When Belief Trumps Facts

As I follow the dialogues over social issues, whether pro-choice verses anti-abortion, sex education, capital punishment, school choice, evolution, euthanasia, etc; it seems that there are some general elements that govern the discussion. Both sides of any contentious discussion claim the authority of being the rational party and basing their position on clear facts, while the other side is characterized as being unreasonable, only arguing from an emotional perspective.

Anyone who has studied informal logic and critical thinking know that a logical argument can be technically and logically correct without being factual. Any argument of substantial truth must first begin with correct suppositions, which are primarily based on factual information. More often than not the disagreements between rational people begin with a difference in suppositions between the parties.

Evolution verses Creationism is a prime example of this phenomena. The supporter of evolution presupposes that life, in all of its complexity, occurred from natural forces and events. Whereas the Creationist assumes that by the very nature of life’s complexities makes evolution impossible, thus a universal creator must have been present. Both presuppositions are based on a type of belief. The Evolution supporter bases his belief on observation, scientific experimentation and method, scientific analysis, and a belief in nature’s ability to provide the necessary resources to support evolution. The Creationist believes in a religious narrative that they base their presuppositions on. There is no scientific method to verify their position and their belief is strictly based on faith and remains in the realm of metaphysics. From a purely rational perspective, what is the correct presupposition? The answer to that may not be quite as clear as might be indicated.

Even with overwhelming evidence to support evolution, why would the Creationist still reject it as truth and fact? Our very cognitive reality is based on the development of acquired perceptions and their associated meanings. We naturally build an internal interconnected network of beliefs and meanings that responds to the stimuli of our senses. Not only do we sense the external phenomena, but we also filter it and accept that which we understand and reject that which does not agree with our sense reality. The creationist will reject all things that create dissonance and remain committed to their belief system. To reject creationism would, most likely create dissonance that would put the whole perceptional system into uncertainty and severely negatively impact personal reality. We must, for our very survival and stability, have a perceptual system that accurately reflects the world around us. Behavior and action also depend on accurately assessing and predicting the probability of success or failure. The filtering of perceptions is commonly referred to as ‘selective perception’.

Another contentious issue is that of the voluntary termination of a pregnancy. It is fairly obvious, given human history and our biological nature, why life and future life is of significant value. However, there are many variables to be considered when evaluating the arguments surrounding the issue of abortion. Key to the discussion is how we define life, human life and the value of human potentiality. Beliefs are fundamental to this issue and the starting point. Anti-abortion defines all human life differently than pro-abortion defines life. Anti-abortionists claim that terminating a pregnancy is the despicable act of murder; whereas the abortionists define it as terminating a process of development that will result in a human with limited potentiality. What are the scientific facts to support either side of the issue? The facts are slim at best and most people depend on preconceived beliefs to support their position. This has a significant bearing on the approach to pregnancy termination.

The rational approach would indicate that since the presuppositions are sketchy, that decisions should be made based on consequences of carrying pregnancies to term. The quality of life should be an important consideration. However, given the support of religionists for anti-abortion, the anti-abortion movement is sole based on a metaphysical religious belief; it becomes the least rational position to hold.  But, in this case; belief will continue to be where the conflict will remain and rationalism is of little use.

Basing any legislation on religious belief, is the most irrational of all possible courses of action. Indirectly, by adopting a religious belief as the reason for legislative action, it is fairly clear a violation of the establishment clause as outlined by the First Amendment. One must also consider that the pro-abortion position is not about abortion at all, but the power for an individual woman to make a choice about her own body. So in reality, prolife and prochoice are discussing two separate issues with prochoice advocates addressing issues of privacy between her and her doctor.

As much as possible, unsubstantiated beliefs should remain in the realm of religion and philosophy; and should not cross over to be made material in a society as diverse and complex as ours. Secularism is the only possible reasonable course of action.