What we believe but cannot prove

Greetings to all, I thought it would be a fitting way to introduce myself to what seems to be a very flourishing community by sharing a speculative musing that I conjured up some time ago on what led me to the title of this post. To introduce myself, My last name is Zeickner. I am studying in the fields of composition, philosophy and psychology and am forever a student of literature I aim to willingly see, learn from and appreciate the vast range of meaningful input from others as well as share my own voyage of philosophical musing with anyone who is, in turn, willing to see. That said, I will bore you with introductions no longer. Onwards we go, to the subject of the post...

Each year, the Edge world question centre foundation introduces a simple and straightforward question directed to what they refer to as members of the ‘third culture’, leading philosophical, scientific and literary intellectuals of our time. In 2005 the annual question was one that truly instigated a massive array of passionate and intricate thinking on my part.

“Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have either the evidence or arguments for it (Diderot called it having the “esprit de divination”). What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?”
Such a question remained resonant within my mind for days and it occurred to me how daunting the process and task of compiling even the simplest answer would be. “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?”
And who could resist something so compelling and provocative?

How can one answer a question involving the subject of truth without a significant and fundamental understanding of what ‘truth’ really is? I could go on for days and weeks, relentlessly exploring and questioning the human understanding of legitimacy. But that would be a different case. In essence, what we as humans consider to be a fact or truth is useless and incomprehensible without the existance of a lie. Both things must depend on each other in order to exist comprehensibly.

In fear of straying too far from the initial topic I will share my own personal answer to the original question. What I consider true but cannot prove is this:

Religion as well as the “absense” of religion, to me, is a trivial and redundant concept. I am uncontrollably disappointed every time I am unfortunate enough to come across a heated debate between individuals concerning the existance of a God. When witnessing these debates and arguments, I cannot avoid silently trembling with the painfully pathetic ignorance that so solemly emits from both parties. It will always remain difficult for people to remember how insignificant a human being really is in relation to the universe.

Of course, we may quite possibly be very significant in relation to each other and to ourselves, but when tempted with the need to engage in arguments like that stated above, it is important to remember that this universe and our understanding of existence is a very vast, unending desert in which each and every individual living being is a mere, unnoticeable grain of sand.

There is nothing wrong with faith, personal belief and hope, but this never ending battle of religion and absence of religion is a tremendous disaster. It is ridiculous to me how people brusquely label themselves religious, atheist or agnostic and attempt to enforce their beliefs as the ‘truth’ whilst completely forgetting how insignificant such an argument really is.

I, personally and to my own understanding, am an individual that simply exists.

Whether I exist for divine reason or simply for no reason at all will remain a redundant detail to me. I do not believe nor disbelieve in a God and it surpises me how many people are blissfully ignorant to the knowledge that if God where to be finally and unarguably proven either to exist or to be false, it would change and affect absolutely nothing. If, after years of war, arguments, debates, research and study, God was finally proven to exist, would the person who discovered it suddenly reach a peak of divine spiritual enlightenment? It would not make this person any less of an insignificant being who will eventually and unavoidably die like everybody else. Neither will it affect the quality and process of modern life for any other person.

Evil will continue to be evil. Pain will continue to be pain. Sadness will be continue to be sadness. Joy will continue to be joy and death will continue to be death. And what is death really?

In the end, this is simply my truth But, of course, I cannot prove it.

~Zeickner

------- Would be interesting to see the answers of others to the question: What do you believe is true but cannot prove? Feel free to share

Awesome post, Zeichner.

"What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" One thing this question instantly brings to my mind is uncertainty. I cannot prove it, but I believe that no belief can ever be determined to be absolutely true or false. I believe I will never have true knowledge. One can stack evidence on either side of a proposition (for or against), but being limited by evidence means that any new and opposing evidence or any misused evidence would undermine a belief. To have true knowledge one would have to be absolutely certain of evidence and absolutely certain that there is no opposing evidence. I don't believe this will ever be the case, as you mentioned, we are an insignificant speck of sand in a vast desert. To claim absolute knowledge of the entire desert as it relates to a proposition is ludicrous.

To your comment on religous/non-religious believers: I think it is not rational to claim that there is, for a fact, the supernatural or not the supernatural. Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I don't believe we can ever have true knowledge. However, taking sides based on evidence is rational. I am not agnostic to whether I'm really typing at my keyboard right now or I am hooked up to a virtual reality simulator in a scientist's lab. Even though it cannot be known certain either way, the evidence points to me typing at a keyboard, so I believe I am typing at a keyboard. I think the same can be said about the supernatural. If one truly has no evidence in either direction, than a strictly agnostic belief is the best way to go. However, if there is evidence to believe one way or another, I think it is best to believe in what the evidence points to. Many people believe they have seen god, felt his spirit, etc; to these people I think a belief in god is absolutely rational. They have evidence.

Awesome post, Zeichner.

