into the nature of the universe and humanity than has ever been done before. But because they have searched for Truth rather than Congruency, they have been laboring without a foundation. When one works for Congruency it becomes more obvious that the observer must be included in the equations. A perceiver is needed to test for congruency and assess its presence or absence. Once one accepts that human beings are the ultimate reference system it becomes clear that the goal is knowledge and wisdom not truth. Knowledge and wisdom are tied to the knower. Truth just is. Knowledge and wisdom have a goal -- which I believe is to maintain our species in such a way that every person achieves a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning. The aim of knowledge is to use whatever is known to improve the quality of human life. When this step is made science takes on its true responsibility and becomes part of a science of ethics. It then is dramatically altered.

Science like religion has often included a broad streak of arrogance. Scientists have usually thought they were closer to understanding reality than they were/ are. But to shrug off its efforts and findings as cultural relativism is even more arrogant. To believe that any interpretation has as much validity as any other makes "validity" a meaningless term. Ideas and concepts have value to the degree that they help us understand, utilize, and predict. Many interpretations are worthless or even harmful. An interpretation has validity to the degree that it is congruent with all our other ideas, measurements -- and leads to deeper understandings and insights (helps persons achieve a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning). Interpretations such as "scientific creationism" (the belief that God created all living things just as they now are a few thousand years ago) that diverts people's thinking or makes understanding impossible is not just a matter of bad ideas. They are bad from a standpoint of human wellbeing and they are ethically wrong. These ideas prevent persons from achieving a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning.

Most modern thinkers realize that in order to accept any folk religions' supernatural system unquestioned faith and belief are required -- the leap of faith. Many of these thoughtful persons seem to want to protect science from a similar fate by banning "faith" from in any way relating to science. However, it seems to me that the problem is just the reverse of the one that bothers these persons. Because scientists have not recognized that their ideas about the universe are beliefs they have sometimes shown as much reluctance to change their ideas as have those who accept the ideas of supernatural religion. They thought their conclusions were based on objective facts and weren't able to see the underlying assumptions accepted on faith. As a result they often have had difficulty realizing when change became necessary. They did not see their ideas as tools, but rather as "truths of the universe." The foregoing line of thinking is one of several that have led me to the conclusion that it is essential that we recognize our fundamental assumptions as beliefs. Only then can we develop rules and procedures to ensure that ideas based on blind faith, and beliefs based only on authority are not judged as having the same merit as ideas based on reasonable faith. In science, faith and beliefs are based on multiple lines of evidence, experimentation, and reasoned thinking with each step tied securely to the steps that precede it. They change with appropriate information.

On the other side, persons who favor blind faith and unquestioned belief have not been challenged to justify their type of faith/belief. No responsible body has promoted and encouraged movement to higher order beliefs. It has not been widely discussed that have blind faith and unquestioned beliefs is morally wrong behavior. Rather it is commonly accepted that unquestioned belief is a virtue. Rarely is it recognized that to believe something with more conviction than the evidence warrants is immoral.

Part of this is because of the militancy and willingness of true believers to commit violent acts. They often become the accepted spokespersons for their society because they suppress everyone else. Those with alternative positions are intimidated or even executed. Healthy, responsible persons don't see any effective way to confront the militant's zeal and power. A science of ethics would present an alternative that would be recognized as important even by such violent, militant extremists. This would be true because in their gut they would know persons working to promote science of ethics did in fact have even the militant extremeist's best interests in mind. And it would be seen that science of ethics was not trying to oppose them merely because they were driven by different goals. In addition they would realize that science of ethics would be there to provide an alternative for them should they recognize the errors of their ways.

On a different front we see post-modernists. Because traditional science did not see its role in defining the meaning of human life and because it made greater claims for its assumptions than reason and experience could support, we see many thoughtful persons lured into post-modernist notions. Also, see Letter from an Anthropology Student. Faith and belief have been interpreted by skeptics to mean an unquestioned acceptance of ideas based on authority, custom, or something similar. As a result of the preceding convictions modern thinkers have been slow to recognize the errors involved in believing that faith can be ignored, or that it can be discarded. When one ignores the element of faith inherent in all searches for truth -- i.e., how the universe really works -- they end up taking their current position too seriously.

Here is an example of the foregoing, "A nineteenth-century woman who complained of pains incompatible with current medical knowledge about the nervous system...ran the serious risk of finding her illness dismissed as imaginary."[2] The previous quote provides an opportunity for a useful insight utilizing the history of medicine. Although science mainly ignores folk religion it adopted the religious model of seeking truth and seeing itself as the definer of what constitutes knowledge. As Hans Reichenbach says in his book, THE RISE OF SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY (1951), p. 214: "Science is its own master and recognizes no authority beyond its confines."

Religion also asserts that it is the reservoir of ultimate knowledge and Wisdom. Anything it can't explain isn't important. Science takes the same approach. At any given time it's basic interpretations are considered to be full and complete though there may be some "minor" problems still waiting to be understood. Anything that doesn't agree with these basic interpretations is banished as superstition, error, fuzzy thinking, falsehood, unimportant, or something similar.

When it is understood that all knowledge is approximation, conflicting data can be looked at with a totally different mind-set. It can be recognized, as most young scientists do, that observations that don't fit current theories offer a way to refine and correct those theories to make them more useful.

For additional material on faith/belief including an enlightening characterization of science that helps to show one of the basic flaws of the scientific establishment click here.

.

.