INSIGHTS
& PERSPECTIVES
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 12
Before we delve into Mystrikism's position on meta-ethics, it will be helpful to take a step back and clarify the terms. If you're new to moral philosophy, or just haven't had the "joy" of wading through the jargon, it's easy to get tripped up by ideas like "moral realism" or "objective morality." I will begin this exploration by laying out the key concepts in grounded terms. These are the philosophical tools we'll be using throughout the rest of the discussion, and understanding what they mean sets the stage for everything that follows. Please consider this first section a brief orientation, a practical primer on the landscape we're about to explore.
Understanding Meta-Ethics and Moral Foundations
Meta-ethics is the branch of philosophy that examines the very nature of morality rather than prescribing specific moral rules. In plain terms, meta-ethics asks what morality is and how we can understand moral values, instead of telling us directly what actions are right or wrong. It's a second-order inquiry. Instead of debating whether lying is wrong, meta-ethics examines what we mean by "wrong" and whether "wrongness" exists in any objective sense. For example, meta-ethical questions include: Do moral words like "good" and "evil" refer to fundamental qualities? Are moral truths universal or relative? How (if at all) can we know if something is morally true? In short, meta-ethics is the study of what we mean by concepts like 'good' or 'bad' and how we evaluate them, rather than deciding which specific things are good or bad. This sets the stage for clarifying key concepts, such as moral realism, objective morality, and moral rationalism, which will be defined in the following sections.
Moral realism is a meta-ethical position that holds that moral statements are not merely personal opinions or cultural conventions, but instead can report facts that exist independently of individual attitudes. According to moral realists, when we say "kindness is good" or "murder is wrong," we're attempting to state objective facts about the world, much like saying "the Earth orbits the Sun" states a fact. Crucially, the moral realist believes that at least some of these statements are true in an objective way. In other words, there are moral facts ("murder is wrong") that do not depend merely on what anyone happens to feel or believe. Moral realism stands in contrast to anti-realist views, which claim moral statements have no truth value or that all such claims are false. To illustrate, a moral realist would argue that if every sapient being believed cruelty was acceptable, cruelty would still be wrong because wrongness is a fact about the action, not just about our beliefs. Note that moral realism doesn't specify what the moral facts are or how we know them; it just insists that such facts exist. (Realists themselves may disagree on whether moral facts are natural facts, non-natural properties, divine commands, etc.) Importantly, moral realism implies some form of objective morality, since if moral facts exist, they hold true independently of individual attitudes and perspectives.
Objective morality, as classically defined, refers to the idea that moral truths or values are valid and binding, regardless of personal opinion or cultural perspective. If morality is objective, then when we say "Human trafficking is morally abhorrent," we're describing something that is truly abhorrent, whether or not any particular society recognises it as such. This idea is closely tied to moral realism; indeed, many use "objective morality" and "moral realism" almost interchangeably. There is a subtle distinction in emphasis. Moral realism is a philosophical doctrine about truth (there are moral facts), while calling morality objective can emphasise methodological independence from viewpoint: once specific moral goals are declared (such as minimising suffering), evidence-based reasoning can determine which actions align with those goals, regardless of personal opinions. For example, moral realism is the stance that there are objective moral facts, and objective morality refers to the content of those facts or principles that apply universally. A related term is moral universalism, which holds that at least some ethical principles apply to all people at all times.
A methodologically objective moralist (in the Mystrikal sense) believes that certain things (like causing unnecessary suffering) are wrong in the sense that, once moral aims like harm reduction are declared, empirical investigation can objectively determine which actions reliably undermine those aims. This opposes moral relativism, which posits that morality is relative to a particular culture or individual. While moral realism usually entails objective morality, one could imagine objective morality being framed in different ways (for instance, some theists claim morality is objective because some "god" ordains it, whereas a moral naturalist might argue it's objective because it's grounded in natural facts about well-being). In any case, both moral realists and proponents of objective morality agree that morality is not purely subjective. Mystrikism aligns with this outlook. It rejects the idea that right and wrong are 'just whatever we say they are,' but equally rejects the notion of mind-independent moral facts. Instead, Mystrikism holds that moral standards can be methodologically objective, meaning empirically testable, reproducible, and evidence-informed, once explicit moral aims, such as harm reduction, are declared.
Moral Realism Versus Objective Morality: At this point, you might wonder if moral realism and objective morality are the same. They do overlap strongly, but here's the distinction. Moral realism is the philosophical stance that there are objective moral facts (truths about right and wrong that exist independently of anyone's opinions). While Mystrikism borrows aspects of moral realism, it rejects this standard definition of mind-independent moral facts. Instead, Mystrikism reframes moral 'facts' as methodologically objective conclusions assessed relative to transparently declared aims.
In contrast, objective morality emphasises that some moral principles hold universally and aren't dependent on personal or cultural attitudes. In practice, all moral realists believe in objective moral truth in this sense; however, one can discuss "objective morality" without employing the precise terminology of moral realism. For example, a religious believer might champion objective morality by saying, "Stealing is wrong no matter who does it," based on divine command. A philosopher might classify this differently from a naturalistic moral realist's approach, but both are asserting that morality is not merely a human invention. Moral realism is a technical term asserting the existence of mind-independent moral facts. At the same time, objective morality is a more general way of saying "morality isn't just something we made up." Both ideas reject the notion that right and wrong are purely subjective.
Moral rationalism is a viewpoint about how we come to know or justify moral truths. It holds that reason and rational inquiry play a central role in ethics. Traditionally, moral rationalism (also known as ethical rationalism) holds that moral truths can be discovered or understood through reason alone, at least in principle. Classical rationalist philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, argued that human reason can discern fundamental moral principles (consider Kant's Categorical Imperative, derived through logical reasoning). In contrast, other thinkers (such as David Hume and the moral sentimentalists) have claimed that morality is primarily driven by emotion or sentiment rather than pure reason. To clarify, moral realism and moral rationalism are distinct ideas. Moral realism is about what exists (moral facts), whereas moral rationalism is about how we know or justify morality. One can be a moral realist without being a strict rationalist (for instance, a moral realist might think we know moral truths by intuition or divine revelation rather than reason). One could be a rationalist without embracing complete moral realism (for instance, by constructing moral principles through rational agreement). In everyday terms, a moral rationalist approach suggests that we should be able to discuss and justify our moral beliefs with evidence and arguments, rather than simply stating, "I feel this is right" or "It's right because tradition says so."
Moral Realism Versus Moral Rationalism: It's also helpful to clarify the difference between moral realism and moral rationalism, as these terms can sound alike but address distinct questions. Moral realism, as noted, is about the existence and objectivity of moral facts. Moral rationalism is about how we arrive at or justify moral truths (through reason). The two can complement each other; a Mystrik can be both a moral realist and a moral rationalist, believing that there are objective moral truths and that we can use reason and evidence to determine them. But historically, there have been tensions. For example, one challenge for moral realism is explaining how humans come to know moral facts. If moral facts exist objectively, how do we know them? This is sometimes referred to as the epistemological problem for moral realism. Pure moral rationalists claim that we know some moral truths through reasoning (perhaps by understanding the implications of rationality or through some form of logical deduction). Critics like Hume argued that reason alone can't motivate or discover moral values, "reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions," he famously wrote, suggesting our feelings ultimately determine our values.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 12
Our Perspective: Realist, Objective, Rational – With Nuance
Now that we have a grounding in key terms, we can lay out Mystrikism’s meta-ethical stance. In brief, Mystriks describe themselves as subjectively grounded yet methodologically objective moralists, who are also moral realists and moral rationalists, each label carrying crucial nuances. Mystrikism rejects the existence of mind-independent or metaphysical moral facts. Instead, it holds that any moral “truths” are subjective and conditional, emerging only after conscious beings declare their moral aims (such as reducing harm or promoting flourishing) and then examine reality to see what actions fulfil those aims.
