Upon reflection I think the term I would use to describe my fundamental philosophy would be monism. This is in place of terms like theist, atheist, agnostic, anti theist, humanist etc. I would also accept some of those labels but I think my fundamental philosophical stance I would call monism. I may be using it incorrectly, and if so, apologies to any philosophy PhDs out there, but heres what I mean by that: that the universe is a coherent, integrated reality, rather than a duality ie having a natural dimension and a supernatural dimension. This means that there is a single, immutable set of laws that govern the universe and that these operate free of any outside interference. The universe is not capricious. Fundamentally, it applies something like the legal concept of stare decisis: given the same set of circumstances, the same result will follow - though there is also a probabilistic aspect in that tiny perturbations and random quantum fluctuations can introduce some randomness, but when looked at over time it is seen that these random outcomes adhere to those laws of probability as well. This means that the universe is essentially knowable, comprehensible and even, to an extent, predictable, within the limits of our senses, instruments and mental facilities. It, all of it, can be understood via a systematic process of observation, falsification and deduction that we usually refer to as the scientific method, or as I like to call it, learning. The universe is something we can learn about. Anything that we cannot learn about is necessarily not part of our reality, our universe, because we have no interaction with it. I take this stance because dualism is such an inelegant and unsatisfactory model. I can see no rational basis on which to draw a dividing line between those aspects of reality that are governed by the laws of nature and thus amenable to scientific inquiry and other supposed aspects of reality that operate beyond the laws of nature. Why is this important? The reason I care about this is because I believe that good information is a fundamental requirement for good decisions. Without good information, good intentions are irrelevant. I may have the sincerest purest altruism in my heart but if I believed that blood letting was the best treatment for any disease I would not be much use to people as a doctor. If I believe that yelling and hitting my kids is the best way to teach them to be good, I wont be much good as a parent. I also believe that most of the division that exists in the world, between liberals and conservatives, between believers and skeptics, is not because of any real difference in our intentions, in what we want for the world, our fellow humans, but because we have different information about how to achieve the common good. Some people know that tax cuts will save us all, while others know that government programs will improve our collective lot. If we could look at the evidence in a non partisan way we could come to common agreement about how to govern much more easily than we currently do. Of course there are some differences in intentions. Some people are genuinely selfish or sociopathic or whatever. But they are not the majority. Evolution has made us fundamentally a pro social species that cares about each other; recently Eben some of the worlds wealthiest people have started to realize that an unfair and environmentally unsustainable economy is bad for them too. So we all want the common good. If we could just get the facts straight we would be on easy street. The hard, and worthwhile, problem is getting there. And I believe it is made harder when some people believe that their information comes directly from the omniscient creator of the universe and is not subject to critical scrutiny. And all of that, which flows from monism or naturalism, is why I am a rationalist skeptic secular humanist. Atheism follows really only as an afterthought to these more fundamental convictions. Jonathan Dueck Nafan Lodwen, Jefé de la Martens-Koop, you are philosophy guys right? Id be interested in your thoughts. Kurt Jansen Chad Neufeldt Marcus Rempel Dan Nighswander Peter H Rempel Seth Goetzke Liliana Homeniuk may also be interested.
Posted on: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 03:50:41 +0000