Why does it even matter? Well, it matters, because the distinction and abiding by certain sets of rules or normative objective (or better: intersubjectively relevant) laws is what sets us apart from societies with superstition and the rule of blunt force.

I guess we all can agree that we need a basic rule and law set to govern our interpersonal and societal lives, right? Well, here comes the tricky part: What do we base this on? On arbitrary choices of on powerful person who claims to have invented truth? Certainly not. I guess the only feasible way to not get at each others’ throats is a logically, rationally and empirically well funded set of rules.

Of course I will never condemn anyone for believing in a different worldview, religion, cultural or ethnical values. How could I? I am neither powerful nor am I a fan or arbitrary choices at the expense of others.

I, for myself, believe in a couple of things that would make some people wonder if I was still right in my mind.

For example, all the shenanigans I wrote about in recent posts, about Cosmic Horror and the like, is what I think and believe is working for myself in terms of self efficacy, identity and how I can build my system.

But that does not give me the right to impose this onto other people.

The only way, I think, we can get through this thing called “life” is if we abide by the laws of what we can actually empirically prove.

Is this the only thing that can comprehensively and universally explain the world? Certainly not. but the clue is: We don’t have anything better to abide by. Because if things are not objectively (or nearly so) proven and made the base of decision, the decisions become arbitrary and they will spark conflict.

Cosmology? Well, everyone is allowed to believe in what they want. If it’s effective – why not? If you believe in the anthroposophic and esoteric cosmology of Rudolf Steiner, please do. But don’t claim it’s universal truth. Because it isn’t. It’s believing. Not knowing. Of course, Steiner and his disciples claim they have “hidden knowledge”, but can they empirically prove it? No. IF they are or were able to give empirical proof, we would have something that is reliable. And valid. And reproducable wherever and whenever you try to reproduce it.

It’s more or less the same with personal belief. I believe many things. And I believe many of these things work. But if someone can prove to me that it doesn’t work, that’s something to convince me of the opposite. Does it mean then, that everything I believe is wrong? No. It only means we don’t know. And that is something a society should not base their judgment upon. We should base them on things we actually know. And this can only be done by science and empirical falsification or (which is much harder) verification of hypotheses and theories.

How does politics deal with it? Well, I don’t want ot get too political. Only one thing: The more populistic and louder the shrieks and cries of politicians around the world get, the more arbitrary the choices, the less objecitve they’ll become, which in turn will leat to more conflict.

So: Believe what you will, but never try to convince someone of your worldview if it fundamentally collides with theirs and you don’t have proof. Otherwise it’s dogma.

Why does matters for recovery? Well, a lot of people try to convince me that “a glass of wine can’t hurt”, or “a drink once in a while isn’t bad”. Well, speak for yourselves. I have PROOF that alcohol is bad for me. I can cite PROOF that alcohol is unhealthy and an addictive substance. But I am only deciding for myself. I don’t want to convinve anyone of quitting drinking.

I only wished politics would be less dogmatic and arbitrary and listen more to scientific proof – and base their decisions on what we KNOW for fact. And not, what we don’t know.

Until next time, keep up the faith in yourself and take one step at a time.