In other words, moral conclusions can indeed be objective, but not as eternal cosmic commandments. They are objective in a methodological sense, always relative to the goals we choose. The guiding philosophy of Mystrikism is rooted in naturalism and a commitment to honesty, science, and justice. Accordingly, Mystrikism approaches morality as a natural phenomenon best understood through reason and evidence, without any recourse to the mystical or supernatural.
Moral Realism, Naturalised
Mystrikism asserts that there are moral “facts”, yet they are entirely conditional and relational, not objectively absolute. However, there can be correct answers in ethics; they exist as action-guiding navigations rather than as independent, metaphysical entities. Put simply, once we openly declare our moral goals, such as “we should reduce unnecessary suffering” or “we should promote well-being”, reality itself, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions, constrains what will achieve those goals. Moral assessments are therefore conditionally objective: given a particular subjective goal, we can use empirical analysis of natural consequences to determine, objectively, which actions succeed or fail at reaching that goal. Mystrikism grounds its ethical wayfinding in observable, measurable, and testable patterns within nature (especially among sapient beings, sentient life, and ecological systems) instead of in abstract absolutes.
For example, when a Mystrik says “Compassion is good,” they are not invoking some mystical property of goodness; they mean that compassion has observable positive impacts on living creatures. We can ask: Does showing compassion tend to improve well-being? Conversely, does wanton cruelty tend to cause harm? If compassionate actions consistently lead to healthier, thriving communities while cruel actions consistently inflict unnecessary suffering, those outcomes are observable facts. Such observations support the conclusion that “compassionate behaviour is morally right” relative to our declared aim of enhancing well-being (and that “cruelty is wrong” relative to our goal of reducing suffering).
Crucially, Mystrikism recognises that suffering isn’t cosmically or inherently “bad” on its own; suffering is bad only because sentient beings experience it negatively. Once such living creatures exist and we agree that their unnecessary suffering should be avoided, the harmful effects of suffering provide an empirical basis for identifying which actions are wrong (namely, the actions that cause suffering), given that goal.
By framing moral truth in this way, Mystrikism avoids the pitfall of “queer” metaphysics often associated with traditional moral realism. We don’t need to imagine any spooky, non-natural moral essences floating out there in the universe. For a Mystrik, the “facts of morality” are simply actions that improve or support health, alleviate suffering, promote flourishing, foster social cohesion, and other measurable aspects of life. Morality isn’t a separate magical domain beyond the physical world; it flows from the same natural reality that science investigates.
Similarly, just as there are objective facts about an individual’s physical health, we can discover methodologically objective insights about society’s moral health once we define what that means (for example, overall flourishing). We can gather evidence of which social practices promote flourishing or cause harm. In line with this naturalistic outlook, Mystrikism rejects any appeal to the supernatural as a foundation for morality. Divine command theories, karma, or any supposed cosmic moral order are set aside because they violate our evidence-based approach.
Ultimately, all rightful moral conduct must be anchored in evidence of its real-world consequences. Conscious beings subjectively choose our fundamental values (like minimising suffering). Still, once we have chosen those aims, we rely on the integrated principles of science, led by the scientific method, to determine which actions best advance those values. In this way, objectivity resides in our method, not in any mind-independent cosmic moral law.
Methodologically Objective, Not Metaphysically Absolute
A common critique of “objective morality” is that it can breed an inflexible “one true morality” mindset. Mystrikism counters this with nuance: it upholds core ethical principles (such as justice or harm reduction) as rationally sound, while still acknowledging that different cultures may express those principles in their own distinct ways. As subjectively grounded, methodologically objective, we temper our stance with cultural understanding, open-mindedness, and humility.
Justice and the desire to prevent harm might be seen near-universally as ‘good’ from a Mystrikal perspective; yet, we recognise that each society may express equity or implement harm reduction in its own way. Mystrikism explicitly seeks a balance here. It respects moral diversity and the rich variety of cultural values, but it also holds that some fundamental standards of ethical activity transcend cultural relativism. A Mystrik might say: “Every culture has its norms that deserve understanding. But ultimately, practices that egregiously harm the well-being of sapient beings, sentient life, or ecosystems, like ritual torture, slave trafficking, or rampant species extinction, are simply wrong. Even if a particular culture endorses them or is untroubled by them, those practices fundamentally thwart any honest vision of universal flourishing.”
In practice, Mystriks seek dialogue with differing moral codes rather than dismissing them outright. We maintain that if an ethical principle or practice can be empirically shown to promote well-being or minimise harm, then it deserves to be considered universally good (or at least universally relevant). At the same time, we remain open-minded and adaptive, treating our core values as “flexible guides” rather than rigid, unyielding rules.
By applying reason and evidence to shared goals, we can identify moral strategies that are consistently effective. This approach stands in contrast to both an “anything goes” relativism and a blind absolutism that ignores context or new information. For us, objectivity arises from using reliable, reproducible methods to test ethical hypotheses against reality, after clarifying our actions, rather than from any supposed infallible moral axiom. In this way, Mystrikism avoids both the rigidity of dogmatic absolutism and the rudderlessness of mere personal opinion.
Rationalism with Heart
When Mystrikism claims to be morally rationalist, it means that reason, critical thinking, and scientific inquiry are at the forefront in determining what we ought to do. In other words, our answer to “How can we find the right answers in ethics?” is: through rational examination of evidence, not through emotion, blind tradition, or mere authority. (By comparison, moral realism answers the question “Are there right answers in ethics?” with a qualified “Yes, at least once aims are defined.”)
Mystrikism firmly believes that our minds, guided by reason and evidence, can discover how to live better, but we add essential qualifications to avoid dogmatism or inhumanity. Being a moral rationalist, for a Mystrik, doesn’t entail becoming a cold, Vulcan-like logician who ignores all feelings. On the contrary, Mystrikism fully acknowledges the role of empathy and human desire in shaping our moral aims. We haven’t forgotten David Hume’s famous insight that “reason is… the slave of the passions,” meaning that our ultimate values stem from our sentiments and cares. (For instance, we care about the suffering of others because of empathy, not logic alone.) So, while Mystriks maintain that reason is crucial for ethics, we also recognise that emotion, our natural aversion to suffering, and our desire to thrive, are what give us the motive to care about morality in the first place.
Thus, Mystrikal moral rationalism is both naturalistic and evidence-friendly. We begin with the subjective values that come naturally to us as human beings (such as wanting to avoid pain and foster joy), and then use objective evidence and rigorous reasoning to determine the best way to achieve those valued outcomes.
For example, a Mystrik will eagerly draw on data and research from psychology, sociology, medicine, economics, ecology, and any other field that can show what actions and policies increase happiness, health, and social flourishing, or conversely, what minimises suffering and dysfunction. This approach mirrors modern secular perspectives (such as that of philosopher Sam Harris), which treat morality as an extension of rational inquiry into well-being.
However, being rational about morality doesn’t mean becoming robotically calculating or devoid of feeling. Mystrik values include compassion, empathy, and a deep concern for life as core components of what it means to “live well.” You could say Mystrikism’s rationalism has a heart: our reasoning is used to amplify and implement the best of our humane instincts, not to override them. Reason helps ensure that our compassion is practical and that our pursuit of justice is grounded in facts, not to replace it, but to complement and enact the compassionate motivation itself.
