PASTOR DAVE’S MUSINGS FROM THE HEARTLAND

September 18, 2024

The Believing Brain (Part II)

In the epilogue of The Believing Brain Michael Shermer explains his understanding of the scientific method to evaluate claims people make about the nature of reality.  Shermer downplays the logic, reasoning, and thought experiments of philosophy and theology while extolling science’s employment of empiricism, evidence, and observational experiments.  Shermer believes science avoids the trap of belief-dependent realism.

Shermer is a proponent of the use of a “null hypothesis.”  Essentially, this approach assumes everything is not true unless it is proved to be true.  A person making a claim has the burden of proof, not the one who assumes that it is not true.  In some ways as described by Shermer “null hypothesis” rejects the indirect proof of geometry.  Unfortunately, some things are not subject to laboratory experiments and statistical tests.  Here “The Convergence Method,” “The Comparative Method,” and “The Principle of Positive Evidence” are useful.

My college degree is in mathematics.  My favorite area of study was geometry.  I took one whole course just about circles.  All of geometry is based on five basic assumptions.  They were arrived at by what Shermer calls “The Convergence Method.”  From a theological perspective they are accepted on faith.  What is true for geometry is also true for other fields of mathematics.

If the core principles of mathematics are belief-dependent, are not also science’s principles since they are dependent upon math?  History shows that the “null hypothesis” when carried to its logical conclusion leaves one without being able to prove anything.  Ultimately, for one to make their way in this world, one needs to make a few basic assumptions upon which to live one’s life.

To conclude this article I would like to share with you four basic assumptions that I make about the world in which I live.  First, I believe that we live in a world which has meaning and purpose in which reason plays an important part.  This assumption agrees with how Shermer sees the brain functioning.  The Bible says that we should be able to give an explanation for the faith that is within us.  Faith should be reasonable.

Second, I believe that truth is like an ellipse, having two competing affirmations both of which are true though they may appear to be contradictory.    There are some times when a person needs to be told to not talk so much so that others might get in a word.  At other times a person needs to be told to talk up more so that their ideas can be shared.  “Talk more” and “Talk less” would seem to be contradictory bits of advice.  In truth both of them can be true depending upon the situation.

In contrast to the “both/and” thinking of elliptical truth is “either/or” thinking.  The political climate in the United States today seems dominated by the latter.  The end result is gridlock.  What a difference “both/and” thinking might make as politicians today try to solve the pressing issues.

Third, I believe in the truth of the incarnation that Jesus was both human and divine – “both/and” thinking.  Theologians are still attempting to adequately explain how both claims can be true.  The answer like many ultimate questions, even those of science, finally dissolves into mystery.

Given all the possible ways our brain can find patterns for data and ascribe them agency, tradition and history provide a framework that gives guidelines for what is acceptable belief and what is not.  These guidelines are not permanently fixed, but fluctuate as new discoveries are made and new understandings emerge.  Fourth, I believe in the importance of tradition and history in understanding reality.

There is a lot to think about in Michael Shermer’s The Believing Brain.  It causes one to examine his or her own belief system, how it was formed and the nature of its content.
(This article was originally published September 18, 2011.  Comments may be sent to davidh15503@embarqmail.com.)