Reason, Faith, Belief, and Certainty


KacyRay

Recommended Posts

The following essay is one I wrote a while back and blogged elsewhere. Reposed here for comments and critique.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A proposition is a statement about reality.

Propositions can fall into two broad categories: Those that have truth value, and those that don't. A proposition that is verifiable and/or falsifiable has truth value. A proposition that is neither verifiable or falsifiable has no truth value. We call those propositions "arbitrary", and statements arbitrarily made may be arbitrarily discarded.

Propositions that have truth value ultimately fall into one of two categories: True or false.The placement of propositions into those categories is done by each individual, to varying degrees based on ones degree of "certainty" that the proposition is true.

"Certainty" is a word that describes how fully one accepts the truth of a particular proposition. It is up to each person to judge forthemselves how certain they are of any given proposition. No one can decide this for someone else - the degree of certainty is always up to each persons individual judgment.

Certainty always falls on a spectrum from 0% (not at all accepting) to 100% (accepting completely).

On this spectrum, we have certain broad "zones" where we classify the certainty of our acceptance of a proposition. For example...

If a person feels 0% certain of the truth of a proposition, they may say they "do not believe".

If a person feels 1-20% certain, they might call themselves "doubtful"

If a person feels 21-40% certain, they might consider themselves open to the possibility that it's true, while not yet accepting it.

If a person feels 41-60% certain, they might consider themselves "on the fence"

If a person feels 61-80% certain, they might say "it's probably true"

If a person feels 81-100% certain, they might call themselves a believer.

Note: These percentages are rough estimates and only used as an example. The true degrees of certainty, and the thresholds they trigger, are different for each person and must be decided on by each person. There are no real numbers... but there are real degrees, and each person much decide what the thresholds are for each degree of certainty.

There is no law that determines what degree of certainty any person must have about the truth of any proposition. We are all free to be ascertain or as uncertain we want about any given proposition whatsoever.

There is no law that demands what we base our degree of certainty upon. We can base our certainty on whatever we choose, or we can arbitrarily choose to be certain.

So on exactly what should be base our degree of certainty?

The philosophical branch of epistemology concerns itself with exactly this question. Among other things, it endeavors to identify and justify what certainty ought to be based on. (It also speaks about what certainty means, whether it's possible, etc... but that is outside the province of this discussion).

When we debate FAITH versus REASON, we are specifically debating WHAT THE BASIS of certainty (and thus belief) OUGHT TO BE.

Reason is a PROCESS by which one uses empirically observed fact in order to ascertain facts which are NOT empirically observed. Reason relies of the law of non-contradiction (A=A), in concert with sensory evidence, in order to gain knowledge and understanding of what we do NOT observe, based on what we DO observe.

Faith is not a process. It is a direct cognitive leap from "not accepting" straight to "accepting". Do not pass go. Do not bother with scaling belief against evidence.

So how does this apply to certainty? Is it possible to believe a proposition on faith and on reason?

The answer is yes.

In the context of epistemology, REASON demands that the degree of certainty with which one accepts a proposition is congruous with the amount of evidence that supports the truth of that proposition. In other words, if you are presented with a proposition, backed up with evidence that supports it to a degree of 50% (for example), then reason demands that your certainty that the preposition is true should be roughly 50%.

If the proposition is backed up with evidence that supports it to adegree of 80%, then your degree of certainty should be 80%

(It is important to point out here that supporting evidence of 100% is not possible. Since ALL evidence is subject to further discovery, 100% is never possible. We cannot ever know everything - the potential for future discoveries are an inherent aspect of objective, contextual knowledge.)

So, if one is committed to reason, one will always strive to ensure that ones degree of certainty is scaled - to the best degree that oneis capable - to the degree of evidence that supports that proposition.

What about faith?

In the context of epistemology, faith is the act of *assigning certainty disproportionately* from the amount of evidence supporting acertain proposition.

In other words, if a certain proposition is supported only with 25% evidence, yet one accepts the proposition with a a 99% degree of certainty - one has "bridged the gap" with faith.

So, to be clear... a person who does this would believe the proposition based on "evidence" (to the degree of 25%), and "faith" (bridging the cognitive gap). In this way, most faith-based beliefs do have supporting, albeit insufficient, evidence.

(This "bridging of the gap" is what is commonly referred to as a "leap of faith" - it's a cognitive leap from certainty that is supported by evidence to certainty that is not supported by evidence).

It is important to remember... just because one accepts a proposition based on evidence and faith does NOT mean that faith and reason are compatible. They are two separate and mutually exclusive concepts. Evidence generates a specific degree of certainty.... and you are free at that point to stop there, or you are free to exercise faith and assign MORE CERTAINTY to the proposition than justified by the available evidence.

To say that faith can be based on evidence is nonsensical. Faith always begins where evidence ends - literally by definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

My position is that such a cognitive bridge is ALWAYS wrong. It is ALWAYS wrong to assign a degree of certainty that is disproportionate to the amount of evidence available. Our degree of certainty ought to ALWAYS be scaled to what we ascertain via empirical evidence, coupled with reason. ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY above and beyond that - or even below that - is cognitively unjustified. This is the definitive statement of my position.

So, if you really want to discuss epistemology... this is the place to start.

Reason demands that certainty is scaled to evidence.

Faith is the act of subverting the scaling process and assigning a degree of certainty that is incongruous with the amount of evidence available.