Consider a concrete scenario. A Mystrik might use careful data analysis and logical argument to advocate for a policy that alleviates extreme poverty, citing evidence from developmental economics and social science that reducing poverty improves well-being across society. However, the driving motivation behind this evidence-based advocacy is a profoundly empathetic desire to minimise suffering and injustice.
This fusion of heart and mind, compassion and rational evidence, helps us avoid the pitfalls of both extremes. On one hand, we reject a hyper-rational ethics that dismisses emotion (the kind of sterile logic that could justify cruel outcomes just because “the math works out”). On the other hand, we also reject a purely sentimental ethics that feels deeply but fails to think clearly. Mystrikism recognises that our moral journey often begins with empathy, caring about the pain of others, valuing fairness, and a desire for a better world. However, it insists that we must then critically examine and refine those initial instincts through verification, falsifiability, evidence, and logical coherence.
Honesty is another core virtue in this process. We strive to be truthful with ourselves about what the evidence shows, even if it challenges our prior assumptions or society’s sacred traditions. For example, a Mystrik will not accept a claim like “This practice is good because our ancestors did it” without investigating its real-world consequences. We approach moral questions much like any scientific hypotheses: propose a value or rule (“I hypothesise that generosity improves society”), then test it against reality (do communities that encourage generosity have better outcomes than those that don’t?), and remain willing to adjust our views according to what we discover.
To sum up Mystrikism’s meta-ethic: morality is “real” in its effects. It can be objectively analysed once we specify our goals, and it is something we can understand and improve through reason. However, like all complex phenomena, morality is also nuanced, context-dependent, and centred on the well-being of conscious life rather than on any abstract perfection.
Mystrikism thus presents itself as a kind of enlightened naturalism in ethics. It draws from the same well of evidence-based thinking that drives science, guided by the aim of promoting flourishing and reducing needless suffering. This outlook stands in contrast to both pure moral relativism (which Mystrikism critiques for offering no firm stance against even the most obvious harms) and to any fundamentalist moral absolutism that ignores context, evidence, or compassion.
Mystriks see themselves as walking a middle path, one that honours both the universal and the particular, the principle and the flexible exception, the reason and the empathy. This approach captures the best aspects of moral realism, moral objectivism, and moral rationalism without falling prey to the typical pitfalls or extremes of those positions. In short, Mystrikism strives to avoid both blind dogmatism and uncritical sentimentality, instead championing a balanced moral realism that is conditionally objective, evidence-informed, and compassionately rational. The result is an ethical framework that is firm in its core values, such as reducing harm and fostering well-being, yet humble and open to growth, always ready to update its conclusions as we learn more about ourselves and our world.
Clarifying Mystrikism’s Moral Subjectivity and Objectivity
In Mystrikism, subjectivity refers to our consciously chosen moral goals, such as promoting well-being, reducing unnecessary suffering, or fostering sustainable flourishing. These aims are inherently subjective; they arise from conscious minds and are selected, rather than discovered. Objectivity, in this context, refers to a scientifically methodological, evidence-guided process directed toward achieving those subjective aims. Once such goals are declared, the Integrated Principles of Science can provide conditionally objective, empirically testable answers about which actions best fulfil them. This is what Mystrikism means by “Subjectively-Grounded, Methodologically-Objective Morality”: a system where moral aims are subjective, but the means of pursuing them are conditionally objective, using evidence-based, reproducible, and naturalistically grounded methods to guide action.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 12
Engaging with Key Critiques in Meta-Ethics
Any robust meta-ethical theory should address the classic challenges philosophers have raised. Mystrikism is no exception; we actively grapple with various critiques of our moral realist, objective, and rationalist stance. Here we’ll consider a few big ones, along with The Union’s responses:
The Is–Ought Gap: David Hume famously argued that you cannot derive an “ought” (a prescriptive claim about what should be) directly from an “is” (a statement of fact) without adding a value premise. In other words, simply describing how the world is will never tell us what we ought to do unless we first decide what we care about. Mystrikism fully acknowledges this challenge. If a Mystrik were to say, “Science shows X promotes well-being, therefore X is good,” one might ask, are we sneaking an unspoken value into that argument? Mystrikism’s answer is to be explicit about the value; it starts from the foundational premise that well-being is worth pursuing and suffering is worth avoiding. Given this near-universal value (virtually all life naturally prefers flourishing to suffering), facts about what causes harm or benefit become directly relevant to what we should do. In Mystrikism, this means that once the aim of reducing suffering is explicitly adopted, the question of how to act shifts from philosophical debate to empirical investigation, allowing evidence-based conclusions that are methodologically objective, though not metaphysically absolute.
For example, suppose data shows that accessible healthcare improves community health and reduces needless suffering. In that case, the factual claim (healthcare improves well-being) combined with our shared value that well-being matters gives a clear ought: we ought to support healthcare. In short, Mystrikism bridges the is–ought gap by openly embracing a foundational value, namely, that suffering is bad and should be minimised. Some critics claim we’re smuggling the ‘ought’ in through the back door, but we Mystriks wear that openly. We start with well-being because it’s a virtually universal value that all life naturally shares. Mystriks respond that this particular premise is about as reasonable and uncontroversial as it gets. Who genuinely thinks suffering is good, especially when they themselves are the ones suffering? Starting from “suffering is bad” (a point that is hard to deny when one is in pain), it follows that once we know the facts of reality, we can indeed figure out what we ought to do to reduce suffering or increase happiness. In essence, Mystrikism meets Hume’s challenge by openly declaring well-being as a foundational (though subjectively chosen) aim. Once this aim is declared, moral ‘oughts’ become empirically answerable through observation of how actions impact the real-world flourishing or suffering of sentient beings. This approach treats moral questions as conditionally objective and method-based, not metaphysically grounded. It acknowledges that we must begin with a value (the desire of sentient beings to avoid pain and seek flourishing), but given that starting point, empirical evidence and reason can tell us how to act. While some philosophers may still debate whether this fully resolves Hume’s challenge, we Mystriks view it as a functional and honest bridge between values and facts. As long as we accept the foundational value of well-being, determining our moral duties becomes an evidence-based endeavour rather than a mysterious leap of faith.
Mystrikism thus reframes moral inquiry as practical navigation: once a subjective aim, such as harm reduction, is chosen, reality provides conditionally objective constraints on which actions succeed or fail. The objectivity in Mystrikism’s ‘oughts’ arises from empirical method, specifically methodologically objective processes applied after declared aims, not from the universe possessing inherent moral preferences.
Evolutionary Debunking Arguments: Another common challenge comes from evolutionary psychology. If our moral instincts are primarily shaped by evolution, does that mean our moral beliefs are just survival tools rather than truths? For example, maybe humans mostly disapprove of murder because groups that discouraged killing each other survived better, not necessarily because murder is objectively wrong. If evolution programmed us to feel certain acts are “wrong” merely for reproductive advantage, how can we trust those feelings as evidence of real moral truth? In short, is our sense of right and wrong just an adaptive illusion? Mystrikism addresses this worry by acknowledging the evolutionary origins of our moral feelings but denying that this makes morality arbitrary. Yes, many basic moral tendencies, such as empathy, fairness, and loyalty, are products of both evolution and cultural learning. This likely explains why core values (like caring for others and condemning unfairness) are so widespread and deeply ingrained in us. From a Mystrikal perspective, evolution equipped us with prosocial instincts because those instincts tended to enhance well-being and cooperation in groups, and those outcomes are precisely what a sound morality would favour anyway. However, Mystrikism does not treat evolutionary outcomes as sufficient proof of moral truth. Instead, evolutionary tendencies serve as a useful but fallible heuristic: instincts are evaluated against declared moral aims using evidence and reason, rather than being automatically treated as morally correct. In other words, evolution was a mechanism that helped our species and societies develop effective moral practices. For instance, tribes that valued kindness and reciprocity generally fared better, which hints that kindness and reciprocity are genuinely better for living creatures. Far from undermining morality, evolutionary science provides evidence that certain behaviours (helping family and relations, treating others fairly, etc.) promote survival and flourishing. This reinforces Mystrikism’s position that behaviours can be conditionally and methodologically identified as beneficial relative to the declared aim of fostering well-being. However, Mystrikism acknowledges that such identifications are contingent on the existence of valuing minds and are not metaphysical absolutes. Mystrikism, being a naturalistic philosophy, welcomes these findings and treats morality itself as a natural phenomenon that has evolved to improve social well-being.
