Reply To: Why do you believe in Science?

OneOfMany,

Having read and re-read what you wrote I do not think we disagree on very much. What you refer to as two types of belief I would refer to as knowledge in contrast with belief. Other than each person’s certainty of his own existence, there is nothing that anyone can know with absolute certitude, yet we still employ the term “know” and “knowledge.” All knowledge is imperfect but there is a point where we assume a belief to be true to such an extent that practically speaking there is no room for doubt. It seems to me that what you are calling the first type of “belief,” I would call “knowledge.”

For example I would say “I know who my father is.” This does not mean that I am saying it is impossible that the man I believe to be my father is not actually my father, but rather that the evidence of my belief is so strong and so basic to many other beliefs that I treat the statement as absolute truth and there is no room for doubt in my mind. Doubt is possible but currently active (as opposed to knowledge of my existence where doubt is not even possible).

There are those for whom belief in G-d and Torah is comparable to my belief in my father. Such people can be said to “know” G-d exists (as Carl Jung said “I do not need to believe, I know”). I recall hearing one Rabbi say (paraphrase) “People ask me how much I believe in G-d. That is like asking me how much believe in my wife.” I am not at that level of belief regarding G-d and Torah. I cannot say that I “know” that G-d exists or that the Torah is true.

I have been examining the evidence for a Creator and for the truth of Torah (the latter being of much greater consequence), for many years. It seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of there being a Creator and the Torah being true and so I live my life based on that working assumption. I believe in G-d and the Torah, but I do not know. However, over the years personal experiences in my life have strengthened my belief such that I occasionally find myself inching towards “knowing.” But as those experiences receed into the past I return to my state of believing.

I will examine your description of the scientific method and explain why scientific induction is essentially fallacious. For the latter (if you do not wish to wait for my post) google “Hume’s criticism of inductive reasoning” or “the problem of induction.” I don’t claim that there are no answers to the question in the opening post (I myself “believe” in the scientific method as a valid means of gaining knowledge), but it is important, I think, to understand the problem.