"What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" One thing this question instantly brings to my mind is uncertainty. I cannot prove it, but I believe that no belief can ever be determined to be absolutely true or false. I believe I will never have true knowledge. One can stack evidence on either side of a proposition (for or against), but being limited by evidence means that any new and opposing evidence or any misused evidence would undermine a belief. To have true knowledge one would have to be absolutely certain of evidence and absolutely certain that there is no opposing evidence. I don't believe this will ever be the case, as you mentioned, we are an insignificant speck of sand in a vast desert. To claim absolute knowledge of the entire desert as it relates to a proposition is ludicrous.

To your comment on religous/non-religious believers: I think it is not rational to claim that there is, for a fact, the supernatural or not the supernatural. Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I don't believe we can ever have true knowledge. However, taking sides based on evidence is rational. I am not agnostic to whether I'm really typing at my keyboard right now or I am hooked up to a virtual reality simulator in a scientist's lab. Even though it cannot be known certain either way, the evidence points to me typing at a keyboard, so I believe I am typing at a keyboard. I think the same can be said about the supernatural. If one truly has no evidence in either direction, than a strictly agnostic belief is the best way to go. However, if there is evidence to believe one way or another, I think it is best to believe in what the evidence points to. Many people believe they have seen god, felt his spirit, etc; to these people I think a belief in god is absolutely rational. They have evidence.

Thank you for the compliment. You have posted a great response to the question indeed, I definitely share your beliefs in regards to true knowledge and the uncertainty of its existence and you have made some great points in regards to this belief. As for your second comment "However, if there is evidence to believe one way or another, I think it is best to believe in what the evidence points to. Many people believe they have seen god, felt his spirit, etc; to these people I think a belief in god is absolutely rational. They have evidence." I find this to be a very interesting stance on the matter and cannot help but agree to what you have said to some extent. I must question however, what you say do you refer to actual belief or to acceptance? I would take a stance where I agreed that indeed it is rational to, by all means, accept what evidence most points to. ie, 1 + 1 = 2. Based on human understanding of concepts and the invention of mathematics. I would accept that the answer to the question was indeed 2, based on mathematical proof in relation to human understanding. However as mathematics itself is a man made concept, true belief may quite possibly remain unjustified, whereas one could easily accept this claim. Whether one truly believe something may be a different matter entirely to the rationality of accepting it.

Regards

As for your second comment "However, if there is evidence to believe one way or another, I think it is best to believe in what the evidence points to. Many people believe they have seen god, felt his spirit, etc; to these people I think a belief in god is absolutely rational. They have evidence." I find this to be a very interesting stance on the matter and cannot help but agree to what you have said to some extent. I must question however, what you say do you refer to actual belief or to acceptance? I would take a stance where I agreed that indeed it is rational to, by all means, accept what evidence most points to. ie, 1 + 1 = 2. Based on human understanding of concepts and the invention of mathematics. I would accept that the answer to the question was indeed 2, based on mathematical proof in relation to human understanding. However as mathematics itself is a man made concept, true belief may quite possibly remain unjustified, whereas one could easily accept this claim. Whether one truly believe something may be a different matter entirely to the rationality of accepting it.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the ideas you are attempting to convey in this section of your response. This sentence is especially troublesome "I must question however, what you say do you refer to actual belief or to acceptance?"

I am guessing you could be asking about the validity of evidence. I obviously don't believe that people have really experienced god if I believe there is no god. I believe their evidence is false evidence, much like they believe my evidence is false evidence. There can't be both a god and no god. This is the law of noncontradiction: something either is or is not--but not both.

So if evidence points to god and evidence points away from god, one of the pieces of evidence is being misused or is false evidence.

Am I on the right track? Again, I was having trouble understanding what you were getting at.

As for your second comment "However, if there is evidence to believe one way or another, I think it is best to believe in what the evidence points to. Many people believe they have seen god, felt his spirit, etc; to these people I think a belief in god is absolutely rational. They have evidence." I find this to be a very interesting stance on the matter and cannot help but agree to what you have said to some extent. I must question however, what you say do you refer to actual belief or to acceptance? I would take a stance where I agreed that indeed it is rational to, by all means, accept what evidence most points to. ie, 1 + 1 = 2. Based on human understanding of concepts and the invention of mathematics. I would accept that the answer to the question was indeed 2, based on mathematical proof in relation to human understanding. However as mathematics itself is a man made concept, true belief may quite possibly remain unjustified, whereas one could easily accept this claim. Whether one truly believe something may be a different matter entirely to the rationality of accepting it.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the ideas you are attempting to convey in this section of your response. This sentence is especially troublesome "I must question however, what you say do you refer to actual belief or to acceptance?"

I am guessing you could be asking about the validity of evidence. I obviously don't believe that people have really experienced god if I believe there is no god. I believe their evidence is false evidence, much like they believe my evidence is false evidence. There can't be both a god and no god. This is the law of noncontradiction: something either is or is not--but not both.

