"Normal science has been described, in an influential book by Thomas Kuhn, as mostly a mopping-up exercise. Kuhn means that during most periods and in most fields there is an accepted theoretical framework of scientific thought -- a paradigm, as he calls it -- that commands general acceptance, and scientists normally work on small, still unexplained problems (known as 'puzzles') that explore and fill out and confirm the prevailing paradigm."[3]
Kuhn presents facts and ideas that cannot be ignored if we want to correct errors of the past and focus our effort in a better way. As he makes clear we are inherently blinded and cannot see totally different ways of explaining the problem if we think we have the theoretical framework established and merely need to tidy up a few loose ends. Over and over we see the foregoing happening in science. Some idea gains acceptance. This hypothesis/theorem/law/principle acts as a dam behind which all the other explanations, unexplainable data, and deficiencies accumulate. Eventually the accumulation breaks the dam and out floods everything chaotically. Then a better dam (hypothesis, theorem, law, principle) is erected starting the cycle over again.
The following quote on myth may provide something worthwhile to ponder. "One important social function of myth... is to blind us to what it cannot explain."[4] This is an interesting idea. There is some level at which science could also be said to, "blind us to what it cannot explain." But it seems to me the goal of a science of ethics is to be as aware as possible of what is known and what is not known. It must encourage science to realize it is searching for congruency not truth; for a better understanding of everything in order to improve the quality of human life, not a final understanding of how the universe works. Therefore, it can treat the inexplicable with more seriousness than is usually mustered. If one's explanations divert attention from important issues that are being overlooked, then they are a mixed blessing at best.
I think, the challenge of a science of ethics is to point out all the blind spots in order to help society explore the best way to address them. I would think that a footnote for all myths (and perhaps all scientific theories) should be provided to point out how these ideas divert one's thinking and prevent one from seeing important issues. This would be particularly appropriate for the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory.
With the better understanding of the universe and humanity's place in it that a science of religion provides, science achieves a more central and better grounded role in society. When we understand that: Science is the search for congruency everything then fits together. We can make better use of Scottish philosopher, David Hume's insight that science can't provide TRUTH. The post-modernists have made this their battle cry. Otherwise scientists, many philosophers, contemporary writers, and the rest of society have, at a practical level, ignored the validity or meaning of Hume's point. Scientists continue their merry search for truth. So does everyone else. Thinkers in the area of folk religions of course up to this time haven't even been in the right book. But when we recognize that the goal is not TRUTH, but congruency -- not just in assessing all knowledge, but also each person's life -- then everything becomes clear in all areas of thought and study.
Thoughts about congruency force us to consider knowledge, interpretation, analysis, and wisdom. As a result it makes clear that we must recognize that human beings are the ultimate reference system. And it prepares us to also recognize that congruency mandates that knowledge be used to provide every person a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning. When TRUTH is being discussed, one is looking outward. When knowledge and wisdom are being discussed, one is looking inward.
Based on this clearer understanding of key concepts a new foundation will be provided for science, society, and the individual person. The foregoing is necessary if wise communities made up of wise persons are to be developed. Our progress in the foregoing direction is greatly assisted by ideas presented by Hans Reichenbach (THE RISE OF SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY.) He makes clear the reasons for the delay in applying the empirical approach more widely.
The critical issue in faith/belief is that no idea, position, concept, theory, law, etc. be held more firmly than the evidence warrants. The foregoing is critical for achieving a sustainable feeling that one's life has meaning. As Reichenback says, "If error is corrected whenever it is recognized as such, the path of error is the path of truth."[5] And this must be the goal of anyone working to support the establishment of a science of ethics and wisdom groups.
"It is impossible to have a knowledge of the world that has the certainty of mathematical truth, it is impossible to establish moral directives that have the impelling objectivity of mathematical, or even of empirical, truth. This is one of the truths that scientific philosophy has uncovered."[6] I agree with the foregoing statements, but not the inferred ideas. One of Reichenback's key contributions is to show very clearly that there is no "mathematical truth." Mathematics has no direct tie to the real world that would make "mathematical truth" a meaningful concept except in terms of its internal consistency. Furthermore, as I hope this material makes clear, an empirical science of ethics is possible that would "establish moral directives" of a compelling nature, more compelling than any mathematical formula. But these "moral directives" are not iron clad. That is why faith/ belief cannot be avoided. Reichenbach makes clear that everything that is known is to some degree tentative. Whatever is accepted can never be completely proven. Human beings cannot achieve TRUTH.
The ideas one holds today may be largely false or mis-stated. Current goals may be misguided. Present methods may be ill conceived. It may even be that all people cannot achieve a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning. However, one cannot wait until all the evidence is in before acting because all the evidence will never be in. One must act then on the basis of faith. Human beings cannot escape faith any more than a fish can escape water. Every act, every deed ultimately depends upon faith and belief for there is no other justification in the final analysis.
