Local Cincinnati Paper |
Editorial Page
|
Some past date |
| Janice Feldstein claims that my letter represented
a narrow point of view. What I write stems from my epistemology.
The quality of knowledge about an object increases with the number of ways you examine it. In the same way the quality of knowledge about an idea increases with the number of perspectives with which you examine it. Humankind appears to have developed four perspectives which can be ordered into levels such that each successive level incorporates the former. The lower the level, the more tentative, limited, and subjective the truth value that can be assigned to any particular statement. The additive nature of the relationship reminds me of the model of adaptation in evolutionary biology. The first perspective is creativity. When you speak of "imagination, possibilities, intuitive insights, and poetry's flickering candle", you speak of this type of knowledge. This the raw material of knowledge. However, the truth value of a creative statement is neutral, since to imagine a possibility does not make it true. I do not denigrate or ignore this knowledge as you claim, but I do recognize that it is only a beginning. The second perspective is faith, where truth value is determined by the act of belief. Creativity is incorporated into faith. For instance there are currently over 2100 active faiths (active means over 5000 adherents). The third perspective is reason, where truth value is determined by logical rules between a priori statements. The claim that a priori statements are "self-evident" is an article of faith. In Euclidean geometry the belief that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line is such a statement. Note that this statement is false, since space-time is curved by matter, yet the truth value is sufficient for our everyday use. The fourth perspective is science, where truth value is determined by the ability of a set of rationally ordered beliefs to yield consistent explanatory and predictive results when checked against external reality. An example of faith here is the belief in the universality of scientific truth (ex. the belief that Newton's inverse square law of gravity is the same here as in the furthest reaches of the universe). |
The primary difference between theological faith and scientific faith
is that even the most cherished concept in science will be abandoned in
the face of solid evidence to the contrary. Theological faith, since it
is typically expressed as absolute truth, tends to be intractable. (ex.
The excommunication of Galileo for his support of the Copernican solar
system was retracted only within my lifetime). The role of creativity and
reason to science is well known.
So I do not claim that faith is valueless, but merely limited within a larger hierarchical framework in its ability to determine what is true. In information sparse environments it can provide a general framework with which to begin to grasp at the unknown, even if the beliefs themselves are objectively false (ex. the Greek myth of the seasons as being cause by Persaphone eating six pomegranate seeds). Additionally, faith has psychological, social, & political utility irrespective of it's truth value (ex. as a placebic hedge against the anxieties of the unknown, particularly death) It is not an insult to recognize the irrational nature of faith; faith precedes reason, as reason precedes science. When in conflict hierarchy determines which yields. Since science is an amalgamation of all current approaches to knowledge, it yields the least tentative, limited, and subjective truth. I do not claim that absolute truth doesn't exist, but clearly humans do not possess it. We do not have the ability to evaluate the relative truth values between belief systems. Additionally, the truth value of faith is one of the most tentative, limited, and subjective forms of knowledge available to us. It is possible to buy absolute truth at the level of faith, but the price is the absolute subjectivity of the particulars of faith. As history has show, this it too volatile a base to invest with secular power. And so the Copernican revolution continues.
Todd Brennan |
 |
 |
