Theory vs Belief

I had an interesting conversation last night with a friend who is a chemist.  We were discussion the difference between a testable theory and a non-testable theory, in the context of the evolution vs creationism debate.  I had proposed that everything we know is really just a theory – whether the sun will come up tomorrow, whether our child’s name is Kara, whether our favorite political candidate will or will not do what she/he is promising, etc, etc.  For some theories we have lots of supporting evidence, for others little or no supporting evidence. But all are just theories.

He suggested a different approach, and I think a better way to look at the issue. He proposed that there are theories and beliefs, and the difference between them is the attitude one holds about them.

Theories are the provenance of those who are seeking truth, seeking to figure out how the world really operates. We see something happen.  We think up a theory that might explain what happened.  We then try to figure out how to test the theory to see if it is right.  If it passes our test we still don’t know if it is right, but at least that is some supporting evidence, and we go on looking for other tests.

If our theory fails the test we do finally know something positive – we know that our theory is wrong, so we modify the theory or abandon it and look for another plausible theory.   But the motivation is to find the truth about the world, or at least to find ever better and better approximations of the truth.

Newton’s laws are really just theories, but they passed all the tests for centuries, so people became pretty confident of them and started calling them “laws”.  And in fact they are pretty good approximations for big things moving as slow speeds. We now know this theory breaks down at quantum levels and for things approaching the speed of light, and we have new theories for those conditions.

Now beliefs are something entirely different. Beliefs are things we think a priori are true. With beliefs we aren’t looking for truth; we believe we already have the truth.  And we aren’t much interested in looking for confirming evidence, and we certainly aren’t very receptive to any evidence that might challenge or disprove our belief.

In a sense the difference is between humility and arrogance. Theories are a form of humility – we might well be wrong and if so we want to find out and correct it.  Beliefs are a form of arrogance – we are SURE we are right and any other view is wrong, and we certainly don’t see any need question the belief.

In this sense then, the theory of evolution is indeed “just a theory”, as creationists claim.  Over the years a very great deal of evidence has accumulated to support the general outlines of this theory, but specific tests of it have led us to continually modify and refine it, and that process will continue, making the theory an ever closer approximation to how the world really works.

In this same sense creationism isn’t a theory; it is a belief. Creationists aren’t seeking truth – they are sure they already have the truth.  They don’t need evidence, and they certainly aren’t actively trying to test or disprove their belief.

So the real difference isn’t in the “content” of the theory or belief.  The real difference is in the attitude of the proposer of the theory or belief.  Of course it is still true that some theories are untestable, and so not accessible to scientific examination. But that doesn’t make them beliefs, just untestable theories.  And it is equally true that some beliefs are testable, but they still remain beliefs so long as the person holding them isn’t interested in testing them, and isn’t prepared to abandon the belief if it fails the test.

And of course creationism COULD be a theory, and even a scientific theory, if it made predictions that could be tested and if it were possible to falsify it -- that is if it were a theory held by someone who wanted to really test it.  And of course the theory of evolution COULD be a belief (and probably is for some people) if it were held by someone who was absolutely sure it was true and wasn't interested in testing it and wasn't receptive to contrary evidence.