FOURTH WAY OF WISDOM -- A
Arthur M. Jackson
Copyright 2001, 2003, 2006
.
"If error is corrected whenever it is recognized as such, the path of error is the path of truth."
Hans Reichenbach.
FOURTH WAY OF WISDOM: Recognize that all knowledge rests on faith/beliefs, and must always be open to questioning.
.
THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY ON FAITH
Below is some material that expresses the issue of justified and unjustified faith very well. This material presents T.H. Huxley's views and was provided by Bill Schultz[1], founder of the Agnostic Church, in an e-mail message in which he draws from a site on Thomas Henry Huxley [2] who coined the term "agnostic."
"Preachers, orthodox and heterodox, din into our ears that the world cannot get on without faith of some sort. There is a sense in which that is as eminently as obviously true; there is another, in which, in my judgment, it is as eminently as obviously false, and it seems to me that the hortatory, or pulpit, mind is apt to oscillate between the false and the true meanings, without being aware of the fact.
"It is quite true that the ground of every one of our actions, and the validity of all our reasonings, rest upon the great act of faith, which leads us to take the experience of the past as a safe guide in our dealings with the present and the future. From the nature of ratiocination, it is obvious that the axioms, on which it is based, cannot be demonstrated by ratiocination. It is also a trite observation that, in the business of life, we constantly take the most serious action upon evidence of an utterly insufficient character. But it is surely plain that faith is not necessarily entitled to dispense with ratiocination [just] because ratiocination cannot dispense with faith as a starting-point; and that because we are often obliged, by the pressure of events, to act on very bad evidence, it does not follow that it is proper to act on such evidence when the pressure is absent."
Although Huxley pretty much says it all above, I will examine this concept in more detail because of its importance.
[p. 2]
As Huxley implied above 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 Belief that their Life Has Meaning. On the other end of the scale is faith and belief such that one's basic ideas can change when data and experience require. This is the kind of faith/belief that of necessity underlies one's working assumptions. This faith provides the framework in which the individual will interpret their experience, which is used to improve knowledge, ideas, models, and choices as learning occurs. This includes the faith that underlies all science that there is a reality which our senses allow us to perceive and that reason can be used to understand that realty, etc. 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. It is the working assumption of Science of Ethics that a Sustainable Belief that one's Life Has Meaning cannot be achieved unless one's ideas and beliefs can change. 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 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.
However, there is another dimension of faith and I take fundamentalists to be the best example of this. Because of insufficient study this parameter is poorly understood. But a close look at fundamentalists may provide some useful clues. Most fundamentalists would agree that their position rests on faith. However, at the same time they believe that their position rests on objective knowledge as indicated below:
"One of the distinguishing characteristics of fundamentalism is the tendency to make the cognitive dimension of religion foundational and determinative.... [F]undamentalism is not distinguished by the specific content of its orthodoxy... or necessarily by its epistemological presuppositions per se... but by the priority of 'correct belief' itself. The fundamentalist orientation therefore is not an emotional one but a strongly rationalistic one where religion is based on a standardized, objective knowledge.... Fundamentalism seeks to be a 'true science,'.... For the fundamentalist, 'holding right views' and uniformity of belief is normative for all other elements of religious self-understanding. It follows, therefore, that doctrine is not the historical product of... [the religion's] experience but what determines... [the religion's] experience, that religious truth is a fixed body of eternally valid propositions, that religions are contraposed ideological entities, and that the theological task is apologetic rather than exploratory or critical." [3]
As indicated above once a fundamentalist's brain is locked onto a particular orthodoxy -- usually the one they were born into, but more rarely one they find on their own but accept as being true -- they are almost totally incapable of discarding it. Still, science demonstrates that change is possible at least to some degree. Science is able to appeal to the same inner yearning as fundamentalist religions do and thereby turn this characteristic from a negative for humanity to a positive. Science of Ethics is presented as a way to formulate this aspect of science to describe, understand, and satisfy this drive in a way that would be consistent with one's "wisdom" potential. It would satisfy the underlying need of a fundamentalist by providing a rock-solid foundation -- i.e., the process of correcting errors by empirical testing of beliefs -- for making life choices plus a support group to assist and encourage evaluations and desirable changes.
But what is the relation between faith/belief and the scientific method? As is described in the following quote from FUNDAMENTALISM OBSERVED [4] scientists have traditionally said that the goal of science is the search for truth, to find objective knowledge.
