The Nature of Belief: Separating Knowledge from Faith

Narratives and organizing principles shape our understanding of the world. Science, for instance, is driven by evidence from experiments, constantly evolving as old theories are replaced by newer, more accurate ones. Other systems, like religion, nationalism, or art, are built on personal, internal experiences such as faith, inspiration, or emotion.

These two types of narratives—evidential and experiential—often intersect. A scientist's religious belief might inspire them to see their work as a way to understand God's creation. Similarly, national pride can motivate scientific endeavors, though science can also be corrupted to serve nationalist or racist agendas.

The fundamental units of all narratives are defined by their effects. In this sense, God can be compared to electrons, quarks, and black holes. None of these can be directly observed, but their existence is inferred from the effects they have on their environment. The difference is that God's effects are primarily seen in social and psychological realms, but this doesn’t make God any less "real" within the framework of belief. The concept of God can explain many seemingly unrelated phenomena, fitting the criteria for a compelling theory.

However, the location of God's existence is exclusively in the minds of believers, which makes him no less real. The contents of our minds are as real as anything "out there," blurring the line between what we know and what we believe.

So, is God's existence "true" or simply a product of human need and imagination?

Truth is the measure of how well our models describe and predict phenomena. In this sense, the existence of God in people's minds is "true" because it successfully predicts many of the behaviors of believers. The question, then, is whether God exists outside of people's minds as an objective entity, independent of human thought. If all sentient beings were to disappear, would God still exist, while the Sun would undoubtedly continue to revolve?

Known things are independent of an observer's existence, while believed things are dependent on believers. We know the sun exists. We believe God exists, but we cannot know it in a scientific sense. Science can design experiments to test and potentially falsify the existence of things like electrons or black holes. If those experiments fail to disprove them, it lends support to their existence.

In contrast, we cannot design an experiment to either prove or disprove the existence of God as an external, objective entity. The "argument from design," which suggests the universe is too complex to exist without a creator, also falls short in this regard. While scientific theories like evolution and the Big Bang can account for the universe's complexity without a creator, we cannot design an experiment to falsify the idea that God created it all.

This doesn't mean our current scientific theories are absolute truths; they are not. They are constantly being refined and replaced. However, they are always falsifiable and testable. This is the key difference.

Knowledge and belief are fundamentally different. They do not mix. Belief can lead to strong convictions, but it cannot produce knowledge in the scientific sense. Both known and believed things exist—the former "out there" in the world, the latter in our minds—but they are both real in their own contexts.

↠ sharing is caring...