The statement "I believe" ought to be followed, expressly or implicitly, by "because [of the facts, and if necessary, the evidence for the facts, giving rise to the belief]". One owes "because" to oneself as a rational being. One owes it to others as the demonstration that one's belief should be taken seriously and subjected to debate if disagreed with.
An interesting and helpful piece. It might be worth observing that scientific method is based on a belief in an ordered world. And as Michael Polanyi points out in his explanation of tacit knowledge even the application of scientific method is subject to the potential corruption of the observer's beliefs. Of course, as you point out believes vary in their reliability. However, we create a problem when we assume objectivity to be neutral, particularly in our understanding of right and wrong. No matter how we like to spin it we have to go back to the Genesis story. If God did not create us then on what do we base our understanding of objectivity's absolute value or even scientific method. It is difficult to avoid the tragedy of Hubris or indeed the sin of pride If we imagine ourselves to be the creators of our own objectivity.
"I believe in" is a statement about your faith, usually in the existence of something such as anthropogenic climate change or the Christian God. "I believe that" is an assertion about states of affairs and may or may not be true. For 'I believe in x' to be true, one need only check the state of you faith but for 'I believe that x' to be true, one must check it against the world. Some of our 'beliefs that' are false and some are true. Many of our beliefs may be true unbeknownst to us. And of course many may be false despite the current state of scientific thinking - or knowledge about the world. Just a minor point
To join a fascinating topic via this helpful addition: in/that.
Given that we have already been importantly and vitally introduced to Michael Polanyi, I would also introduce all conversation partners (for that is how I view us all, politely) to Alister E McGrath of Oxford University. There are a number of links; here’s one - https://alistermcgrath.org/
His contribution to this present discussion, which supposedly is between Credo and Scio, is massive. As a taster, I would introduce you to his three volume Work entitled A Scientific Theology (2001/2/3), subtitles “nature”, “reality”, “theory”. Apropos our current plight, there is, he points out, literally a world of difference between social mediation and social creation. The latter simply buys into the antirealist versus realist debate siding with the former. Social mediation acknowledges the subjective human pole in all our knowing, much as per Polanyi. The crux is both “the available believable” (Ricoeur’s) or “plausibility structures” (Berger) or “the social imaginary” (Taylor) and the cumulative, collective means whereby we test and establish ‘the facts’.
Lastly, and rather cutely. The Logical Positivists failed in their venture at the most basic level: because they could not verify the verification principle itself, it was reduced to nonsense! A similar logical problem arises with the postmodern venture: to say there are no metanarratives is itself a metanarrational claim! Oops!
Bottom line: humbly establishing ‘credible belief’ and so ‘viable evidence’ must be done - with humility! And wonder!! Ciao for now!
Interesting piece, thank you for your perspective. At a deeper level, everything actually comes down to faith. Faith that the ordered universe will still be so tomorrow. Faith that we can actually understand ‘das Ding an sich’ when really the whole universe is a bunch of very small things with large gaps in between. It’s a bit topic, but faith need not be just waffly BS…
Of course at a Newtonian level where we actually function, things do work in a strictly causative manner. Ergo one can safely conclude, if one genuinely follows the science or the logic, that trees don’t have spirits, that the Crown is sovereign and the Treaty is irrelevant now, that climate change is just a geo-reality well beyond our meddling & that we’re broke cos of that fat f***er finance fraudster. Just respect the evidence. Sadly it all falls apart when people are too thick to concede valid opposing arguments despite the evidence before them.
The statement "I believe" ought to be followed, expressly or implicitly, by "because [of the facts, and if necessary, the evidence for the facts, giving rise to the belief]". One owes "because" to oneself as a rational being. One owes it to others as the demonstration that one's belief should be taken seriously and subjected to debate if disagreed with.
Agreed.
An interesting and helpful piece. It might be worth observing that scientific method is based on a belief in an ordered world. And as Michael Polanyi points out in his explanation of tacit knowledge even the application of scientific method is subject to the potential corruption of the observer's beliefs. Of course, as you point out believes vary in their reliability. However, we create a problem when we assume objectivity to be neutral, particularly in our understanding of right and wrong. No matter how we like to spin it we have to go back to the Genesis story. If God did not create us then on what do we base our understanding of objectivity's absolute value or even scientific method. It is difficult to avoid the tragedy of Hubris or indeed the sin of pride If we imagine ourselves to be the creators of our own objectivity.
Nice. Polanyi’s concept of ‘Personal Knowledge’ is well worthy of consideration.
"I believe in" is a statement about your faith, usually in the existence of something such as anthropogenic climate change or the Christian God. "I believe that" is an assertion about states of affairs and may or may not be true. For 'I believe in x' to be true, one need only check the state of you faith but for 'I believe that x' to be true, one must check it against the world. Some of our 'beliefs that' are false and some are true. Many of our beliefs may be true unbeknownst to us. And of course many may be false despite the current state of scientific thinking - or knowledge about the world. Just a minor point
To join a fascinating topic via this helpful addition: in/that.
Given that we have already been importantly and vitally introduced to Michael Polanyi, I would also introduce all conversation partners (for that is how I view us all, politely) to Alister E McGrath of Oxford University. There are a number of links; here’s one - https://alistermcgrath.org/
His contribution to this present discussion, which supposedly is between Credo and Scio, is massive. As a taster, I would introduce you to his three volume Work entitled A Scientific Theology (2001/2/3), subtitles “nature”, “reality”, “theory”. Apropos our current plight, there is, he points out, literally a world of difference between social mediation and social creation. The latter simply buys into the antirealist versus realist debate siding with the former. Social mediation acknowledges the subjective human pole in all our knowing, much as per Polanyi. The crux is both “the available believable” (Ricoeur’s) or “plausibility structures” (Berger) or “the social imaginary” (Taylor) and the cumulative, collective means whereby we test and establish ‘the facts’.
Lastly, and rather cutely. The Logical Positivists failed in their venture at the most basic level: because they could not verify the verification principle itself, it was reduced to nonsense! A similar logical problem arises with the postmodern venture: to say there are no metanarratives is itself a metanarrational claim! Oops!
Bottom line: humbly establishing ‘credible belief’ and so ‘viable evidence’ must be done - with humility! And wonder!! Ciao for now!
Interesting piece, thank you for your perspective. At a deeper level, everything actually comes down to faith. Faith that the ordered universe will still be so tomorrow. Faith that we can actually understand ‘das Ding an sich’ when really the whole universe is a bunch of very small things with large gaps in between. It’s a bit topic, but faith need not be just waffly BS…
Of course at a Newtonian level where we actually function, things do work in a strictly causative manner. Ergo one can safely conclude, if one genuinely follows the science or the logic, that trees don’t have spirits, that the Crown is sovereign and the Treaty is irrelevant now, that climate change is just a geo-reality well beyond our meddling & that we’re broke cos of that fat f***er finance fraudster. Just respect the evidence. Sadly it all falls apart when people are too thick to concede valid opposing arguments despite the evidence before them.