POINTS OF BELIEF

My favorite class in high school was geometry.  One of the things that I took from that class was the idea that there are certain premises that are to be accepted as true without proof.  These are generally referred to as postulates or axioms.  Additionally, there are certain rules of logic for working with those postulates; for example, propositions that lead to contradictions are not allowed.  And then the whole system is built from those postulates and working rules.  I loved the course in part because it introduced me to the concept of formal logic but probably more because the terrific sense of satisfaction that I got when I was able to prove something using that system.

If only the everyday world were as neat and tidy as mathematical systems are.  When we are discussing something like, say, religion, if we could all agree on our starting points and the rules of logic to be applied to those points, perhaps we could also agree on the conclusions about  how the world works. 
The fact that there are vast differences in worldview is clear evidence that either we are not able to agree on the basic premises or that we cannot agree on the logic to be applied to those premises.  In my experience most differences in our views of the world stem from differences in our basic premises, those things accepted as true without proof, and not from differences in the arguments to be applied to those premises.

With that in mind, I thought it might be time to state what the basic postulates of my worldview are.  So here goes.

1. There is nothing beyond the physical world, operating according to a set of rules--essentially matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics that govern them.

In a sense, this is the only really fundamental postulate.  All of the following statements in some sense derive from this statement.  But I think the following elaborations better help to explain my perspective.  

2. Our understanding of the world has advanced through the principles of science and scientific research and the application of rational thought.  Reliance on authority--belief in something simply because someone or something, for example, scripture, has declared it to be true--impedes progress in understanding the world.

3. Humans created the concept of God to provide answers to questions of how the world came to be, how it works, and what our role might be.  The history of science has been one of finding natural explanations for events that had formerly been attributed to divine or supernatural intervention.  As science has progressed and answered many of the questions that the concept of God had served to answer in the past, the reasons for retaining the idea of God have continued to diminish.  In fact, there is no need to posit the existence of God.

4. The universe as we understand it came into existence in the big bang, which occurred 13.7 billion years ago.  It is not clear how the universe came into existence or why it came into existence.  But attributing its existence (creation) to a higher power is not necessary or useful.

5. Consciousness is a by-product of the electro-chemical activity of the nervous system.  It is epiphenomenal and does not have any influence on our behavior.  Most likely it is the source of our sense of free will and the soul.

6. There is no consciousness or other existence beyond this life.  Death simply represents the irreversible breakdown of our chemical organization.  Therefore, life does not have “meaning” beyond our current existence.  There is no such thing as the soul.

7. Living things, including humans, are simply part of the physical world.  Human behavior is determined by the same rules as everything else in the world.  The concept of free will implies that an individual can override what would occur by reason of the laws of nature.  Because the laws of nature control everything that occurs, free will is an illusion and does not exist.

8. One of our greatest challenges is reconciling the fact of the absence of free will with the importance of embracing and promoting the concept of personal responsibility.

I know, I know, these are not mainstream, and for many, these positions may seem really bleak.  But that’s what I have to work with, and in truth, it’s not nearly so bleak as you might think.  In any event, perhaps this provides an understanding of why I have difficulty addressing comments that assume reliance on authority and belief in a personal God.  They simply follow from a very different set of postulates.

One further comment.  After I took geometry in high school, I learned that there are more geometries than the Euclidean plane geometry that I was taught.  These other, non-Euclidean geometries begin with a different set of postulates that lead to mathematical “truths” (theorems) that are internally consistent within that geometry but inconsistent with the theorems that are derived from Euclidean geometry.  Hmmm . . . .   

So, to quote Pontius Pilate out of context, “What is truth?”

© 2013 John M. Phillips