That said, Mystrikism is careful not to assume that everything “natural” is automatically good. Evolution may have given us empathy, but it also gave us less desirable impulses (tribalism, aggression, xenophobia) that might have been useful for survival in the past. Not every evolved tendency is morally ideal. This is where human reason and reflection come in. We can examine our instincts and ask which ones truly lead to well-being in today’s world and which ones cause unnecessary harm. We are not slaves to our genes; the mere fact that a feeling or behaviour is “natural” does not justify it. Mystriks still ask of each impulse, “Does acting on this promote health, happiness, and flourishing in the real world?” If yes, then that instinct aligns with the objective good (and we can embrace it). If no, for example, perhaps being aggressively xenophobic helped some early tribes survive. Still, in the modern world, it only creates needless conflict and suffering, so we have good reason to resist or reform that impulse. Mystrikism thus accepts our evolutionary background without accepting evolutionary whims as the final word. Instead, it uses rational evaluation and compassion as lenses to decide which evolved drives to keep and which to override. By doing so, it overturns the evolutionary debunking argument. Even if our moral intuitions evolved, we can still achieve genuine moral knowledge by testing those intuitions against evidence and reason. It’s analogous to our physical senses; our eyes and ears have also evolved, yet they generally provide us with real knowledge about the world (even if not perfect). Just because vision is an evolved trait doesn’t mean the world we see is an illusion; likewise, just because empathy evolved doesn’t mean the statement “cruelty is bad” is false. If anything, the evolutionary success of empathy suggests that kindness is profoundly beneficial for us, which is precisely what we mean when we say kindness is “good.” In the end, Mystrikism invites us to refine the raw moral material evolution has handed us. Using science and ethical reasoning, we aim to maximise those inherited tendencies that support flourishing, using empirical evidence to guide methodologically objective judgments about which behaviours align with our declared moral aims. In Mystrikism’s view, moral conclusions are not metaphysical facts about the universe, but action-guiding judgments derived from evidence, relative to consciously chosen, ethically sensible goals such as reducing suffering. In other words, Mystrikism explicitly rejects the notion that suffering is intrinsically or universally ‘bad’ outside of minds that can value or experience it. However, once such minds exist and well-being is declared as an aim, the question of how to act becomes a matter of empirical investigation constrained by reality.
Reaffirming Method-Based Objectivity: At every step, Mystrikism treats morality not as the discovery of mind-independent moral truths, but as disciplined, evidence-based navigation towards declared, value-laden goals. Objectivity arises through method, which involves identifying what reliably works or fails to achieve the chosen aims, such as harm reduction, within the physical constraints of nature.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 4 of 12
Moral Disagreement and Relativism: People across different cultures and historical eras have profoundly disagreed on moral questions; one society's virtue has often been another's vice. At first glance, this widespread disagreement might undermine the idea of an objective morality. If even wise people or whole civilisations can't agree on what's right, does anything like moral truth really exist? Mystrikism tackles this concern in a nuanced way. First, it acknowledges the full complexity of moral diversity. Mystriks don't pretend that all cultures secretly agree or that differences are just superficial. Appreciating cultural context is part of Mystrikism's ethical thinking. However, we do not conclude from disagreement that "anything goes." Instead, Mystrikism seeks underlying common ground and, using methodologically objective criteria, particularly observable effects on well-being relative to declared moral aims, to evaluate different moral positions.
From a Mystrikal perspective, many moral disagreements turn out to be about surface practices rather than fundamental values. For example, one culture might show respect for elders by bowing, while another shows respect through the use of particular language or gestures. These customs differ, but behind them both is a shared core value of respect for one's elders. Mystrikism would argue that behind these customs lies a shared core value (e.g. respect for elders) that is virtually universal among humans and objectively beneficial relative to our common nature, even if its expression varies by culture. We hold kindness, fairness, and harm reduction to be sensible and rational moral goals, not merely cultural artifacts, but empirically justifiable aims rooted in the shared structures and needs of living systems." In cases where a cultural practice appears to violate Mystrikism's core metrics of well-being, Mystriks respond with respectful yet truth-seeking dialogue. Through cross-cultural understanding and empirical investigation, we can often discover whether a practice is harmful or beneficial. For instance, say a traditional ritual causes significant injury or trauma. Locals might defend it as part of their heritage, but measurable evidence of suffering gives Mystriks a rational basis to gently advocate for change. We would do so tactfully, with respect for the community and an aim to offer alternatives that preserve cultural values without harm. Still, we stand firm on the principle of reducing needless suffering.
Mystrikism handles the tension between moral tolerance and moral universalism by essentially saying, "We respect cultural differences… but we also hold that once goals like reducing suffering and supporting flourishing are declared, certain actions can be objectively identified as beneficial or harmful based on empirical evidence, regardless of cultural context." A Mystrik faced with a moral disagreement will likely ask, "How does each side's approach affect the well-being of the people (or animals) involved? Can we measure or at least objectively assess the outcomes?" By applying well-being as a declared and evidence-assessable aim, we aim to move the debate from subjective opinion toward methodologically objective conclusions about harm and benefit. If one culture permits a practice that reliably causes illness, trauma, or social breakdown, and another culture forgoes that practice and enjoys healthier, happier lives, those facts are not dismissed as "just their opinion", they strongly indicate that the former practice is objectively worse for sentient beings, despite any cultural justifications offered in its defence.
At the same time, Mystriks practice epistemic humility. We recognise that some moral conflicts are difficult to resolve, and we admit we might not have all the answers. When people's values seem to fundamentally clash or evidence is lacking, even an objective-minded Mystriks might not be able to declare a quick winner. In such cases, disagreement isn't taken as proof that "nobody is right," but rather as a chance to learn more. Mystriks will keep the dialogue open, seek more information, and try to understand why each side holds its view. Further investigation may reveal that the sides actually share a value but interpret facts differently, or one side is considering a type of harm the other has overlooked. By examining why the disagreement exists, clarifying definitions (many moral disputes turn out to involve people using the exact words in different ways), and accumulating evidence, Mystriks hope to inch closer to the truth over time. Some disputes may persist, but even then Mystrikism maintains that, relative to our declared aims, there is a fact of the matter, even if it's very complex or currently beyond our knowledge. Mystrikism's rejection of extreme moral relativism is not based on claiming absolute moral facts, but on maintaining that, relative to transparently stated moral aims, actions can be reliably assessed through empirical evidence and reason.
