A Need to Believe
People need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events, begins one infamous question discussed elsewhere in this blog. At a time like this, with a pandemic starting and the concurrent panic setting in, it's a pretty relevant statement.
Already, I've got people telling me it is a sign of the end, of the apocalypse, of anthropogenic catastrophe. Meanwhile, people track disease vectors, do the biochemistry and virology, figure out solutions. Other people blame high pig-farming density, leading to a faster rate of viral mutation. Everyone has become slightly hypochondriac; then again, maybe they're really ill.
It's easier to believe that things are knowable and hence controllable or predictable. If I were to assert that this is really all random, and that viruses only appear to spread by obvious means such as respiratory droplets (e.g. sneezing and coughing in crowded places) but actually are spread by random and unpredictable plague daemons, then I'd be pilloried as some sort of heretic by most people. Which is odd, of course, because science admits no religion and hence no heresies.
The bottom line is that science is the faith that is most rational in terms of its apparent capacity to predict the course of events in the world around us, past, present and future. It's the predictive capacity that's important. Without that, scientists are merely like children who observe a spattering of paint and see the image of Isaac Newton's death mask in it. But to predict successfully that the next spattering will show Charles Darwin, ah, that is science (or at least, very advanced sorcery).
I've always respected the late Arthur C Clarke as a philosopher of science. Two of his most profound ideas are these: a) sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic; b) intelligence has not been shown to have any survival value. The corollary to the first is of course that sufficiently basic magic should be indistinguishable from science; to the second, that the capacity to analyse, rationalise and predict events will not save us from the final consequences of those events.
The thing is that at some point, we all have faith. The question, "What do you believe is true though you cannot prove it?" drew many wonderful responses from leading scientists and skeptics. It also generated much debate. You will find that most of the deepest underpinnings of modern rationalist thought fall heavily into this category, and the strongest champions of modern rationalism have had no choice (being rational) but to admit it.
The funny thing is that you need faith to believe in reason; you do not need reason to believe in faith. Which is dependent and which is independent? Food for thought, in times like this and at all times.
Already, I've got people telling me it is a sign of the end, of the apocalypse, of anthropogenic catastrophe. Meanwhile, people track disease vectors, do the biochemistry and virology, figure out solutions. Other people blame high pig-farming density, leading to a faster rate of viral mutation. Everyone has become slightly hypochondriac; then again, maybe they're really ill.
It's easier to believe that things are knowable and hence controllable or predictable. If I were to assert that this is really all random, and that viruses only appear to spread by obvious means such as respiratory droplets (e.g. sneezing and coughing in crowded places) but actually are spread by random and unpredictable plague daemons, then I'd be pilloried as some sort of heretic by most people. Which is odd, of course, because science admits no religion and hence no heresies.
The bottom line is that science is the faith that is most rational in terms of its apparent capacity to predict the course of events in the world around us, past, present and future. It's the predictive capacity that's important. Without that, scientists are merely like children who observe a spattering of paint and see the image of Isaac Newton's death mask in it. But to predict successfully that the next spattering will show Charles Darwin, ah, that is science (or at least, very advanced sorcery).
I've always respected the late Arthur C Clarke as a philosopher of science. Two of his most profound ideas are these: a) sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic; b) intelligence has not been shown to have any survival value. The corollary to the first is of course that sufficiently basic magic should be indistinguishable from science; to the second, that the capacity to analyse, rationalise and predict events will not save us from the final consequences of those events.
The thing is that at some point, we all have faith. The question, "What do you believe is true though you cannot prove it?" drew many wonderful responses from leading scientists and skeptics. It also generated much debate. You will find that most of the deepest underpinnings of modern rationalist thought fall heavily into this category, and the strongest champions of modern rationalism have had no choice (being rational) but to admit it.
The funny thing is that you need faith to believe in reason; you do not need reason to believe in faith. Which is dependent and which is independent? Food for thought, in times like this and at all times.
Labels: Belief, Faith, Odd Questions, Science
etched with acid at 8:32:00 am
2 Comments:
In response to your concluding note, most people give reasons for what they believe in... so perhaps you do need reason for faith but you don't need sound reasoning... e.g. those who promote their religious faiths do pride themselves in logical, 'reasonable' explanations.... i would say you need faith to believe in the reasoning you attempt to base your faith on... ; }
On a similar note, one of the things people around me seem to have a lot of faith in is the belief that when they finally pass on, they will begin to understand what life and death are all about.
And I've often asked myself, "what if death is just the end of my consciouness?' ... like most nights when I sleep and don't dream and is aware of absolutely nothing... what if after plodding for more than six/seven decades in this life, everything just ended like that... sans meaning, reasoning... I realised at some point that i could live with that thought though my christian friends would think i'm faithless and need help... : }
slotusch: That's a very simple problem — faith can be defined as belief despite the knowledge that the evidence for that belief doesn't meet the evidential standards normally (circumstantially, culturally, etc) required for verification of the truth of that belief. It's not possible for faith to be conclusively justified by reason — then it wouldn't be faith anymore.
Post a Comment
<< Home