The Discipline of Proving Something to be False

In a recent Time Magazine letter to the editor the scientific approach toward truth is described in a helpful manner. The issue is over whether a scientist seeks to prove that a hypothesis is true or whether the effort is to prove that a hypothesis is wrong by subjecting it to every possible attack.

Paul G. FitzGerald of the University of California at Davis, Calif. says that in the scientific realm a new idea is not accepted until it has been tested over and again. If the idea survives it is likely to be "true" in scientific terms, at least for the time being. So try to prove the idea wrong.

This discipline of questioning is sometimes seen as antithetical to the world of religion. The assumption is that religion is a matter of revelation and and is beyond question or testing. I take another stance in saying that religious ideas are so varied and omnipresent that the need to question and test is even more necessary than in the scientific realm.

It can be said that life is not long enough to do all the questioning and that real people need answers in the here and now since the individual life span is brief. I agree. One has to choose ones belief system before all the information has arrived. However, the frame of mind that keeps religion alive for individual humans is one that chooses certain beliefs for the moment while being open to next experiences and insights that may clarify the religious vision.