We often sum up our view of moral disagreement as 'unity in core values, diversity in benign expressions.' It rejects extreme moral relativism. Certain things, for example, torturing someone for pleasure, are universally regarded as wrong in all human societies when judged by their impact on well-being. Yet it equally rejects a dogmatic "one-size-fits-all" moral imperialism. Mystriks strive to understand cultural nuances and work with diverse communities in applying moral principles, as long as the fundamental aim of reducing suffering is met. This nuanced stance enables Mystrikism to claim the existence of objective moral navigations (once our moral aims are defined) while remaining respectful and sensitive to the rich diversity of life and human culture. Complex disagreements are approached with both conviction (that evidence and core values matter) and humility (that we must continue to listen and learn), which is how Mystrikism navigates the challenging waters of moral relativism.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 5 of 12
Challenges to Moral Knowledge (Moral Epistemology): Even if one supposes there are objective moral facts, we face a practical challenge: how would we discover or know them? We don't have a literal "moral microscope" to directly observe moral truths in the way we can observe bacteria or electrons. Our moral judgments can also be influenced by biases, personal prejudices, cultural conditioning, and emotional reactions, which may cloud our perception of the truth. Mystrikism tackles this problem by analogy to scientific inquiry. We often cannot perceive things like germs or distant galaxies with our bare senses, yet we have discovered them through careful use of instruments and experiments. Likewise, moral facts might not be directly visible, but we can investigate their effects. Mystriks propose that by defining the good in terms of well-being, a declared moral goal, we can use empirical methods to guide us toward methodologically objective moral judgments.
To illustrate, think of testing a medical hypothesis. We ask, does a treatment improve a patient's health or not? Similarly, for a moral hypothesis (say, "Policy X is good"), Mystriks would ask, What are the results of Policy X? Does it lead to better health, happiness, and social cooperation, or does it result in suffering, conflict, and misery? We gather data and observe outcomes. Over time, through careful observation, measurement, and reasoning about cause and effect, we can answer many moral questions with a high degree of confidence. These answers are conditional on our stated moral aims and remain open to revision, yet can achieve method-based objectivity grounded in empirical evidence. In other words, we use evidence as a bridge to knowledge about right and wrong. Mystrikism employs what we call methodological anchors: concrete, measurable indicators of well-being that serve as empirical proxies for assessing which actions reliably align with our moral goals.
For example, consider the moral question of how we ought to treat the environment. We can collect data on pollution levels, species extinction rates, and the effects of climate change on communities belonging to all forms of life. If a specific action (such as the large-scale destruction of a rainforest) leads to poor outcomes on all these measures – polluted water, loss of biodiversity, or harm to local economies and ecosystems - those facts are strong evidence to a Mystrik that the action is morally wrong. Conversely, if a practice (say, sustainable forestry or reforestation) results in cleaner air and water, preserved wildlife, and healthier communities, those positive outcomes count as evidence that the practice is morally right in that context.
Of course, moral facts aren't carbon copies of scientific ones. Moral truths involve values and "oughts," which aren't directly observable in a test tube. However, Mystriks maintain that by focusing on well-being (a factual matter, at least in part), we make moral questions empirically tractable. We won't see "goodness" under a microscope, but we can see indicators of health, suffering, fulfilment, and so on. By treating increases in well-being as evidence of moral rightness and increases in suffering as evidence of wrongness, we apply the tools of science and rational inquiry to ethics. This approach also counters the notion that a special, mystical intuition is required to discern right from wrong. On the contrary, Mystrikism suggests that we can employ ordinary ways of knowing, including our senses, ability to gather data, logic, and reason, to address moral questions just as we do in medicine or engineering.
Of course, measuring something like "well-being" is not perfectly straightforward. Mystriks are well aware that you can't capture all of morality with a single metric or number. Because of this, we rely on multiple lines of evidence and a plurality of metrics to judge moral outcomes. We might examine health statistics, psychological surveys of happiness or distress, levels of violence or crime, educational scores, economic data, pollution levels, and other relevant factors, depending on the issue at hand. If all these independent measures consistently show that Option A leads to significant suffering. At the same time, Option B leads to greater flourishing, so we have a strong, evidence-based case that Option B is morally better than Option A.
Throughout this process, Mystrikism remains humble and fallibilist (open to being wrong). The community acknowledges that our current best answer to a moral question might be flawed or incomplete, and new evidence or arguments could change our conclusions. But in the Mystrikal view, this isn't a weakness; it's precisely how knowledge should work. Just as medical science improves by questioning itself and incorporating new findings, moral knowledge can improve over time by remaining open to revision. As Mystriks, we hold that knowing right from wrong is akin to learning facts about health. We gather evidence, employ rational analysis, and continually update our understanding of the situation. By doing so, we can refine our moral conclusions over time, increasing their accuracy relative to our well-being criteria, rather than giving up or relying on unexamined intuitions.
Open Question Argument: A famous puzzle in meta-ethics is attributed to G. E. Moore, known as the Open Question Argument. Moore pointed out that no matter what natural thing you say "good" is (whether it's pleasure, well-being, or something else), someone can always ask, "Okay, but is that thing good?" For example, if you claim "Good means whatever causes pleasure," it's still sensible for someone to ask "Is pleasure really good?" The fact that this follow-up question isn't nonsense implies that "good" might not be completely definable in natural terms; there's always an "open" question left. In short, for any proposed natural definition of goodness, it remains meaningful to doubt it, suggesting that moral goodness may be something irreducible.
Mystrikism's approach to this challenge is practical and deflationary. It defines "good" as whatever promotes the well-being of living creatures, and then makes clear that this is what we mean when we say something is "good." If someone asks, "But is well-being really good?" a Mystrik would say the question loses its bite once we clarify what we're talking about. When we say something is "good" in a moral sense, we're talking about what fulfils the needs and desires of sentient beings and ecosystems (helping them flourish rather than suffer). Given that understanding, persistently asking "Yes, but is that truly good?" starts to sound like a hollow exercise. To drive the point home, a Mystrik might invite the questioner to perform a simple thought experiment, imagine a life filled with nothing but extreme suffering, and compare it to a life filled with happiness and fulfilment. In Mystrikism's framework, this reflects not the discovery of metaphysical moral facts but the recognition that once well-being is established as a goal, evidence about what promotes or hinders it yields actionable, methodologically objective conclusions. Which life would you choose as better or more desirable? The answer is obvious: any creature that can feel would prefer the life of happiness over the life of misery. Mystrikism argues that this preference is so fundamental that it forms a self-justifying foundation for morality. In other words, calling well-being "good" isn't arbitrary; it directly ties to what living beings inherently value. The concept of "good" is rooted in the reality of what it means for a sentient life to thrive.
This perspective doesn't prove, in a strict logical sense, that "well-being = Good" (philosophers can always raise abstract doubts). Still, it suggests that once we speak of flourishing and suffering, the supposedly "open" question, "Is well-being really good?", is asking, "Is the thing that is good for beings good for them?" Mystriks would say that's a pointless tautology. Of course, well-being is good in the moral sense, because "good" refers to those conditions under which beings thrive. To put it another way, Mystrikism holds that by defining the good as well-being, it isn't dodging the Open Question so much as explaining why the question doesn't need to trouble us in practice. Yes, a clever philosopher can always abstractly ask the question again, but Mystrikism's view is that such doubt has no practical traction. Once you agree that morality aims to make lives better (and virtually everyone, if honest, wants a better life rather than a worse one), then continuing to ask "But is better really good?" doesn't lead anywhere helpful. It's like asking, "We know health is what makes a body function well, but is being healthy really good for you?" The question answers itself once you understand the definitions.
