1.1.7.6 Coherence

Version 1.3 March 2013                                         (Previous Version)

Our beliefs need to hang together and not be too inconsistent: they must be coherent.

Some would say that we must not allow any inconsistencies in our world view, but that is too hard.

We hope that our major conclusions, our overall understandings, pull in the same general direction.  This is what we mean when we say something makes sense – it fits into our overall understanding.

It is a waste of effort to attempt to do two opposing things at the same time – to go both east and west.  It is wasteful to oscillate between the two – to take a few steps east then immediately take a few steps west.  It is useful to take a few steps along one path, check out the landscape, and if it is OK, take a few steps more, and perhaps later test another path.  Over time we hope it will become clearer which path is better, but this is not guaranteed.  After a while, generally as we age, we lose the incentive to try alternative paths, even though we don’t know whether the path we are on is the correct one.

The principle of falsifiability, which applies in life generally, not just science, is a specific instance of testing for coherence, in this case consistency between an explanation and what actually happens.

To be coherent, internally consistent as well as consistent with the facts, we have to be clear.

·       Being incoherent often means that a set of beliefs is confusing or perhaps meaningless, because there is no apparent link to reality or the links are incompatible: it doesn’t make sense.

·       We must accept uncertainty and mystery, but it is reasonable to strive to minimize confusion.

Some of us who have not examined life as a whole conduct our lives in ‘silos’.  We often keep various spheres of activity separate in our daily activities and in our thoughts.  This could involve:

·       One silo for “philosophical” beliefs that we pay attention to rarely, which may include acceptance that nothing is certain, that true knowledge is almost unobtainable, and no-one is special;

·       One silo for “religious” beliefs, that may include certain beliefs that supernatural entities control the world, impose arbitrary rules for food and sexual behaviour, and advocate the Golden Rule, which we pay most attention to only when we are in our local temple; church or mosque;

·       One silo for “scientific” beliefs, which apply at school, university and in the workplace, where relying on supernatural solutions is inappropriate, arbitrary rules are seen to have no natural basis, and it is essential that we seek, affirm and act on the truth, and allow diversity to promote learning;

·       One silo for our “personal” lives, where, despite our religious beliefs, we freely sample a variety of foods and sexual experiences in our social life, often at night and on holidays, but at home and in the daytime we may try to live by the Golden Rule, at least among family and friends;

·       One silo for our “political” or business lives, as citizens, producers, advertisers and consumers, where we are less concerned with the truth, ignore the Golden Rule, behave selfishly, ignore the global consequences of our actions, and vote for our own self interest

Living with a split personality in this way is seen by others as hypocritical, and eventually by ourselves as counter-productive.  We want to be whole, not split into separate towers.

Personal integration is a sign of mental health.  This fact doesn’t provide a justification for a philosophical guideline for seeking the truth, but it is pleasing to know that the goal of consistency and integration applies in psychology as well as our philosophy.

We are all psychologically prone to reject ideas that don’t fit into our current understanding. 

o   Leading scientists have rejected new theories that turn out to be better than the old theories. 

o   Patriotic leaders in wartime are reluctant to praise the obvious heroism of their military enemies. 

o   The Catholic Church rejects the new understanding that same sex marriage is not harmful. 

o   Abstract art was initially viewed as rubbish, especially in conservative America. 

o   We are reluctant to change our life styles despite medical evidence that we should. 

o   Many politicians promote free markets to an extreme that the evidence shows is counter-productive for economic growth, prosperity, equality and financial stability. 

Both psychologically and philosophically we must remain open to discovering that our current views are inconsistent with each other or the facts, or that there are significant gaps that should be filled.

Of course we have to live with some inconsistencies, perhaps many, because we don’t have the time, energy, knowledge or desire to resolve all of them.  But as we choose the major directions of our lives, we hope to find reasonable paths on the same compass bearing.  We can do this!

In principle at least it is possible that there could be two or more world views that are more or less equally coherent, consistent with the facts as we know them and psychologically satisfying.

·       Do we need supernatural explanations to explain value?

Some people say their supernatural religious views are as coherent as secular views, if not more so, perhaps because their view includes values whereas the material world can’t.  We discuss in Part 4 traditional world religions and examine their coherence with our other beliefs.  In essence we say:

o   The belief that the material world excludes value is mistaken;

o   A belief in truth and justice precedes belief in God and is not dependent on it,

o   The good values espoused by traditional religions don’t originate from religion itself; and

o   There are too many inconsistencies between the traditional world religions and reality.

·       Does reality confirm our values are reasonable?

Some people can accept that our beliefs are reasonable enough, but say that our value choices such as diversity, love, equality, responsibility and hope are unrealistic.  Psychopaths and those who have learned to be selfish, may say these values are groundless, gutless and expose us to abuse.  We discuss in Parts 6 and 7 how we should behave in our personal practice and political lives, showing that this criticism is unsustainable.  In essence, to these three criticisms, we say:

o   The evidence from science and history, especially psychology is that we lead happier and more fulfilled lives the more we are connected to others, expressing those core values;

o   It takes as much courage, if not more, to be open, to choose these values, to face others with our defences down, as it does to face others as if they are potential threats to our self-interests;

o   The evidence also shows that we would indeed be foolish to assume that all people, all of the time, are motivated by truth and justice.  We need to be on our guard, in our personal lives and in our social arrangements, and have the courage and other resources to resist potential abuse.

We suggest that the conclusions and values that make up this Reasonable Global Way are coherent, more consistent and more comprehensive, than any other world view.