[p. 3]
"For scientists of the early modern period, such as Francis Bacon (d. 1626), the task of science was the discovery of the Laws of Nature. They understood the world to be organized by rational principles established by an all-knowing God and 'truth' as objective and available to the 'commonsense' reason of the sincere seeker. In this view, human senses apprehend facts, and reason discerns the underlying order in them. The task of science, then, is to catalog, organize and derive theories about the true facts of the universe. By the late nineteenth century, the Baconian system was still the dominant scientific orthodoxy of the day, at least among ordinary, educated folk."
"However, marshaled against this system by the late nineteenth century were various intellectual forces, one of the most influential of which was the legacy of the eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The intricacies of Kant's critiques of pure and practical reason were lost on popular scientific culture in America, but they created a thought world accessible enough to challenge the Enlightenment's wholesale confidence in human reason and commonsense induction. By placing the subject at the center of the process of perceiving and knowing the world, Kant had called the whole scientific enterprise into question. Objective truth is filtered through subjective experience and perception, he argued, and thus scientific knowledge is always shaped by the cultural and historical content in which it emerges. We cannot know 'absolute realities.' The 'theory-in-itself' can never be apprehended but comes to us only through the welter of our sensory experiences. The order we perceive, the forms and categories through which we understand, are not demonstrably present in the natural world itself but are instead inherent in the ability of the human mind to reason."
"And just as science depends on human reason, so also does moral philosophy [and religion]."[4]
Scottish philosopher David Hume has similarly written closely reasoned words demonstrating that no amount of observation proves a scientific generalization. (See VOLUME II, Chapter 10, "[Science and the Search for Truth.") [5]
And, although these insights laid the basis for post-modernism as discussed later, they had little impact on science except in physics where they influenced the theories explaining quantum phenomena. Because science's "objective knowledge" is tied to "reality" it has not been impacted as severely as folk religions whose "objective knowledge" is tied to God. Therefore, it has been easier to ignore the fact that the foundation of science is based on faith and is therefore vulnerable in the same way that religion is.
Thomas Kuhn in his book, THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, provides a carefully constructed argument showing the primary way science has maintained its vision of a straight-line movement toward Truth.
As indicated before a better definition of science would be: Science is the search for congruency.[6] 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.
[p. 4]
Because scientists have traditionally said they are searching for truth; i.e., objective/certain knowledge, they frequently think they have found it. The laws of physics are such examples. Of course as indicated elsewhere the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the current paradigm of physics, went to the other extreme and focused only on measurements, and attempts to leave "reality" out of the picture. In the process it still blurs the point that behind every measurement is a trail of assumptions and assumptions depend 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. In our time post-modernists have attempted to utilize the insights of Kant and Hume to advance current understanding.
But, in spite of the validity of Kant and Hume's observations post-modernists' efforts to build on them have been grossly irrelevant. The truth of post-modernism 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 religion and missed the opportunity to understand the actual relationship of objective reality and human life. 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. This is an element that is seriously hindered in folk religions, particularly because they are almost totally ruled by "tribal" propensities, primarily authority and custom.
Classical scientists assumed a materially based, mechanical universe. They labored long, and looked more deeply into the nature of the universe than has ever been done before. But because at the fundamental level they searched for Truth rather than Congruency, they were laboring without a valid foundation. When one works for Congruency it becomes more obvious that the observer must be included in the equations in ways the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't make clear. The goal of congruency makes the observer not just the recorder, but leads to the recognition that the justification for all scientific effort -- just like any other human effort -- is the maintenance and development of the human species.
A perceiver is needed not just to measure what the instruments record, but to test for congruency and assess its presence or absence within the full range of human knowledge. 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. This requires seeing measurement as a means to improve the quality of human life, not as an abstract behavior with no explanation beyond the personal satisfaction this behavior provides. Within most thinking Truth just is. It exists independent of the observer. However, Knowledge and Wisdom do not independently exist. Knowledge and Wisdom depend on human nature. They have a goal -- which I believe is to help individuals achieve a Sustainable Belief 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. Its goal is dramatically altered, and the "soft" sciences (anthropology, sociology, and some parts of psychology) would thereby be turned into "hard" sciences. The practices for the current hard sciences would remain almost totally unchanged. However, all fields of science would be joined together in a way that is currently lacking.
