How do you believe?

Why do you believe the things you believe?

Imagine a belief continuum. On the left are beliefs you believe to be false. On the right are beliefs you believe to be true. Along the span of the continuum from left to right your beliefs are arrayed according to your degree of certainty that they are true or false.

• Why do some beliefs show up on the left and others show up on the right?
• On what basis to you assign your certainty about the truthfulness of your beliefs?
• What role does an appeal to authority play?
• What role does empirical evidence play?
• Do you assess the truth or falsity of a claim based on the credibility of the claim?
• How resistant are your beliefs to contradictory evidence?

These are a few examples of faith based beliefs resisting contradictory evidence:

• Fixed Point Foundation
• Answers in Genesis
• www.creationism.org
• Institute for Creation Research
• International Flat Earth Society
• The Institute for Creation Research

Let us look more closely at the claims of Process Theology and try to assess where they should be mapped on the Belief Continuum. What role does faith play in Process Theology beliefs? This list is my best effort to determine what adherents to Process Theology might believe:

• God Exists.
• God is not independent of the Universe. But rather part of the Universe.
• God can be experienced by humans.
• God did not create the universe from nothing.
• God directs/influences the ongoing processes of the universe.
• God makes new realities out of past events by integrating them into the present to create the future.
• When humans die they continue to exist in the memory of God.
• The redemptive activity of God consists in his willingness to accept past evil, transform it into good and continue to lure each individual toward a self-authenticating acceptance of true value.

To the extent these are accurate – where would you plot them on the belief continuum, and why?

Falsification

One common argument used by Atheists against religious truth-claims is that since they are often not falsifiable they don't deserve serious consideration. To make the claim that "God exists" is to make an unfalsifiable claim.  There is no convincing evidence to support the claim and no evidence can be provided to refute the claim. Therefore, such claims are of little or no use for the purpose of meaningful discussion.

One rebuttal to this argument is to point out that there are often scientific claims that begin as unfalsifiable claims due to the inability to test an hypothesis. This is true and does happen. Researchers might often be inspired to begin down an untestable unfalsifiable path but eventually they must produce some type of testable hypothesis to retain their credibility.

Religious truth-claims often are subjected to the same pruning. As evidence mounts that certain truth-claims are falsifiable and are in fact shown to be false they are often abandoned.  Both scientists and religionists will adopt auxiliary theories in efforts to save a failing hypothesis.

Scientists might hold on to bad or untestable theories for long periods of time trying to prove their ideas to be true. Religionists seem to do the same thing. Unsupported, untested, unfalsifiable claims simply don't deserve the same level of consideration in rational discourse as ideas that are falsifiable, testable, and in fact shown to be true.

If you base your world view on unsupported, untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims then you should not expect anyone else to give your world view credibility.

Stewart Discussion Topics

Harris Discussion Topics

Dawkins Discussion Topics