In everyday moral reasoning, no one genuinely prefers pain and suffering for their own sake, to satisfy philosophical doubt. That's why Mystriks consider Moore's Open Question as a theoretical curiosity that doesn't undermine our naturalistic definition of good. We acknowledge that a sliver of theoretical doubt might always remain; you could always say, "Well, what if well-being weren't good?" as a linguistic game, but this has no real impact on how we should live our lives or make ethical decisions. Practically speaking, identifying "good" with the well-being of living creatures closes the question. (After all, if someone still insisted that maximising well-being might not be "truly" good, one could ask in return, what alternative definition of "good" could make sense, if not something to do with the quality of the lives of living creatures?) Thus, while remaining open to refining details (Mystriks are willing to adjust our understanding of well-being if our knowledge of psychology or the needs of all life deepens), we treat the core equation of good = fostering well-being as settled for all functional purposes. The endless philosophical "what if ", "but is it REALLY good?", is acknowledged, but ultimately set aside as irrelevant to practical morality.
In summary, Mystrikism addresses meta-ethical challenges by reaffirming its core principles: naturalism, empiricism, justice, and compassion. It seeks to show that we can have a morality that is objectively assessable (not purely subjective), grounded in empirical reality, without succumbing to dogma. Yes, there are complicated problems: how to bridge facts and values, how to account for evolution's influence, how to handle disagreement, how to know moral truths. Still, Mystrikism provides at least an outline answer to each, rooted in the idea that reality (through science and rational inquiry) is our ally in moral exploration. Rather than undermining morality, science and reason illuminate it. And rather than endorsing pure relativism, Mystrikism asserts that our shared human nature provides common needs and vulnerabilities, which, once moral aims are declared, allow for empirically testable, methodologically objective moral guidance. The Mystrikal approach encourages approaching ethical complexities with both conviction and humility, conviction in the core values that reduce suffering and enhance flourishing, and humility in recognising the limits of one's understanding and the need to keep learning from others and evidence. This perspective aims for a world where morality isn't a guessing game or a battleground of mere opinions, but a collaborative, ever-improving pursuit of well-being for all living creatures, a world where "good" can be as real as health, and discovered with similar honesty and care.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 6 of 12
Contrasting Mystrikism with Other Meta-Ethical Theories
To put Mystrikism’s nuanced, methodological moral realism into context, it is helpful to briefly consider some alternative meta-ethical theories, compare our stance with them directly, and clarify why Mystriks don’t subscribe to them. Several influential viewpoints in meta-ethics fundamentally disagree with the idea of objective moral truth:
Emotivism: is the view that moral statements don’t report facts at all but instead express our feelings or attitudes. According to an emotivist, saying “Charity is good” is basically like cheering “Hooray for charity!”, and saying “Stealing is wrong” is like saying “Boo, stealing!” In this theory, moral language is not about describing the world; it’s about influencing others’ behaviour or venting one’s emotions. This perspective has a certain appeal; it highlights the apparent truth that we invest a great deal of emotion in our moral statements. Philosophers like A. J. Ayer famously defended versions of emotivism as a way to explain why moral debates are often closely tied to emotion. However, Mystrikism ultimately rejects emotivism. Mystriks argue that moral discourse is more than just a series of cheers and boos. While we agree that we often feel strongly about moral issues (indeed, passion is a big part of why we care about right and wrong), we insist that when we make moral claims, we are also aiming at something true or false about the world. In the Mystrikal view, to say ‘stealing is wrong’ isn’t merely to say ‘I dislike stealing’; it is to assert that, once the moral goal of supporting well-being is declared, there is a methodologically objective, evidence-supported reason why stealing warrants disapproval, within the system of valuing minds. This objectivity is relational and procedural, not metaphysical (for example, because stealing undermines trust and harms the well-being of others). Emotivism, we contend, oversimplifies morality by stripping away this truth-seeking aspect and reducing moral talk to simple expressions of feeling.
Mystrikism wants to preserve the normativity and rationality of moral discourse. It’s certainly true that our emotions play a role in how we discuss ethics – for instance, we often feel anger at injustice. However, Mystriks point out that these emotions usually correspond to factual matters (we feel anger at injustice because someone is being harmed unfairly). In other words, our moral emotions typically latch onto real features of a situation (such as harm, inequality, or betrayal). Because of this, Mystriks maintain that moral statements are not merely emotive exclamations; they are claims that can be examined, debated, and potentially verified by exploring the world. We can debate whether stealing in a particular case causes harm or erodes social trust, and that argument is based on facts and reasons, not just emotions. If emotivism were entirely correct, such rational moral debate wouldn’t make sense – it would be like arguing over “boo” versus “hooray,” which is pointless. But in practice, we find moral debates meaningful and often progressive (we can be persuaded by evidence or logic that changes our moral views). That only makes sense if moral statements carry cognitive content, which is why Mystrikism rejects pure emotivism. In summary, while emotivism insightfully reminds us that emotions are intertwined with morality, Mystrikism holds that moral claims are also about objective matters (namely, the impacts on well-being). Therefore, they can be true or false, not just expressions of our feelings.
Moral Relativism/Constructivism: are families of theories that hold that humans don’t discover moral truths so much as we create them. A cultural relativist, for instance, argues that each society determines its morals and that there’s no objective standard above culture; what is considered “right” means “right according to our traditions,” and it could vary significantly in another society. A constructivist, in a more philosophical sense, might argue that moral principles result from some form of rational negotiation or agreement among people (or hypothetical ideal agents). In either case, morality is essentially seen as a human construction. Our values are made by us (through culture or choice), not found in the fabric of the universe. These viewpoints offer a vital insight; they remind us that many specific rules and customs do arise from human culture and can vary widely across time and place. Mystrikism acknowledges this much: we recognise that people often invent the details of their moral codes, which explains the diversity we see around the world. However, while these views raise valid questions, they ultimately fall short of our standards because, lacking a foundation in honesty, evidence, and universal well-being, they drift into arbitrariness.
However, Mystrikism firmly diverges from pure relativism or constructivism by insisting that, once moral goals like reducing harm are declared, empirical evidence provides an external, methodologically objective standard to assess human-made norms. In the Mystrikal framework, that standard is the well-being of sapient beings, sentient life, and nature’s ecosystems, not as a cosmic moral fact, but as a declared ethical aim against which actions can be empirically assessed using methodologically objective inquiry. So while humans might “construct” the details of, say, their marriage customs or trade practices, those customs are objectively better or worse depending on how they affect the well-being of real creatures. Suppose a culture constructs a norm that permits something egregious, for example, a rule that says enslaving a minority of its people is acceptable. In that case, a Mystrik will not simply shrug and say, “Well, I guess slavery is ‘right’ for that culture.” Instead, the Mystrik will point to the tangible suffering and harm caused by slavery and say that, according to the objective criterion of harm, that cultural norm is wrong. Different cultures can have different norms, but in the Mystrikal view, not all norms are equally effective in meeting openly stated moral aims. Once such aims are declared, evidence-based evaluation enables the distinction between practices that promote well-being and those that cause harm. They can be evaluated by how well they align with the “natural facts” of human (and animal and ecosystem) flourishing or suffering.
To put it another way, Mystrikism agrees with constructivism that we play a role in shaping moral practices, writing the “laws” and setting up the traditions. Still, it rejects the idea that this process is completely arbitrary or unconstrained by reality. In this framework, Mystrikism’s moral conclusions are neither arbitrary human constructions nor metaphysically mind-independent facts. Instead, they are evidence-informed judgments, conditionally objective and constrained by natural realities, relative to transparently declared moral aims. The constraints stem from human nature and the world we inhabit. All life shares certain basic needs and capacities. We generally seek pleasure over pain, security over fear, and connection over isolation. These aspects of our nature mean that some moral arrangements will work well for us, while others will not, regardless of how a society perceives them. A society could decide that cruelty is okay, but that wouldn’t change the fact that cruelty causes real harm and misery, which are contrary to our natural needs. In Mystrikism’s eyes, that society’s constructed morality would be a mistake, a bad construction, because it clashes with the factual welfare of all sentient life.
