Occam’s
razor
As the basis for interpretation,
the Non-Sacreds consistently apply Occam's Razor.
This is a rule that interpretive and explanatory entities should
not be multiplied needlessly. It holds that the simplest of
two or more
competing theories is preferable, and that an explanation for
unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what
is already known.
For the Non-Sacreds there is always a material explanation.
For their critics, the Non-Sacreds use of the word “material” often
appears to assume a non-empirical character. It even appears
to be as sensual a term as the Stewards’ use of loving.
However, when the Non-Sacreds peer and sit in silence with their
data,
they do not feel an Omega pull, only the
Alpha push of entropy downward towards atomization.
On their own terms, the Non-Sacreds see themselves
as the only group willing to just be human.
They look at all the Big Stories and Big Answers given by those
who talk
about Revelation and other Sacred Stories as
acts of simple but wild imaginings.
While they value imagination, the Non-Sacreds discipline themselves
to listen to the evidence of the
senses and
not impose upon sensory evidence an interpretation which causes mental
indigestion.
True to their scientific heritage they prefer interpretations
and theories which are simple, beautiful and elegant.
What they receive from the other
Scientism camps they judge as just more gobbledygook.
The Non-Sacreds claim is to the clear
and obvious
results of their tradition. They ask, “Who doubts that
progress has been made in key human areas, such as medicine, public
health, longer life span, global
travel, technological innovations, down to light bulbs, microwave
ovens, and the Internet?”
The Non-Sacreds
encourage the Abrahamic and Sacred
Scientism followers to be patient. They are
infused with a relentless optimism that girds
their vision and imagination. It is an
optimism that is grounded in the history of the scientific
movement which they interpret as stating that, given
enough time, humans
can solve any
problem using evidence derived from razor-sharp sensory
knowing.
Continue—Big Answers
