Assumptions, beliefs and the continuum between them

Assumptions underpin much of what we do on a daily basis. Extend this to discussion and debates of a more theoretical nature and assumptions are quite essential. Many economic theories, for example, must assume that humans behave rationally – one of the more contentious assumptions in that field of study, understandably. Making assumptions eases our progress through life – if you need to set the terms of engagement on every conversation you might embark on in any given day, you might find yourself never actually saying anything at all.

Assumption is the more common and acceptable younger cousin of belief. Assumptions, at least on some level, are understood by us all to be unfair simplifications (never quite the whole story) which make our lives just a little easier. They are also challengeable and, with a bit of resistance, can change. Beliefs are a little more intransient. They tend to run deeper than simple assumptions, they are more fundamental (a dangerous word these days) to one’s view of the world.

One day, some centuries ago, some English man had an apple fall on his head. He theorised and proposed the existence of what we call gravity. Gravity, for all the evidence to support it, remains nothing more than the best explanation we have for why apples fall to the Earth.

Before proceeding it feels important to recognise unequivocally that the theory of gravity is very compelling, indeed the evidence is overwhelming and largely without genuine challenge. On that basis one can believe in gravity without fear of being proved wrong. For that matter, one of the most heartening things about science is that it deals in evidence and not proof.

Some many centuries before that day of the falling apple, some people believed that the Sun was pulled across the sky by a horse, others believed that it was carried by a boat. These respective theories were, at the time, the best known solutions for the journey of the Sun across the sky. Arguably neither theory has ever been proved to be incorrect. Simply the weight of evidence has pushed us to believe that there are, in fact, better explanations out there.

In order to theorise about the world scientifically, you need to believe in certain things. Certain specific requirements could be considered assumptions – you need to assume that theory X is correct in order that theory Y might even be possible. Other things must, by necessity, be more accurately called articles of faith – you must simply believe that gravity exists as a force in this universe before you can consider further theories of physics.

If one was to ask someone of an even moderately religious nature if there is evidence for the existence of (a) God they would say “Of course, it is in every blossoming rose and every smiling baby” or words to that effect. And, of course, given their belief system, they would be right. There is such evidence. For some people the existence of a deity or series of deities remains the best possible solution for the world being the way it is.

One does not need to reject either science or religion to argue that at one point in our history that religion acted as science. When looking at the rising and falling tides, when experiencing the change of winter to spring, when witnessing birth and death and all that happens in between, when contemplating our dominance as a species above all others on this world – what better solutions could we have come up with? And different peoples came up with different solutions. And they all stood up to scrutiny given the logic they followed and given the evidence available.

Slowly but surely the balance of evidence started to slip away from the religions – actually it make more sense for the Earth to rotate around the Sun rather than the other way around; also, humans are more likely to have evolved from a lineage linked to the animal world over the course of several hundreds of thousands of years rather than being created over the course of a few days. In time the argument simply becomes impossible to make (even if the second named is still in contention). And it is still possible to be religious and believe the Earth is round.

That religions lost their position as the best explanation for how Earthly and celestial phenomena happen, did not remove their power or influence or importance. Where religion could no longer provide people with the explanations for how the world is, it started to focus more solely on the reasons why the world is.

Some may see the growing virulence of the debate between atheists and the religious establishment (the relativist and fundamentalist sectors of both camps being embroiled) as evidence of the nearing end of the entire structure of and, by implication, need for religion. Such a thought process negates the continuing power and impact religious faith has on people’s lives. Indeed, use of such logic exposes the blind self-confidence of the more extreme atheist sectors of the debate, very much a characteristic of the crumbling façade of irrational empires.

But thankfully, science isn’t irrational. It may sound contradictory, but my faith in science comes from knowing that if a better explanation for, say, gravity does come along that science (not that we talk about science as a single entity with a single consciousness) will accept it as the new best explanation.

Science lives and dies by the validity of its arguments. If science compromises itself, or the evidence it uses, it becomes worthless. It is for this reason that ‘serious’ scientists take such entertaining glee in ripping to shreds clinical trials, for example, that have been funded by drug companies and are not double blind and peer reviewed.

Religions, on the other hand, do have a vested interest in considering the evidence that supports its foundation and not that which attacks it. While the Pope can retain his infallibility in the eyes of many Catholics if he changes his mind on a policy – say the use of contraception – he would have a hard time of it if he changed a central tenet of Catholicism – the Immaculate Conception or that Jesus rose from the dead, for example. Such a change could topple the Catholic Church because the contradictions it would throw up would be too great for anyone to ignore. That is why it is impossible to imagine the Pope doing such a thing (it is, indeed, hard enough to imagine him changing the church’s position on contraception).

So, while science may deal in many articles of faith, these beliefs are somewhat more flexible – closer on some imaginary continuum between assumption and belief to the former. It is also fallible and uses fallibility as one of its strengths.

One imagines that religions will continue to reject their fallibility. But so be it. For many people, religion remains the best explanation for why the world is. Until something else comes along to tip the balance of evidence, it will remain so.

- by James Grogan

This entry was posted by Neil Keating, on Thursday, 24 April 2008. You can leave your response.