Chapter 1: Understanding Faith and Its Complexities

Faith is often defined as belief in the absence of evidence, but this characterization is misleading. Individuals, regardless of their level of religiosity, differentiate between ideas they accept and those they dismiss. Interestingly, those with strong religious convictions may even reject well-established scientific theories when such rejections are deemed necessary to protect their beliefs.

This leads us to consider what I term a "decision procedure" that each person employs to discern truth from falsehood. The specifics of this decision-making process, including how much is conscious versus subconscious, will be examined later. For now, it's crucial to note that everyone engages in such processes. While the act of applying these procedures is ultimately personal, the surrounding community significantly shapes the parameters involved.

Consequently, whether a group—be it evangelical Christians or evolutionary scientists—embraces or refutes a notion hinges on how effectively that idea can navigate the community's decision-making frameworks. Although a shared community can lead to general consensus, the individual nature of these procedures leaves room for conflict and dialogue regarding accepted truths. Ultimately, the collective sense of what constitutes truth within a community serves as validation for most individuals' conclusions.

This encapsulates the paradox of faith: an idea cannot attain the weight of belief unless it passes the community's decision-making tests. Meeting these criteria implies that certain attributes render the idea worthy of belief, thus serving as personal proof of its truth. Hence, the notion of belief without evidence is a fallacy.

The aim of this essay is to defend this position and illustrate that faith is not merely surrendering to an unfathomable mystery. Instead, it represents an effort to clarify the universe's nature, humanity, and our connections with one another and the world. In essence, religious faith seeks to systematize the decision procedures through which we claim to know Truth.

This essay will also delve into the evolutionary roots of these decision-making processes, which I refer to as "intuitive ontology." We will explore how our language and biology contribute to the intuitive acceptance and logical strength of religious truths.

The concluding argument will assert that both intuitive acceptance and logical robustness, far from evidencing the objective validity of religious claims, are simply byproducts of human cognition and language. This issue, which I identify as the elasticity of congruence, is the focus of Part 1.

In a remote area of Missouri, a billboard stands with a strikingly simple message: "JESUS." The starkness of this singular word evokes curiosity. Having been raised in a Catholic household and educated in parochial schools, I found this display perplexing. What message was its creator attempting to convey?

When someone claims, "I believe that Christianity is true," what can we deduce about their intention? Likely, they reference Jesus Christ, his virgin birth, his crucifixion for humanity's salvation, and his ascension. However, while these beliefs are probable, they may not encompass the entirety of what the individual, whom we'll call Smith, implies by his statement.

Even if Smith identifies as a Christian and regards the Bible as wholly true, he may not have read it extensively or might not recall its specific content. If questioned about a lesser-known biblical character, he might affirm the truth of details not found in scripture while denying others that are, simply due to unfamiliarity. Thus, when he proclaims, "Christianity is true," it becomes evident that he does not reference every tenet or scripture.

Now consider another individual, Jones, who makes the same declaration: "I believe that Christianity is true." Jones has grown up in a different context, possibly with a richer or poorer understanding of biblical texts and Christian philosophy. His life experiences may have imparted a distinct significance to his faith compared to Smith's.

If we were to compare their meanings side by side, we might find only a few overlapping concepts. Beyond those, each would carry their own interpretation of the phrase, which could even contradict the other's understanding.

The phenomenon of two individuals asserting the same statement yet conveying different meanings is not exclusive to religion. Politicians often navigate this ambiguity, speaking in ways that resonate with constituents while leaving room for interpretation. Similarly, astrologers and fortune tellers thrive on the ability to communicate vaguely yet meaningfully, allowing their audience to find personal relevance in their words.

The potential for divergent meanings from a singular phrase suggests that misunderstandings are commonplace. My perspective is that what we label "misunderstanding" is merely an extreme form of subjective divergence, with some level of divergence being typical in communication.

I refer to this tendency of language to generate varied meanings as its elasticity of congruence. At one extreme, a perfectly elastic concept lacks overlap in subjective meanings among speakers, while the other extreme has perfectly congruent understandings. In reality, most concepts exist somewhere in between, allowing for variability in understanding while maintaining some common ground.

What accounts for this inherent ambiguity in language? One reason is that language uses universal terms to refer to specific objects or actions. Whether something belongs to a category depends on how closely it aligns with the prototype of that category.

For instance, a decade ago, a humorous dispute emerged involving the Obama administration and food lobbyists over a law concerning school lunches. The contention centered on a provision that classified a slice of pizza as a vegetable due to its tomato paste content. While one lobbyist pointed out that tomato paste contains valuable nutrients, critics highlighted that the pizza's other ingredients—sugar, fat, and processed carbohydrates—contradicted the notion of it being a vegetable. This incident underscored the malleability of our concepts, revealing how those in power can manipulate interpretations for their benefit.

Another example of a fuzzy category is the definition of a "person." Does a fertilized embryo qualify as a person? If not, at what point does it become one? Many people's intuitive understanding suggests a fertilized embryo does not meet their criteria for personhood, whereas a baby just before birth does. Despite efforts to define "person" logically and consistently, disagreements will likely persist.

The vagueness inherent in universal categories is beneficial due to their open-ended nature. Restricting ourselves to particulars would complicate communication and limit applicability beyond specific discussions. The flexibility of categories encourages creative metaphorical thinking, which is crucial for generating new knowledge.

Moreover, we can abstract from seemingly unrelated particulars to form new universal categories based on shared qualities. Archimedes' legendary realization about water displacement illustrates this: he recognized that both his body and a gold object shared an abstract property relevant to volume and density.

Additionally, the elasticity of congruence stems from language being an evolutionary product. This evolutionary process favors minds that focus on features of the environment relevant to survival and reproduction. As a result, our intuitive concepts reflect environmental features accurately only to the extent necessary for biological fitness.

Consider our intuitive grasp of physics; we are constrained by fundamental concepts like causality and three-dimensionality. Even infants react with surprise to events that violate their basic understanding of physics, such as an object passing through a wall.

Our intuitive expectations arise from evolutionary pressures selecting for minds that accurately represent the physical environment, at least to a point where accuracy confers an adaptive advantage. Beyond that threshold, our intuitions may not provide clues about the mechanics of the physical world.

For example, Aristotle's view that objects at rest represent their natural state aligns with our intuitive sense due to the friction encountered in everyday life. However, Galileo and Newton's principles reveal a more accurate understanding of motion, illustrating that our intuitions can be counterintuitive yet more reflective of reality. Quantum mechanics further exemplifies this challenge, as it operates at scales far removed from those relevant to our survival.

Even when our intuitions align with external reality, they yield expectations rather than comprehensive explanations. This gap allows the elasticity of congruence to manifest in language, which we use to express our intuitive expectations. Because our expectations evolve through natural selection, our explanations will similarly rely on fuzzy concepts.

In our intuitive physics, where the rules of the universe are relatively stable, other aspects of our relevant environment—biological and social—exhibit far more variability. The fluidity of these dimensions leads to less precise intuitions, making our articulations diverge more dramatically while still appearing plausible to ourselves and others.

Thus, religious and cultural traditions, which primarily engage with these fluid aspects of cognition, are likely to remain irreconcilably diverse.

The first video, The Paradox of Faith || Ps. Michael Hands - YouTube, discusses the complexities and nuances of faith, exploring how personal and community beliefs shape our understanding of truth.

The second video, The Paradox of Faith | Allen Jackson Ministries - YouTube, delves into the intricacies of faith and belief, examining how these concepts interact with our experiences and communities.