The Fact-Value Distinction

What is "fact" and what is "opinion"? Are "values" not "real"?

[Edit: Added other related links at the end, just before the footnotes section.]

History records that over the more recent centuries in the West, particularly from the 17th onward, post-Reformation, people have been influenced to think in increasingly materialistic terms, leaning toward rejecting beliefs in the supernatural and replacing them with trust in empirically discoverable “facts”.¹

This shift in understanding carries with it consequences. If the old beliefs were indeed unrealistic, and if the empirical findings indeed proved to be true, we might expect to benefit in many ways, and such claims often are made for them.

But what if the new “facts” were not as was claimed, and the older beliefs being abandoned had been a force serving to hold society together?² For those leaving the old behind and putting their hope and trust in the developing body of empirical knowledge with its proofs and promises, the effects would become increasingly paradoxical over time.³ Another commonly-used term for what this would feel like is “cognitive dissonance”.⁴ I will use them interchangeably here.

For the unconvinced, retaining the beliefs and practices of the past, however, this shift would appear destructive.

Do you ever find yourself asking “how can this possibly be happening?” in response to something you have been experiencing or reading about? As I walk about certain of the halls of Substack I hear it often, and when I venture outside I sometimes hear the same, coming from the minority that is paying attention. When I contemplate how the world—and my own world particularly—has changed, I ask the same. But it is not enough to sit there wondering for a moment and then move on. The question must be addressed.

Experiencing paradox, or cognitive dissonance, can serve as a valuable signal. It highlights a need to stop, examine one’s related beliefs, and seek a better understanding. Until recently, however, I did not realize that the above-mentioned gradually-induced transformation of Western worldview had its own name.

One day, while cleaning out my Substack inbox (by tossing things into the “archive”), I came across a post from

David Roberts

that I had marked as “saved”, pointing to an idea that I could not quite make sense of, originally. The topic was a religious one, and one in which I have an interest, but that’s not where I am going here. There was a surprise inside.

The post, which had been sitting there for six months, was about “disciple-making movements”,⁵ making reference to three books. When I reexamined the post, I realized that the only way I was going to understand it was to read at least one of them, and so I did. It was published in 2018, and is titled The Kingdom Unleashed!—How Jesus’ 1st-Century Kingdom Values Are Transforming Thousands of Cultures and Awakening His Church.⁶

Now if that title doesn’t sound like something that would jump off the shelf (or page) at you, or if it turns you off, it’s OK. I didn’t know at first what to think either, having read a number of other books in this general subject area already, and I wondered if this one could be different. Well, it was, and I went on to read the whole thing, but that’s not why I mention it here. If you’re still with me, we’re going to take a brief look at what it might have to say about western philosophy and its battle with religious beliefs.

In the midst of chapter two, Reducing Jesus’ Kingdom to a Metaphor, there is a section subtitled The Fact-Value Distinction. It is a term that I don’t recall having heard previously, but it describes this transformation, this shift toward science that I find myself so often writing about, and it helps to account for the many expressions of surprise that I come across in my online wanderings, surprise in the form of “how can this possibly be happening?”

The way the authors of this book described the fact-value distinction was quite clear, and I have included their words below, but I also wanted to see what others had had to say about this topic and I went—where else?—to the Web. There, I encountered numerous scholarly articles—mostly shrouded within paywalls and marked with ridiculous prices. Knowing what I know about scholarly articles and paywalls, I chose to keep my money.

There were other essays not paywalled, but they were less clear than what this book has to say. Most of what I found while searching was in support of making the fact-value distinction, paradox aside, while the authors of this book decidedly were against doing so, as am I. I dug down into the search results, looking for perhaps a wider perspective buried beneath, but eventually gave up.⁷ Here is a sample, however, from Britannica Online, that is as clear as anything else I found while searching:⁸

fact-value distinction, In philosophy, the ontological distinction between what is (facts) and what ought to be (values). David Hume gave the distinction its classical formulation in his dictum that it is impossible to derive an “ought” from an “is.” See also naturalistic fallacy.⁹

Now let’s see what the authors of my book had to say. This is a rather long quote, but it is a fairly long book and I hope this will be taken as fair use. This explanation represents the perspective of those being “canceled” by the philosophers and scientists, but it does present both sides as you will see. (Footnotes mine.)

In the wake of the Reformations of the sixteenth century, religious and intellectual forces put increasing emphasis on human reason in all areas of life. Culturally, this developed into the Enlightenment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; in religion, the more extreme versions were Unitarian rationalism¹⁰ and Deism,¹¹ though even orthodox theologians tended to emphasize reason in their approaches to theology.