This is why Mystriks believe in moral progress. If morality were purely a matter of arbitrary construction, there would be no sense in saying society A’s ethics “improved” after a reform; it would just be different. However, we do observe that some changes are for the better. For example, eliminating legally sanctioned slavery or granting equal rights to oppressed groups are widely regarded (correctly, says Mystrikism) as moral progress. That judgment is made by measuring the change against an objective yardstick. Do people suffer less and flourish more after the change? If yes, then the new policies are closer to fulfilling true moral aims than the old ones were. In a Mystrikal world, moral practices can be constructed and revised, but the goal is always to mould them closer to the objective demands of well-being. Over time, we can refine our cultural norms, keeping those that genuinely foster health, happiness, and social trust, and discarding or improving those that don’t. In summary, Mystrikism’s take on relativism and constructivism is that humans invent many moral rules, but that doesn’t mean anything goes; those inventions are subject to critique based on how well they match the lived realities of living creatures. Morality isn’t a free-for-all; it’s anchored in human nature and the world, which is why we can meaningfully discuss better and worse moral systems across cultures.
Error Theory: a form of moral nihilism famously advanced by philosopher J. L. Mackie, holds that all positive moral claims are false, in other words, whenever we make a moral statement like “Generosity is good” or “Murder is wrong,” we’re saying something untrue, because there are no moral facts for those statements to latch onto. Mackie argued that people everywhere are committing an error by believing in objective moral values, which he thought don’t exist (he had various reasons, such as the idea that if moral facts did exist, they would be “queer” or utterly unlike other facts in the world). This is a very challenging and sophisticated position in philosophy; it essentially calls morality a convenient fiction or a widespread mistake. Mystrikism, however, vehemently rejects moral nihilism. As a worldview that prizes truth and reality, Mystrikism would never encourage people to devote themselves to moral principles if it believed all those principles were built on lies. Rather than saying ‘morality is an error,’ Mystriks turn the argument around; we claim that nihilism mistakenly assumes that moral facts must be metaphysical or mind-independent. Mystrikism argues that moral conclusions can be objective through a method once moral aims are declared, which avoids the supposed error while preserving moral truth in a conditional, naturalistic framework.
From a Mystrikal standpoint, there are objective facts about the conditions that promote or hinder well-being within living systems; however, these facts only acquire moral relevance once moral aims, such as harm reduction, are explicitly declared. Mystrikism treats the resulting moral conclusions as methodologically objective judgments, not metaphysical truths. This does not imply that moral facts exist metaphysically, but rather that actions can be objectively evaluated in terms of declared goals. For example, consider the statement “Generosity is good.” According to Mystrikism, this statement is not inherently false; it can be true if acts of generosity tend to enhance the well-being of living creatures (which we often do by helping others, building trust, etc.). The moral nihilist says, “There are no moral facts.” Still, Mystriks respond that facts about suffering and flourishing are moral facts, once we agree that morality is about the welfare of sentient beings.
Mystrikism finds error theory not only overly pessimistic but also self-defeating. If someone truly believed that no moral claims are true, then they would have to include in that “no moral claims” category even statements like “One ought to value evidence and compassion” or “It’s good to seek truth.” Those prescriptions would also be false or meaningless on a strict nihilist view. But Mystrikism is built on the idea that valuing evidence, truth, and compassion is good in a meaningful way. The nihilist’s stance would undercut even the ethical principles that guide rational inquiry and kindness, effectively sawing off the branch on which they (and we all) sit. Mystriks see this as a reductio ad absurdum of nihilism.
Instead of abandoning morality as an illusion, Mystrikism aims to ground morality in observable reality. It argues that when we discuss right and wrong, we’re ultimately talking about facts of experience, namely, facts about what causes living creatures to thrive or suffer. Those facts can often be observed or discovered (through psychology, neuroscience, sociology, etc.). For instance, it’s a factual truth that torturing a person causes extreme suffering. It’s also (by Mystrikism’s lights) a factual truth that causing unnecessary extreme suffering is “bad”, because “bad,” in the moral sense, is defined via its impact on well-being. Given those two facts, it logically follows that “Torture is wrong” in that situation. A nihilist might object that we smuggled in a value premise by saying suffering is bad, and Mystriks freely admit that yes, our moral system is built on the fundamental value judgment that suffering (especially unnecessary suffering) is undesirable. However, once this subjective moral aim is stated, the question of how to achieve it becomes empirically answerable using method-based objectivity. But here’s the key: virtually every human being, including nihilists, accepts that premise in their daily life. We all avoid pain in our own lives; we all recognise the badness of our suffering. Mystrikism generalises that intuitive value and says it’s not an ‘error’ at all, but rather the foundation from which genuine moral truths can emerge (once our aims are declared).
Ultimately, Mystrikism stands opposed to moral nihilism because it affirms that life has real stakes. What we do can make the world better or worse in ways that are not arbitrary or merely subjective. Even if there is no divine judge or “cosmic umpire” handing out scorecards, there is the concrete reality of sentient creatures and ecosystems being harmed or helped by our actions. That reality, Mystriks argue, is as solid as any other truth. Thus, Mystrikism rejects both moral nihilism and metaphysical moral realism, adopting a stance of evidence-based moral navigation, where objectivity arises through method and empirical inquiry, not cosmic law.” If a moral theory tells you that relieving a child’s suffering versus causing a child’s suffering is “all the same, since there’s no truth to morality,” Mystrikism would say that theory has left the rails of common sense and basic humanity. The well-being of sentient beings is very much a real phenomenon; we can measure it, observe it, and feel it, and it’s the foundation upon which moral truths gain their objectivity. So, while error theorists claim morality is a grand illusion, Mystrikism asserts that the heart of morality lies in natural facts, specifically, facts about suffering and flourishing, and that reducing needless suffering or enhancing flourishing is genuinely good relative to the rational value we place on well-being. Any view that calls this an “error” is, in Mystrikism’s view, simply mistaken.
In rejecting these alternatives, Mystrikism stays consistent with our naturalistic and compassionate core. Non-cognitivist theories, such as emotivism, are too thin to carry the weight of moral urgency that Mystriks feel. If morality were just emotion, why insist on evidence or reason at all in moral debates? Relativistic theories conflict with Mystrikism’s commitment to universal sapient, sentient, and ecosystem values, which arise from our common nature and needs, rather than just local preferences. And nihilistic theories contradict the lived Mystrikal experience, which suggests that seeking truth and reducing suffering are meaningful, purpose-driven endeavours grounded in reality. By aligning itself against these views, Mystrikism carves out a unique space, a kind of grounded moral realism that is secular, scientifically informed, and earnest about making the world better in observable ways.
Clarifying the Mystrikal Position: Mystrikism rejects both pure moral relativism and metaphysical moral realism. Instead, it advances a form of conditionally objective, evidence-based moral navigation. Once ethical goals, such as harm reduction or flourishing, are openly stated, reality constrains which actions can be judged as right or wrong about those aims. Objectivity, in Mystrikism, is strictly methodological; it resides in disciplined, empirical processes used to evaluate which actions fulfil our declared moral values most effectively, after those values are transparently stated.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 7 of 12
Mystrikal Ethics in the Real World
Having established Mystrikism’s nuanced commitment to moral realism, objective morality, and rationalism, we now consider how these meta-ethical stances manifest in practice. Mystrikism applies our principles to real-world dilemmas, from matters of justice and public policy to environmental and animal welfare, healthcare, and technology, with a consistent, evidence-based approach. Because moral conclusions in Mystrikism are regarded as conditionally objective, evidence-guided judgments, relative to declared aims like harm reduction or flourishing. Methodologically objective morality, meaning objectivity derived strictly through disciplined, empirical methods applied after moral aims are transparently declared, becomes a matter of disciplined moral navigation, not metaphysical discovery. Mystriks evaluate actions by their tangible impact on well-being, using reason and empirical data as guides. In other words, what is “good” or “right” aligns with what can be observed to increase flourishing or reduce suffering in reality. This methodologically objective, outcome-focused mindset enables Mystriks to address concrete ethical challenges through evidence-based moral navigation, where objectivity resides in the method, not in metaphysical moral facts.
