Preface First, it should be said that although the notion of “deniers”- climate science deniers, deniers of the theory of evolution, etc. are within the popular lexicon and headline news, this essay is not about any specific person or political group. The argument that I wish to make is not about politics or religion, but world-view in the sense that we perceive truth. The argument I wish to make is about the way in which people make decisions and possess understanding.

Introduction What does it mean to believe something? This is among the greatest of questions man has ever asked; what we choose to believe has implications on how we view our physical world, structure our societies, and understand ourselves. The implications are enormous. For this reason, it is important that we understand how we come to believe what we believe, and know what we know.

Knowing and Believing That which is most reasonable is the most evidence backed, methodologically supported, rational explanation for a given phenomenon. Of course, it could be the case these steer us to a wrong understanding- but they, as a body, represent the best currently available understanding that we could hope to have. This is as close as we can come to truth. I will call the understandings that we possess aligned to this criteria, the things we know. The way that we go about “knowing” is different than the way that we go about “believing”, in several crucial ways. To know something, the perception of said something is based in personal experience or trust in the process and expertise of others. In knowing, there exists evidence suggesting that there is no better, more reasonable alternative explanation for the phenomena. To know something is to have concluded that it is the most reasonable, often simplest explanation, with the least degree of uncertainty (and therefore, the highest probability of truth). It is a conclusion, not in the sense that it will not or cannot change, but a conclusion in the sense that taking all observable, perceivable, rational things into account, it is simply where we arrive. To believe something, the perception of said something is based on a desire of said something to exist. There need not be evidence, personal experience, reason or rationale. Belief can simply exist, a creation of the human mind that may or may lead to knowing, wholly outside the realm of reasonable, logical understanding. It is not a conclusion in the same sense that knowing is. As such, it cannot possibly lead to reasonable action, but that will be discussed later. Belief may be a part of the process to come to knowing something, whereas knowing is not a part of the process to come to believe something. In many respects, belief is what you have when you cannot or do not yet have knowing.

I will better illustrate this with an example. I know that someday I will die. Why do I know this? Because I understand that all biological organisms eventually break down. Not only do I have personal experience with this phenomenon, but I understand and trust the processes of countless others in agreement. Barring the incredibly unlikely event that we somehow learn to prevent people from dying, (and that I would want to take part in living forever) I know that I will someday die. The afterlife is unknown, perhaps unknowable to us while we are alive: we cannot have personal experience. The most reasonable, evidence supported explanation for what happens after we die is “nothing.” We die- our biological functions stop, and we begin to break-down: that much we can be certain about. Anything other than that lacks evidence, personal experience, and reason. Beyond that, any argument about knowing what happens when we die will lack credibility as it will lack evidence, personal experience and reason. That said, we can believe any number of things regarding what happens to us post-modem. Certainly, we may desire an afterlife of endless utopian existence, but it will remain unknown.

False Knowing False knowing is when belief, for whatever reason, passes in the mind of an individual or group as knowing. This is where belief, when confused as knowing can become detrimental. To continue the example, if we live as though we know something that we cannot know, all decisions and perceptions related, even minutely, to that false knowing will be impacted. If I (falsely) know that I will, upon my death, be transported to a mystical realm of paradise and pleasure to exist for eternity, what are the chances that I will take proper care of world I live in now? What is the likelihood that I will live healthfully and sustainably so as to live the best possible life I can while I am here? How concerned will I be with others, working to ensure that they too live as well as our society can afford them? If I base my personal morality on what I falsely believe to be right, I may spend my life working to supply starving children in a remote country, or I may fly a plane into a building killing thousands. Both are examples of the confusion of belief and knowing.

Danger of Deniers As individuals, we make decisions based on our unique history, and understanding of both the things we know and the things we believe. Living, as we do, in a social environment where those decisions impact others from our immediate family, chosen representation in government, even people living very different lives across the world, it remains that our individual actions, decisions, beliefs and understandings impact one another. Therein lies the problem: decisions made using the things we believe, contrary to the things we know (or should know), cannot be as logically sound of decisions. In making belief-based decisions, we allow into the decision-making process a spectrum of possible falsehoods. Where belief is allowed to rule over knowledge, the process of understanding can become so skewed so as to become dangerous. The people responsible for the September 11th attacks on the U.S. believed that they were doing a good and

right deed. Applying logic to this situation, it could be seen that such actions would cause themselves and the people they cared about a great deal of suffering. Without the charge of righteousness provided by belief, a conclusion that one should take part in flying a plane into a building is much easier to see as completely unreasonable. To be clear, I am not saying that belief itself is inherently dangerous. In fact, belief is a stepping-stone to knowing. The danger lies in when one is confused for the other; when significantly impactful decisions are made from belief. The capacity for belief to become dangerous lies in how much merit it is given in our individual decision making process. Thus the impetus in the making of logically sound choices as individuals and a collective, is not a question of whether or not Heaven or God or anything else one may believe exists, but whether or not individuals make decisions based on their beliefs, or their knowledge.

Necessary Belief I believe, to the point of near-certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, warming our planet and sustaining life for humankind as well of all of the other plants and animals. I have no evidence or experience to suggest that it will in fact do this. On the other hand, I have no evidence or experience to suggest that it will not do this, which it has done each day for a very long time. A reasonable reaction to this uncertainty is to believe that what has been happening for time immemorial will indeed happen tomorrow. This is a belief founded in knowing, very different than a (false) knowing, founded in belief.

Conclusion Belief is a component of the human condition. We always have, and always will believe. There is a strong argument that it has served mankind a great deal of purpose. That purpose, however, cannot be to guide our decisions in our future planning, our relations with other people believing differently and ultimately in any decisions that bear the potential to impact others.