One critical thinker during this period was Scottish skeptic David Hume (1711–76). Many eighteenth-century Deists had argued that the world is exactly as it should be, that “whatever is, is right” in the words of Alexander Pope. Hume argued otherwise, saying that you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is.” In other words, values, ethics, and religion cannot be extrapolated from the physical world.

This was the foundation for an idea now known as the fact-value distinction: “facts,” meaning things that are empirically verifiable, are distinct from “values,” things that cannot be demonstrated empirically. Knowledge is connected to facts, and anything that is not factual (empirically verifiable) is a matter of conjecture, opinion, or faith—and thus not objectively true or knowable. Francis Schaeffer called this “upper and lower story thinking,” and it is foundational to the way that people in the modern West see the world. It even affects the way that we see religion.

By the turn of the nineteenth century, the intellectual world, once dominated by Christians, was increasingly framed in terms of the fact-value distinction; and thus, religion was dismissed as irrelevant to anything in this world—the world of fact.

To carve out a place for religion, Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of liberal theology, argued that science is the only reliable source for knowledge of the physical world, while religion provides a different kind of knowledge, based on experience and emotion, which science cannot provide. Prior to this, most theologians—and most scientists—believed it possible to have an integrated view of the world that incorporated both science and God. In fact, the leading figures of the scientific revolution thought of their work as a form of theology, since coming to understand the creation reveals the mind of the Creator.

Schleiermacher was the first major theologian to surrender the physical world to science and to limit religion to things that cannot be demonstrated scientifically. The effect of this was to relegate religion to the realm of opinion, not fact, and therefore to dismiss its significance within intellectual life.

There is a glaring problem here, and the events of the last several years have intensified the glare as the consequences of false belief come raining down upon our familiar world. What if you limit yourself to “facts” as the only “real”, but in fact these facts (especially scientific facts) to which you limit yourself are themselves in reality merely opinion, and in particular what if they are falsehoods, accidental or deliberate? The “fact-based” “intellectual” reality itself then would be a false one.

If one examines closely enough the work of the “great” philosophers of the Western world, it is laced with opinion and unprovable claims. Take the claim from above that “values, ethics, and religion cannot be extrapolated from the physical world”. I don’t even disagree with it. But it is employed as a distraction—of course these things can’t be extrapolated from within the physical world. The truth must come from outside this world, if it is a purposefully created, directed world. Don’t just assume that it is not a purposefully created world, building conclusions upon that assumption. If the assumption is wrong, all this “great” work of the philosophers is so much useless nonsense at best, and a curse upon humanity at worst.

Diverging from reality by placing trust in untrue “facts” engenders paradox, cueing the “how can this possibly be happening?” response. How? As the result of believing lies. The truth of the situation meets the lie of the deception, triggering cognitive dissonance, signaling the need for a personal assumption/belief review and clean-out.¹²

But another kind of response is available. Fear. Name calling. Confusion. “Why haven’t they been arrested?” Anger. Finger pointing. “They must be stopped.” “We can stop this.” Threats of violence against the presumed offenders (if we could work out who they are). At least I think suggesting gallows or firing squads (with or without a preceding trial) as the solution for ridding “us” of “them” could represent a threat of violence (more so than using the wrong pronouns). These kinds of responses do not address the more central problem, although they are desired responses for those promoting the deception. They distract from recognizing the problem.

Science regularly presents opinion as fact. I refer to this as “authoritarian science”.¹³ Statements coming from recognized and respected authorities are sometimes accepted on the basis of “it’s true because I say it’s true”, reinforced in some instances by the possibility of ruining one’s career in science if one disagrees. And this occurs routinely and separately from outright scientific fraud.¹⁴ Simple, effective coercion.

So then, we have fact-based scientifically-oriented thinkers regarding traditional religious beliefs as foolish and ridiculous, based upon assumptions that do not themselves qualify as facts by their own rules, while failing to notice that some of their own central scientific facts could be at least equally as foolish, or even fraudulently derived.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that scientific results are not ever of value. They do, however, vary in quality, usefulness, and honesty. The same goes for the value/opinion side.

To further clarify what the fact-value “distinction” implies, here is a table from the book. I don’t seem to have any way to type or paste a table using this editor, so I’ve included a screen shot instead. I hope it remains readable. The table formatting is not identical to that in the book, but the text should be identical (I copied it by hand). “Global North Culture” here is what I refer to as “Western”.