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/ can be. However, as Thomas Kuhn says, "We may... have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth." [7] But regardless of the foregoing to shrug off the efforts and findings of science 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, or measurements -- and leads to deeper understandings and insights (helps persons achieve a Sustainable Belief that their Life Has Meaning). Interpretations such as "scientific creationism" (the belief that God created all living things just as they are now only a few thousand years ago) that divert people's thinking or makes understanding impossible is not just a matter of bad ideas. They are bad from a standpoint of human well-being. These ideas prevent persons from achieving a Sustainable Belief that their Life Has Meaning.
[p. 5]
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 certain knowledge 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." And, worse in my mind, because they were focused on finding Truth they weren't aware that their own life suffered because it was not well focused, and particularly for this reason failed in their responsibility to do whatever they could to ensure that their knowledge was used to improve the quality of human living. These lines of thinking are among those that have led me to the conclusion that it is essential that we recognize that our fundamental ideas have a belief component. Only then can we develop rules and procedures to ensure that ideas based on blind faith, and beliefs based only on authority and custom are not judged as having the same merit as ideas based on faith and held tentatively even when supported by evidence that seems unshakable.
In science, faith and beliefs are supported by multiple lines of evidence, experimentation, and reasoned thinking with each step tied securely to the steps that precede it. When the system works these beliefs change as the information upon which they are based changes.
On another front of this issue, is the situation that 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 individuals to move to higher order beliefs. It has not been widely discussed that using blind faith and unquestioned beliefs to guide one's life is foolish and deplorable 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.
Why is it so common to base one’s life on blind faith? Part of it is regression to childhood – where questioning authority is inconceivable – when confronted by a problem apparently beyond one’s ability to solve. Part of it is the wisdom to survive in a cruel and overwhelmingly powerful society. The latter situation relates to the militancy and willingness of true believers to commit violent acts. Folk religions often attract a large following of persons drawn to authoritarion behavior and violence, and thereby these elements 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.
However, as explained earlier the above practices have sometimes been allowed by those in power because there was no satisfactory alternative. Many people have a very real need to commit themselves to something important and make it the core of their life. But science has been essentially the only alternative to folk religions to fulfill such a need. And it attracts primarily an intellectual elite who tend to be closer to anarchists than troops willing to march in lock step into the face of death. As a result there has been no practical alternative, to allowing fundamentalists of each culture to promote blind faith and belief based on authority. That is the only way one can wholeheartedly accept any given folk religion. From the standpoint of the rulers these groups are not all bad because they can normally be channeled so that they support the power structure rather than threatening it.
[p. 6]
But from the perspective of a Science of Ethics folk religions have almost always grossly misused the fundamentalist propensity. These persons are a reservoir of energy and commitment to what is of ultimate value. However, so far they have been seduced into supporting what is relative (a given culture's folk religion), rather than what is truly of ultimate concern (the perpetuation of the species in such a way as to allow each person to achieve a sustainable belief that their life has meaning).
Folk religions have used these individuals to stand as barriers to stop human progress. This is done because those in power tend to see certain changes as threats to their control. Therefore, many liberating changes necessary to reach the light at the end of the tunnel are violently opposed. Through this process fundamentalist’s energy is used to suppress the “wisdom” potential. Their energy and commitment thereby results in limiting human creativity, effort to understand the universe, work to advance education, and in many cases to even ban representational art.
If it were possible to develop organizations based on Science of Ethics that would appeal to the fundamentalist propensity, and help them become Enlightened Persons this would remove the final barrier that retards human development in reaching the light at the end of the tunnel. Because of the firmly grounded knowledge base providing the foundation for Science of Ethics its approach and resources would help any person who desires to be a force for good in the world to know how to do so.
On a different front stand the post-modernists. Because traditional science has not accepted a role in defining the meaning of human life, and thereby recognized its role in understanding truth, we see many thoughtful persons lured into post-modernist notions. Science's failure to recognize the place of faith in human understanding has also encouraged this approach. 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 what happens when one ignores the element of faith inherent in all searches for truth. Such persons end up taking their positions too seriously which can result in suppressing individual thought rather than encouraging it.
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."[8] The previous quote provides an opportunity for a useful insight utilizing the history of medicine. Although science mainly ignores folk religion because scientists are also motivated by the fundamentalist propensity to find true beliefs, it adopted the religious model of seeking truth and seeing itself as the definer of what constitutes knowledge.[9] Religion 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 its 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, falsehood, unimportant, or something similar.
When it is understood that all knowledge is based on 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. In addition it can be realized that these changes can make our understandings more useful.
.
.
.
.