A Critical Review Of Article by Marcelo Giesler in "Big Think," People Are Believers
I read this article linked above, posted by my wife Martha and thought it important enough to review. It is thought provoking and interesting, but unfortunately the writer, Marcelo Giesler, uses too much wordplay and is a bit nominalistic. Meaning that his central concept is undermined by too heavy a reliance on parsing the definitions of words, in order to attribute strict meaning to concepts that are at best ambiguous. The writer is laboring to find an interface between the worlds of science and religion by elaborating on the concept of "belief." The argument is that the human capacity to believe is the bridge between scientific knowledge and religious faith, and therefore there is no inherent conflict between either because both begin with a "belief" My view, (not my belief) is that in an effort to resolve this very real false dichotomy, he contrives a weak and slightly forced argument about our belief in beliefs, which is circular and doesn't really "move the needle."
The concept of "belief" is too vague to construct the argument he is making, because it is arbitrary. It is value-free. He doesn't adequately distinguish between beliefs and opinions, which are fixed positions attached to a mental image or a set of memories, which may or may not be valid. He argues that our inclination to prove our beliefs to be true is the starting point for science. The problem with that is that the word belief is so amorphous that it opens the door for pseudo-science and superstition, and can become indistinct from religious faith. The criticisms quoted here of William James work "Varieties of Religious Experience" are valid, in that sense.
For example, is a belief arrived at while under the influence of psychedelics a step toward scientific knowledge? Is it even a belief, or just a feeling state? Does a thought under the influence carry the same weight as a belief held by Einstein arrived at while playing Mozart on his violin? There are some who argue yes, and that to say otherwise is a form of classism or arrogance. But more important than the right answer is the asking of the question itself. There is such a thing as knowledge grounded in truth, and not just in the hard sciences.
Now, the word "hope" has infinitely more value than belief, because it embodies open-ended potential for progress for a concept of the future. Only people can have hope. Hope was the subject of many of the greatest poems, musical compositions, works of art and other creations of those thinkers who lived for the future. Beliefs are a system, and tend to be very individualized. "What I think, and feel, or intuit based on my experience which leads me to pursue x, y, or z." It's an empirical dualism. A person watching a YouTube video on home remedies for covid, or government cover-ups of UFO's has beliefs, and will often spin their wheels engaged in fruitless investigations to prove their beliefs true. Do those beliefs stand on equal ground as those of trained biomedical or NASA scientists?
So I'm not rejecting his piece out of whole cloth, and I think it is useful and provocative, but just falls short. It mystifies the creative process, omits the concept of hypothesis, and lacks sufficient future orientation or a gestalt for what drives creative thinking, which is to reproduce society at a higher intellectual, moral and scientific level. It lacks context or immediacy, and is just "out there."
Whereas the concept of "hope" intrinsically places us in the future, and situates our actions in the present in order to achieve the realization of an idea. Hope is connected to the welfare, benefit, justice and progress for other people. Beliefs are "my thing," an individual pursuit. The truth and value of an idea has to be connected with our fellow humans in order to have life, and meet the validity test. It can't survive as a matter of solitary introspection, since we are not ascetic monks plopped on a mountaintop. That is where the article falls short. It is not our relationship to faith or religious concepts or scientific theories which is primary. It's our relationship to other people which is primary. The writer describes the history of humanity's social structures as the by-product of shared beliefs, the growth of tribes and groups emerging from commonality of interests. Whereas it is the opposite. Discoveries, inventions, creative ideas are the product of the individual human mind in an environment of social interaction, and in fact depends upon dialogue and crossfiring of ideas as a collaborative effort. It requires other people and institutions to give form and vitality to it. People form societies out of a need to generate progress and ideas to survive, not because they already have common beliefs. That idea is missed because the writer has it backwards.,
So, rather than walk into the verbal trap baked in to the article, and stating that what I just said proves him right because I'm "just stating my beliefs," I'll just say that his concept and his effort is noble and useful, but it is a little like a car without an engine. It's difficult to take it anywhere. "Beliefs" are like a vehicle stuck sitting in Park. "Hope" motivates us to "travel".
The relationship of religion to science is the transition from the first to the former, a journey rather than a "parking place." I don't see an inherent conflict between religion and science. I see science as eventually superceding religion in an evolutionary dynamic, in a society which has educated and developed itself properly. That's what I "hope" for.
