According to a top Saudi cleric, driving damages women’s ovaries. Does the fact (reality) that some people believe that make it true, if only for them? What—exactly—is the relationship between reality and what we believe? You may know people who believe that their beliefs accurately reflect reality. If you’ve been reading this blog for very long, you know that one of my recurrent themes is the need for an evidence procedure that allows individuals to base their beliefs on reality to the degree that it’s possible.
It was, for example, perfectly logical for our ancient ancestors to believe that the Earth was flat, with heaven above and a hell below. Even with mountains and valleys, until telescopes were invited, the planet seems basically flat. When we look at the moon and the sun, we can’t see whether they are globes or simply disks hanging in the sky. Discovering the reality about some things requires instruments that permit careful examination. Telescopes and microscopes allowed us to see more deeply into the nature of things. That changed beliefs for at least some people on the planet. We currently have the kind of instruments that would facilitate testing the cleric’s belief about driving and ovaries if simple experimentation and observation—such as noticing that women who drive often have perfectly normal, healthy babies—were insufficient.
It is relatively easy, of course, to be critical of beliefs held by those in cultures other than your own. It is far more difficult to examine the beliefs common in your own culture, and it’s still more difficult to examine your own beliefs to see whether they will withstand scrutiny by the best tools we have for determining whether the belief has any foundation in reality. Global Warming, otherwise known as Global Climate Change, is an example. Some believe that because the Earth has been both warmer and colder at times in the past, human activity (primarily use of fossil fuels) can’t be changing the climate now. Others look to science for evidence; such as levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and dissolved in the oceans, depth and extent of polar ice, rainfall records, and water levels in lakes and oceans; to support the theory that humans are responsible for climate change. In general, scientists want to see the “data” before drawing conclusions.
Most of the things humans argue about and go to war over are firmly in the “belief” category rather than the “reality” category. To the best of my knowledge, no two countries have gone to war over whether Mr. Everest is a big mountain. They might have gone to war over beliefs about who should own the mountain, but people tend to agree that it is, in fact, a big mountain. Geography is reality. Although borders are sometimes based on geography, they are essentially determined by beliefs. It’s natural for humans to want resources, so two groups might fight over which side of the border a river should be on, but, if one has ever occurred, wars over whether the river exists are extremely rare.
As I’ve mentioned in previous blogs, I agree with Byron Katie’s comments about arguing with reality (when you argue with reality, you lose 100 percent of the time). Most of the time, however, we navigate by our beliefs rather than reality—our mental maps rather than the actual territory. Consider the world’s religions and the degree to which those who follow them believe that their religion (but not the others) is the “one true religion.” Even within religions, various factions believe that their interpretation is “true.” In Christianity, Protestants and Catholics engaged in years of warfare hoping to force others to change their beliefs. Heretics were tortured and burned at the stake. In Islam, Shia and Sunni Muslims have had a history of conflict. Beliefs, as John Lennon said, are something “to kill and die for” (“Imagine“).
Many beliefs, such as whether the Earth is warming and the degree to which humans are responsible are testable, even if the testing can be difficult. The goal of science (at least at its best) is to improve our maps of reality. Religious beliefs, however, are not so easy to test. While atheists tend to think they have a corner on logic and rationality, they can’t prove the nonexistence of God. Atheism is, after all, a “theism”; it is only a belief. With current technologies, it is also impossible to prove the existence or nature of a deity. At best, you can recognize that your belief in a particular religion doesn’t become more true if you argue with—or eliminate—those who have different beliefs. After all, at one time, everyone on the planet believed that the Earth was essentially flat, with Heaven above and Hell below. That didn’t make the belief true.
We need to begin to recognize that beliefs are only relatively true or false. Some maps are more accurate than others, but all maps leave something out. Sometimes, what’s left out˜the missing piece—might hold the key.
