I thank Catherine for pointing out edge.org's What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?. I see that at least Catherine, Lloyd, Lynn, and Laura have presented some of their own answers or intimations of answers. The question is certainly one of those big and sloppy ones. But it is hardly a novel one, so I am bemused by the interest that edge.org's posing of the question has generated.
The question is a tough one to answer for me because I need to fight the temptation to be comprehensive, definitive, and exacting in whatever I might write today. I also don't want to go for the most basic or obvious (for example, that I believe in the existence of an all-powerful and all-loving God or that Jesus was that God Incarnate) but feel the need to make such fundamental statements because they are in such contradistinction to the vast majority of "third culture" scientists who share what I'm guessing is the largely unarticulated (and I might add unproven) belief that there is no God.
I want to move beyond a meta-discussion. I will just throw myself out on a limb and throw out a bunch of things I believe are true but can't prove:
-
there is no odd perfect number
-
the humanities will never be reducible to physics
-
in fact, chemistry will never be reducible to physics
-
our knowledge of physics will always be limited and subject to expansion
-
Bach is the greatest composer ever
-
life is a miracle
-
love even more so