I advocate a policy of strict adherence to the demands of reason. I reject any suggestion that my degree of certainty of any proposition ought to be scaled above (or below) the degree of evidence available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once this material has been informed or is informed by scientific methodology a serious discussion is possible.

--Brant

back and forth, forth and back

I believe science is reason applied to the process of discovery. Reason must precede science.

Science would need to be informed by the process of reason, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once this material has been informed or is informed by scientific methodology a serious discussion is possible.

--Brant

back and forth, forth and back

I believe science is reason applied to the process of discovery. Reason must precede science.

Science would need to be informed by the process of reason, not the other way around.

It's already been done.

Don't reinvent the wheel.

--Brant

avoid blather, cut to the chase, be reasonable and do it my way :smile: ; the scientific method is the gold standard so make it better or make what you said better in that context or it's epistemology forever and ever (I don't think all that much of ITOE for the same reason)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you're describing is the "arbitrary". Yes, you discard those.

It's not what I was describing. It's what you were describing. If you've discarded the unverifiable and the unfalsifiable, then there's no need for faith. What you're left with is something about which you may not have enough information to make a 100% certain decision. If you apply faith to whatever deficit of certainty you have, then you're back to unverifiable and unfalsifiable, and you must discard it again.

But then, I'm using the biblical definition of faith - "the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things unseen." Perhaps your definition is different?

(Hebrews 11:1, King James version. I think. I didn't look it up.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hebrews 11:1-10

Damn, never been good with Bible citations...

King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if certainty were an emotion and not just a degree of acceptance?

:smile:

Don't think silly question. Think neuroscience and modern psychology, then look into it.

(I love to be the monkeywrench in the works. :smile: )

Michael

Not a silly question at all. Intriguing thought.

I wrote that essay/email a while back, and there is one thing I would probably amend. I don't think belief is volitional. I think the degree to which we "believe" a proposition is automatic, and determined by our accepted epistemology.

In other words, if I told you that I am actually a talking donkey, you could no more will yourself to believe it than you could will yourself to fly. You might "accept" it (meaning that you will act as though it is true regardless of what your judgment tells you), but you couldn't will yourself to believe it.

dldelancey:

It's not what I was describing. It's what you were describing.

Not true at all. One can absolutely accept a verifiable, falsifiable proposition on faith. It's easy. I'll show you.

Proposition: MSK has only one leg.

This proposition is verifiable and falsifiable. And you, right this moment, have a degree of certainty as to the truth of this proposition.

If the degree of certainty you possess is disproportionate to the amount of evidence available, then whatever degree of certainty does not rest on evidence rests on faith.

(I sure hope MSK has two legs or I am going to look like quite the jackass.)

But then, I'm using the biblical definition of faith - "the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things unseen." Perhaps your definition is different?

I'm using the term "faith" in an epistemological context.

belief that is not based on proof:

He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael disabled the 'like' function, to keep unruly or demented people from 'gaming' the system (by voting down or up according to pique and not real reaction) -- at least that is my remembrance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kacy,

You're not really answering Deanna's objection. However, I have another one. You use the term "proposition" without qualification, but then you talk about certainty as if you were only discussing universally quantified propositions.

For example: "I am sitting in my office in front of my computer," is a proposition and it is true and I am 100% certain that it is true and that certainty is justified. That's because the truth of the proposition is plainly obvious. However, a proposition such as, "All electrons have the same mass," is much harder to know with certainty because it is a universally quantified proposition and one can only test a very limited subset of all electrons.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apply the subject of degree of certainty (if that's a correct expression) to reality.

Example 1:

You are driving a vehicle on the right hand side of the road and you are about to make a left turn cutting across traffic. You want to know whether it is safe. What degree of certainty is required?

a. It's probably safe.

b. I want to be 100% sure, not 99% sure.

Example 2:

You are an employer interviewing a job applicant.

a. I can't be sure but he seems to be the best candidate for the job, so I will hire him.

b. All candidates are good but I can't know for sure who is the best candidate for the job, so I will not hire any of them.

Example 3:

Two chess players at a chess club are playing an informal friendly game. One player makes a risky sacrificial move.

1st player: That doesn't work, does it?

2nd player: Dunno. Let's find out.

Example 4:

Two gamblers are discussing gambling. One of them figures he is getting a good deal if he gets back 75 cents per dollar.

Example 5:

On the subject of smoking before the evidence was considered conclusive.

a. There is no absolute mathematically rigorous proof that smoking will harm me.

b. It's a reasonable guess that smoke in the lungs is bad for the lungs.

Example 6:

A small tumor directly under the skin vanished during a fast (air, water, sleep, nothing else) which was preceded by an antitumor diet. (During a fast, the body has no choice but to consume its own tissues and it consumes expendable tissues such as fat and sometimes tumors in preference to more important tissues. This why tumors sometimes vanish during a fast.) But there is a more serious inoperable tumor that did not vanish. Can this one be made to vanish by more/better application of the same method?

a. It might not work; therefore I should not try it.

b. It might work; therefore I should try it.

Example 7:

You know nothing about a man except his name and his appearance. You have a bad feeling about him.

a. I don't trust him.

b. I will ignore my bad feeling about him because emotions are not tools of cognition and not guides to action.

(In this real life scenario, he really did turn out to be a very bad guy. He was extremely violent and his son warned me that his father might kill me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now