So if evidence points to god and evidence points away from god, one of the pieces of evidence is being misused or is false evidence.

Am I on the right track? Again, I was having trouble understanding what you were getting at.

Apologies for misunderstanding caused, I was commenting on your earlier statement "However, if there is evidence to believe one way or another, I think it is best to believe in what the evidence points to. Many people believe they have seen god, felt his spirit, etc; to these people I think a belief in god is absolutely rational. They have evidence."
My question was that, do you refer to actual belief, in terms of you feel it is rational to believe or disbelieve in a god based on where evidence points to? or do you refer to acceptance of the concept? I was attempting to suggest that it may be more rational to accept that which evidence points to, not necessarily believe in it. ie, One can accept a proposition based on evidence regardless of whether or not they believe in it. Should true belief not be saved for that which absolute conclusion exists? As you said, conclusion is only legitimate when no opposition or doubt can exist for its evidence. I therefore feel that belief in a god is not entirely rational or justifiable, but acceptance of the possibility of a god may be. I hope this has cleared up any misunderstanding?

I am guessing you could be asking about the validity of evidence. I obviously don't believe that people have really experienced god if I believe there is no god. I believe their evidence is false evidence, much like they believe my evidence is false evidence. There can't be both a god and no god. This is the law of noncontradiction: something either is or is not--but not both.

Are you arguing hypothetically or saying that you personally don't believe that people have really experienced god, that their evidence is false evidence? If that is your personal perspective, then I'd ask if you think it possible for a person to present evidence of an experience of god (within the common parameters of such reported experiences) that would shift your opinion to a less-certain agnostic perspective? For example, an experience related by someone you know and trust as well-grounded in reality, not given to hystrionics or delusion?

In the end, this is simply my truth But, of course, I cannot prove it.
~Zeickner

Re whatever you believe, which can or cannot be proven, in the ultimate or end, the question is how will your manifested actions impact (positive or negative) on your own self, group, humanity, environment and the universe.

If your actions are natural, spontaneously and effectively positive in every circumstances, there is no issue regardless of what you believe and whether it can be proven or not. For example, if you believe in the golden rule, there is no need to prove its effectiveness. One can just go ahead and act based on such a principle and it is most likely, your actions will turn out OK most (there maybe very rare exceptions) of the time.

However if you believe in something which by general consensus or by justified reasons to be negative to yourself, group, humanity, environment and the universe, then prove is necessary.

There is no absolute truth, as such whatever prove of truth is needed, it will be conformance against some specific framework of truth in relation to the context and circumstances for reality.

If one believe UFOs and aliens exist, then the prove will be based on empirical evidences within the scientific framework.
If X believes X killed Y, then the prove needed would be within the legal framework.
If X believes in a God to soothes one existential fears, keep in private without any potential harms to oneself or others, there there is no issue and no need of proof of god to others.
If X believes in a God that requests the person to bleed a pint of blood everyday, then it is only rational that one or others who are concerned should ask from proofs on the existence of such a god.
If X believes in a God that expect believers to proselytize, hinder humanity's progress (e.g. creationists), kill others (e.g. Jihadists), be cruel and intolerant to others, and all sort of negativities, then prove of the existence of such a god is imperative.

Thus, re whatever you believe, in the ultimate or end, the question of the requirement of proof is how will your manifested actions impact (positive or negative) on your own self, group, humanity, environment and the universe.

I was attempting to suggest that it may be more rational to accept that which evidence points to, not necessarily believe in it. ie, One can accept a proposition based on evidence regardless of whether or not they believe in it.

Mmm, Zeichner, I think you and I may have different definitions of belief or acceptance which is why this misunderstanding is occurring. According to my definition of these terms, if I accept something to be true than I believe in it. I can't accept that God exists and then believe he doesn't exist. If I accept a proposition, I believe it to be true. If I deny a proposition, I believe it to be false.

Should true belief not be saved for that which absolute conclusion exists? As you said, conclusion is only legitimate when no opposition or doubt can exist for its evidence.

Yes, true belief should be saved for that which is absolutely certain. True belief is called knowledge. If you believe something to be true, and you are correct that it is true, then you have knowledge. If you believe something to be true, and you are wrong that it is true, then you wrongly believe.

However, I believe there is no absolute certainty. I believe all claims to knowledge are really just beliefs. I don't believe anyone has "knowledge" in the dictionary sense of certainly true belief. All propositions can be doubted. Even this last sentence can be doubted. Can all propositions really be doubted? Maybe one day there will be a proposition that is absolutely irrefutable. I posit this as knowledge--I present it as fact, but in reality I am saying "I believe that all propositions can be doubted."

-- Updated June 15th, 2012, 11:45 pm to add the following --

My comments on true belief being knowledge is wrong. Philosophers have different requirements of what knowledge is, and true belief isn't a common view. Justified true belief is, but even it has it's flaws. The rest of what I said still follows, just not what I said about knowledge in the first paragraph after the second quote.