On Knowledge

"I don't want knowledge, I want certainty," shouts an angry voice in the background of a track from David Bowie's "Earthling" album. The voice, straining in a distinctly old-world tenor to escape the modern din around it, is encircled in a swirling electronic clamor.

The desire for certainty is in no short supply on this planet. Many people are impatient with probabilities and likelihoods - they want immortal facts carved in stone. I suppose that this longing for perfect knowledge makes sense from a "survival" point of view - feeling safe and grounded in one's knowledge can have survival advantages. Imagine that you are in imminent danger of being eaten by a lion. Such a time is not well-suited for philosophical reflection, such as wondering whether or not it is moral to kill the lion in self-defense (it probably is.) Instead, survival depends on reflexes, on a feeling of "knowing" that what you are doing is right.

If you are willing to accept a belief from your father, you may feel that this belief is correct because it carries with it the weight of tradition and authority. I'm reminded of a cab driver I met in Columbus, Ohio who told me, "my father told me I was a democrat and a buckeye, and I said okay and never looked back." He may have been joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if he really did cling to the associated beliefs/ideals like a security blanked. Naturally, just because a belief is old or handed down to you does not mean that the belief is actually correct. Plenty of people pick up erroneous ideas from their parents and carry them forward with enthusiasm and confidence.

Many people approach their religious beliefs in this fashion - they don't want knowledge, they want certainty. They want the feeling of being correct, they want to believe that they are right. Religion provides a handy structure for this; many religious beliefs, if they are not carved in stone, take many generations to change. Thus, I would classify most religions, at least in the forms I've encountered, as slowly-evolving belief structures. Perhaps this is why religion and conservatism often go hand-in-hand. In both realms, the ideal is an esoteric structure that only barely changes with time, preferably in only superficial ways. The emphasis is on tradition, authority, and the feeling of certainty.

Interestingly, American conservatism has a strong element of self-determination and distrust of political authority, often coupled with a seemingly contradictory acceptance of religious authority. Many of the same conservatives who rail against big government have a deep religious faith which they would never dare question. The sphere of knowledge has been partitioned - some things may be questioned, while others must not be. Something in their minds makes them more likely to question some ideas than others.

This is not limited to conservatives, of course. Such a structure of mind is ubiquitous. Pick a random individual and create a "map" of his or her beliefs. Some beliefs will be more resistant to change than others. Beliefs are connected to other beliefs in a great web. This "map" or "web" evolves in such a way to minimize tension. The amount of tension in the web is the sum of the tension associated with any two beliefs in the web. The tension between any two beliefs in the web depends on how likely they are to be true together, and on how "aware" the owner of this web is of the contradiction. The web evolves toward a local minimum of tension, though either a "deadening" of the connection strength between beliefs or through a restructuring of these beliefs.

Forgive me for going on so long. I've been fascinated with this "Web of Belief" model created by the philosopher W.V. Quine. In college I wrote a paper about creating a mathematical model of this web - not for anything serious, just for some quantitative fun, of course. I'd still like to play with this model and perhaps run some simulations just for the heck of it. Before I do, I need to flesh out a few details of how this model will run. I think I'll post on that another time.

Let's return to the idea of religion as a slowly-evolving belief structure. We can imagine, on the other end of the spectrum, a belief system where ideas come and go like bubbles on the surface of a boiling pot of water. Beliefs are constantly changing with time, responding to pressure. What are the possible survival advantages of each belief system? Under what conditions is a given belief system optimal for survival? Let's jot down some properties.

Slowly-evolving belief system

• Stable, resistant to change, not volatile.
  
• Easier to pass between generations (changes little, easy to learn and teach.)
• Can provide comfort to those who feel frightened by or uneasy about rapid change.
• Believers can easily get a "feeling of certainty" by clinging to old, established beliefs.

Rapidly-evolving belief system

• Unstable, can change rapidly with circumstances.
• Harder to pass between generations (harder to learn and teach.)
• Can provide a more dynamic belief system to cope with changing times.
  
• Believers are constantly asked to question, evaluate, think. Perhaps this can lead to a feelng of "being engaged" or "on top of things."

I'm not surprised that younger people often seek rapidly-evolving belief systems as they struggle to find their place in the world, while older people seem to gravitate towards the "old stalwarts," the stable beliefs as they themselves settle into a more established pattern of life. After all, belief systems exist for our survival and happiness. The choices people make about belief are heavily influenced by their emotions.

That gets me to another pont, but I'll stop for now. Could write all day about belief....