Percy Bysshe Shelley thought there were three degrees of belief (determined by the source of belief): He believed that the most correct beliefs are based on direct perception; next are those based on reason applied to our perceptions. The weakest beliefs are those based on the testimony or authority of others.
I think, Shelley puts an interesting slant on the idea of beliefs. However, I would disagree with the order Shelley arrived at. I would exchange the order of his first and second sources. It seems to me that all direct perception has a certain kind of uncertainty associated with it and that unless a given perception fits with one's past experiences there is a tendency to doubt what has been perceived. The most obvious example comes from a magic show. One sees things appear and disappear, move through solid surfaces, stand unsupported, etc. It is the rare person at a magic show who trusts the evidence of their senses and believes that the lady really was sawed in two.
These perceptions violate one's other experiences. So one's reason leads to doubting them. The same is true for other events that violate one's reason, one's understanding of how things work. So actually one has more confidence in a belief when perception is supported by reason than in a perception as an isolated source. When a skeptical person experiences or hears about mystical experiences that violate the laws of science they look for other explanations. The true believer accepts them uncritically as evidence of the supernatural.
Edmund Carpenter even proposes that, "It's not easy to experience the unfamiliar, the unnamed. We say, 'If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it.' But the phrase really should be, 'If I hadn't believed it with all my heart, I wouldn't have seen it.'"[7]
Certainly, Carpenter's point has a kind of validity. But once one gets past the shock it's clear that the facts are not as stated. The truth lies somewhere in between. Our beliefs influence what we see in varying ways. But blind faith and unlimited belief are not necessary for most of what we see. However, the truly unfamiliar and unnamed may be "unseeable." And it is only as our reason constructs a way to tie it into the other things we "know" that interpretations may provide a way to "see" it.
As for Shelley's third point that testimony or authority of others should lead to our weakest beliefs, I would agree with that. However, most of what we believe is based on the authority of others. The reason we accept it is because we trust the motivations and abilities of those "experts," parents, teachers, leaders, friends, etc. But eventually we learn that even the wisest person still knows very little, considering all the things there are to know. Also, anyone can make mistakes. In addition even the best persons may sometimes lie. For these reasons and many more it must be recognized that there is a need to question all authority even though we still must make choices and act based on our current understandings and beliefs.
Therefore, each of these degrees of belief still must be judged on the basis of their congruency with everything else one believes. How well do they fit with everything else one believes? Are they congruent, or are they in conflict?
The important point is upon what one bases one's faith. One's faith must be worthy of them as a rational, intelligent animal. It cannot be a faith that denies one's intelligence, one's ability to reason and to think. It cannot be a faith that overlooks one's emotional side that is one's power and energizer, source of one's strength and sustaining energy. It cannot be a faith based on ignorance, or emotion, or childhood conditioning.
And one's faith must be no stronger than the evidence that supports it. On some things one can be pretty sure: that in normal situations the ground will support one's next step, that evolution explains the existence of current living organisms, that George Washington lived, etc. Other things are very doubtful: That the universe is a product of intelligence that is aware of and cares about human life, that extra-sensory perception actually exists, that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a living person.
The reason it is important to focus on faith and belief is in order to develop a way to handle these concepts. This cannot be done by ignoring them or discarding them. Only by developing rules for using and understanding faith and belief will all persons be aided in discriminating between useful and useless ways to deal with faith and belief.
When I discuss the necessity of faith and belief it is not to promote blind faith, or unquestioned belief. Rather, it is just the opposite. It is to discuss the faith and belief involved in the assumptions that underlie one's best interpretations. Faith and belief must be based on knowledge and understanding. One's faith must not prevent them from questioning anything. Knowing all positions rest on faith and belief should make it easier to see inconsistencies, incongruencies, and errors. When error and incongruencies are recognized or alternative explanations are presented, change to better positions should be promoted if one accepts the ideas presented here. One's faith and beliefs must be congruent with the history of human progress and assume that the changes each generation has introduced in the way the Universe is interpreted will continue.
One's beliefs must be able to be examined in the light of day. One must look at all the facts and be able to acknowledge each one of them. One must have a faith supported by the best knowledge available. And it must always be compatible with humanity's highest attributes: reason, emotion, intelligence, universality, and our struggle for congruency. The goal, then, is to ensure that knowledge and choices are consistent with the evidence supporting them, and that they can change as evidence grows.
.
11. What are other frequently asked questions?
.
1. "Why I do NOT Believe in Evolution," Paul Geisert, NEWS & VIEWS, Newsletter of Atheists And Other Freethinkers of Sacramento, 1995.
.
.
11. What are other frequently asked questions? .
2. THE CULTURE OF PAIN, David B. Morris, p. 112, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1991.
3. Morris, op. cit., p 164.
4. ibid, p. 10.
5. THE RISE OF SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY, Hans Reichenbach, p. 326, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1991.
6. ibid, p. 324.
7. THE ART AND PRACTICE OF LOVING, Frank Andrews, p. 208, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1991.