Guest Column: Knowing vs. believing
Editor’s note: This Guest Column submission was not edited or altered by The Utah Statesman.
By Jim Sawyer
As an entering freshman at Utah State University under the long-ago mentorship of debate coach Rex Robinson, I placed first in a novel intercollegiate forensic competition, then-called parliamentary speaking. That year I lived with three other guys in a Swiss immigrant Mormon couple’s basement—the Hansens—on Third East near Tenth North. Soon however, my paths led away from Logan, toward a Mormon mission and beyond. [See more biographical information, below]
I became a leader of 15-20 New Zealand Mormon missionaries, called zone leader, and used the position also to steer around enforcement of a frequently preached Mormon dictum. That dictum was—and is—to testify that one “knows” the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “the true church.” Instead, I encouraged missionaries to use words more carefully, hopefully choosing, in place of “I know,” rather, “I believe.”
Believing is not necessarily synonymous with knowing, of course.
For over a century, America has stood as a bastion of science and science-like inquiry about what it means “to know” and how that stands apart from what it means “to believe,” merely. Indeed, USU is anchored as a knowledge-based institution by the Morrill Act of 1862 that was signed by President Abraham Lincoln. As such, it was Lincoln’s action that enabled USU’s founding as a federally subsidized, land-grant institution in 1888, to pursue research, education and public service, in scientific fields particularly although not exclusively.
How then may Utah State University and other Morrill Act-supported universities, and other related institutions as well, distinguish between acts of knowing and acts of believing? Illustrations from my childhood offer clarity, I believe.
With various friends—I refer to a “composite” childhood friend named Brent—we would hike in the mountains above our Ogden neighborhood, starting around Harrison Boulevard and 27th Street, near Ogden High School. As we hiked toward Malan’s or Mount Ogden Peaks, Brent and I would play thought games. Two are mentioned here to distinguish between what it means “to know” vs. what it means “to merely believe.”
Regarding the former, as we hiked, Brent and I might speculate about “what time is it?” After each had made their best time guesstimate, we’d reach into one of our day packs and pull out a watch that was set accurately to tell Mountain Time, derived of course from GMT [Greenwich Mean Time]. Consultation would confirm the winner, and the loser also. However, in a sharing way, we were likely to locate a treat in one of our day packs—perhaps soft cinnamon bears—that would be shared equally, regardless of one’s winning or losing status. So concluded our knowledge-based game/thought experiment. It seemed much more pleasant to be able to end in a state of cooperation, rather than one ending in disagreement and chaos.
However, the other Brent-Jim thought game/experiment was belief-based rather than knowledge-based, for which there was neither a “right” nor a “wrong” answer. Therefore, it could lead, not to consensus-based cooperation, but to disagreement and even friction. Here’s how that sometimes worked.
Brent’s family was far more religiously orthodox than mine, in a very Mormon sense. So, in this second belief-oriented thought game, Brent might begin this way. He might “testify” that he “knows” Mormon founder Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God, that Joseph temporarily received engraved golden plates from an extraterrestrial being named “Angel Moroni,” and that Smith translated the plates prior to handing them back to the angel for safe keeping, somewhere.
When it was my turn, however, I’d likely offer an alternative explanation of the Book of Mormon’s origin, such as this one passed down from my non-Mormon grandfather, George. Grandfather George would point out that in his opinion, the Book of Mormon is merely a belief, and therefore not a known in any scientific sense. Thus, Grandpa might conclude with this assertion, to also be passed along by me—to Brent—that the Book of Mormon is less a product of heavenly inspiration and more a product of human ingenuity, either on the part of Joseph Smith as its originator, or some other mortal human being.
What then could the Brent/Jim thought games—ongoing during arduous childhood hikes—teach one, the other, or both of us? I submit this, which I believe is highly pertinent to contemporary searching within America’s complex religious and political environs.
First, to believe is not to know, necessarily. [See for instance the philosophy of science contributions of Karl Popper.] The use of caution is appropriate in all cases, especially those in which belief-based political or religious hypotheses become subjected to public scrutiny.
Second, hypotheses that lead toward knowing are much more likely to produce consensus. Conversely, those that lead only toward expressions of beliefs rather than knowns are more likely to produce conflict.
Third, appropriate respect for one’s opponent/s and their hypotheses is crucial, particularly in belief-based situations that are not resolvable by appeal to knowns only, particularly when knowns do not exist. Thus said, one’s belief-based hypotheses, when expressed publicly, are no more likely to produce universal consensus than someone else’s belief-based hypotheses.
Fourth, scientifically, any knowledge-based hypothesis must contain, also, not only provision for its objective validation [such as GMT time validation], but provision also for its objective invalidation, as a particular situation may require. Otherwise, it must fall under the category of belief-based rather than knowledge-based.
So, where do we go from here, in our complex world circumscribed by religious and political conflict? My suggestion? That we subscribe universally to the careful acknowledgement that believing is not knowing, and therefore one’s beliefs should be submitted with humble awareness they can neither be validated nor invalidated, in any objective sense.
SO, LET’S GET ON WITH IT!
— jsawyer@seattleu.edu