All the above considered, is there anything about the left-hand column that could demonstrate this set of claims to be inherently true? Is there anything about the right-hand column claims that could demonstrate them to be inherently false? But in the world’s cultures, do we not see belief systems at work to a greater degree than discernment of truth from falsehood?

Can you see the substitution that may have been made? Scientific speculation (“opinion”) promoted to “fact” and “real”. Millennia of cultural understanding, admittedly imperfect but still protective, demoted to “value” (“opinion”) and “not real”. This idea impressed upon the people through repetition, coercion, and any other effective means, such as schools teaching it uncritically to children.

Can you see the impact that such a substitution would have on this world? How have your own beliefs been “steered”?

I am not here to persuade anyone as to how to think. I do point things out, as I have been taught to do. I also encourage not going it alone, trying to work things out entirely on our own, but that is up to you. Some have discovered that we can simply ask, and we begin to receive answers (sooner or later), and that our responding to the best of those answers can be life-changing. I would call that an empirical observation, although likely not one that is acceptable to the fact-determining authorities. Is it reproducible? That would be up to you to test.

This is not magic. I would call it a 24/7 “help desk”. All languages understood.

---

My Related Posts:

• A.S.K. (Ask, Seek, Knock)

• Such Foolishness (But who's fooling whom?)

• Total Depravity? (It sure seems like it sometimes)

---

Other Authors’ Related Posts:

The Usual Disclaimer—My inclusion of other authors’ works here in this list should not be taken to be an endorsement of everything found within those works. We need not agree in everything or in most things for me to appreciate and value what they have to say.

A “similar though different view”, much more extensive than what I have written here…

Pistis Rationalis: Faith Through Reason

Other Links:

Same disclaimer as above.

• External video link: Creation vs. Evolution: The Case From Science (free; registration required at The Starting Point Project. (How factual is science?)

---

Footnotes:

1. See, for example, the section Reason and religion in B. Duignan, "Enlightenment." Encyclopedia Britannica, July 29, 2024, for an overview of changes taking place in the 17th century.

2. I am not exploring here why this might happen, but it does make for an interesting study.

paradox

noun

3. 1: one (such as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases
2 a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
b: a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
c: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3: a tenet contrary to received opinion

Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “paradox,” accessed August 3, 2024.

4. My English Dictionary - Offline has only this to say about “cognitive dissonance”:
“(psychology) a conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistencies between one's beliefs and one's actions or other beliefs.”

I have sometimes wondered what the opposite of “cognitive dissonance” would be. On this matter my dictionary is silent, but a little virtual bird recently informed me that its opposite is “cognitive resonance”. I’m not sure where the bird came up with that, but I like the term and I like the idea. 🐦‍⬛

5. Learning About Disciple Making Movements

6. Trousdale, Jerry; Sunshine, Glenn. The Kingdom Unleashed: How Jesus' 1st-Century Kingdom Values Are Transforming Thousands of Cultures and Awakening His Church (p. 39). DMM Library. Kindle Edition.

7. In my search I did come across push-back against the fact-value distinction, but it was either paywalled or it was offered through downloads that didn’t work. I encountered nothing directly exploring whether “scientific fact” could also, in fact, represent values/opinion or outright deception.

8. This is how I avoid a certain other popular controlled “_pedia”. I have a paid subscription, and some material cited might not be available to non-subscribers, paywalled! I don’t trust this source implicitly by any means, and I don’t know who controls it, but I would rather pay this one for the service than donate to the other. Many of the articles provide useful starting points for exploration, whatever their bias might be.

9. Encyclopedia Britannica, November 28, 2016, Fact-Value Distinction.

10. See for example: Holmes, David L.. The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity. Encyclopedia Britannica, 21 Dec. 2006. Accessed 24 August 2024.

11. See for example: Pailin, David A. and Manuel, Frank Edward. Deism. Encyclopedia Britannica, 13 Aug. 2024. Accessed 24 August 2024.

12. It’s akin to “eating something that disagrees with you.”

13. My term was inspired by Bob Altemyer, whose 2006 book The Authoritarians I found interesting, although things seem to me to have taken a strange turn with him in 2020, as with other academics. He died this year (2024).

I ran a search for “authoritarian science” and the results were laughable. A certain “…pedia” was at the top, of course, followed by statements decrying how “authoritarians” (right wingers, etc.) were so foolishly “against science”. And yet this problem within science is well understood by certain of those that view science as a fallible human methodology.

14. Scientific fraud is rampant, but it is not the purpose of this post to go there, beyond what has already been said. Substack abounds with reports of it. Dive in.