Objective Morality in Everyday Dilemmas
A Mystrik approaches ethical dilemmas by asking, What course of action will measurably reduce harm and promote well-being for those affected? This question remains front and centre, whether the issue is criminal justice reform, climate policy, or medical ethics. For example, consider environmental ethics. Mystriks protect ecosystems not out of belief in their intrinsic or mind-independent moral worth, but because, once the ethical goal of promoting well-being is declared, empirical evidence shows that ecosystem health reliably supports that aim. Observable benefits like preserved biodiversity, cleaner air and water, and sustained resources for all life. These outcomes can be tracked scientifically, for example, monitoring biodiversity counts or air quality indices, to verify that the ethical choice is objectively improving lives. In the same spirit, Mystriks extend moral consideration to animals and the broader environment as part of “all life.” We view excessive cruelty or ecological destruction as methodologically identifiable as wrong, because, once the moral aim of supporting flourishing is declared, empirical evidence shows such actions reliably undermine that aim. At the same time, this naturalistic ethic remains sensitive to context. For example, many Mystriks favour reducing animal suffering (such as by adopting plant-based diets), yet we practice epistemic humility about implementation, acknowledging cultural and practical nuances. Mystrikism encourages kinder, sustainable food choices while respecting local realities, rather than imposing moral judgment in a vacuum. The core ethical actions, such as justice for sentient life, are justified objectively by their consistent benefits, but their expression can adapt to circumstances as long as the underlying aim of harm reduction is met.
This commitment to rational compassion guides Mystriks in social justice and policy dilemmas as well. In public policy, we insist on using evidence-based measures of well-being as the yardstick for proper action. A policy or law is supported if empirical evidence shows that it reliably improves the welfare of sapient beings, sentient life, and ecological systems, relative to the declared moral aims of Mystrikism. Such assessments are conditionally objective and constrained by real-world outcomes, not by metaphysical moral truths. For instance, when evaluating an urban development project, a Mystrik would look at concrete outcomes. Does the plan provide accessible housing, green spaces, and services that measurably improve community health and reduce stress? If so, it is ethically “good” by Mystrikal standards. Such a project might be further praised for promoting social equity, for instance, by ensuring affordable homes, since equity correlates with broad-based well-being. At the same time, Mystriks infuse these efforts with virtue and integrity; values such as honesty, humility, and justice are emphasised throughout the process. In this way, objective outcomes and principled conduct are closely aligned. The same empirical mindset applies in healthcare ethics. If data show that providing universal healthcare reduces suffering and improves quality of life, then Mystrikism holds that we ought to pursue that policy. The moral imperative (‘we should ensure people have healthcare’) emerges not as a metaphysical truth, but as a conditionally objective conclusion derived from facts about well-being, relative to the declared aim of reducing suffering. This approach bridges the classic is–ought gap by treating ‘ought’ as an empirically answerable question once values are stated. This imperative does not claim a cosmic moral truth, but reflects a practical, evidence-informed conclusion derived from the declared goal of reducing suffering. In short, wherever public policy can be informed by science, epidemiology, economics, and psychology, Mystriks leverage that knowledge to craft morally sound, objectively justified solutions.
Of course, not all ethical questions are easily resolved by statistics; many involve deep cultural values or competing perspectives. Here, too, Mystrikism applies our methodologically objective morality, with methodologically grounded objectivity, meaning evidence-based method applied after stated moral goals, not metaphysical truth, accompanied by a dose of pluralism and dialogue. The framework is unflinching in its assertion that specific harms are objectively unacceptable, yet Mystriks seek to engage rather than merely condemn. Consider a fraught justice issue like female genital mutilation (FGM), which pits cultural tradition against evidence of harm. A Mystrik confronts this practice by respectfully presenting the factual case. FGM causes severe health damage and trauma, undermining well-being. From the Mystrikal view, no cultural norm can justify such tangible suffering. At the same time, rather than vilifying communities, Mystriks would promote education and alternative rites of passage that preserve cultural identity without harm. This is how we live our values: honest, evidence-based, and never forgetting justice and compassion. The commitment to evidence-based moral navigation gives Mystriks the conviction that practices like FGM (or say, punitive corporal punishment, exploitation, etc.) are wrong in a meaningful sense, because they can be objectively identified as harmful, relative to our declared goal of reducing suffering, and the commitment to rationalism and compassion gives them tools to advocate change through reasoned dialogue. In sum, whether dealing with environmental policy, animal ethics, public health, or social justice, Mystrikism actively applies our core tenets: justice, honesty, and harm minimisation, tested against reality. Justice becomes not an abstract ideal but a “compass” guiding decisions, and science becomes a “map” charting the path towards measurable good, to paraphrase a Mystrikal maxim. Thus, Mystrikal ethics in practice are not guided by metaphysical moral facts, but by methodologically objective conclusions, drawn from real-world evidence and grounded in the transparently declared moral aims of reducing harm and promoting flourishing.
Reaffirming Practical Objectivity: In practice, Mystrikism treats morality as evidence-informed moral navigation: once ethical goals, such as reducing suffering, are declared, real-world outcomes constrain which actions succeed or fail. Objectivity resides entirely in method, assessing actions using reproducible, empirical criteria relative to the chosen aims, rather than in any mind-independent moral reality.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 8 of 12
Lines in the Sand - Honesty and Justice Over Cultural Norms
Mystrikism holds that no cultural, ideological, or subjective norm can excuse the violation of truth or the infliction of harm when assessed through methodologically objective, evidence-based evaluations relative to transparently declared moral aims, such as reducing suffering and promoting flourishing. These assessments are conditional and method-based, not metaphysical absolutes. Throughout this section, Mystrikism's critiques and moral stances are based not on mind-independent or metaphysical moral truths, but on methodologically objective, empirically testable assessments of harm and benefit, evaluated relative to explicitly declared moral aims, such as harm reduction and flourishing. Being honest (defined as commitment to the best current objective approximation (BCOA) of truth) and upholding justice (operationalised as promoting long-term well-being and fairness) are core procedural principles in Mystrikism, grounded in evidence-based evaluation of outcomes relative to declared moral aims. In practice, this means Mystriks openly challenge actions, people, traditions or ideologies that, despite appeals for change or opportunities to learn, willfully and persistently cause harm or consciously spread dishonest ideas and practices through reckless, negligent, or deliberate intent. As the Union's doctrine makes clear, cultural practices are not above scrutiny; any tradition that causes empirically demonstrable harm, denies well-being, or obstructs evidence-informed inquiry is subject to honest critique. This critique is not grounded in metaphysical claims of right or wrong, but in conditionally objective assessments of whether such practices violate declared moral aims. Mystrikism emphasises that evaluating ideas is not the same as condemning entire peoples. One can challenge damaging traditions while still treating individuals with dignity. Below, we explore real-world examples where the Mystrikal commitment to truth and justice overrides subjective customs or allegiances, illustrating how an evidence-based ethics confronts and transcends cultural relativism.
Education: Teaching Truth Over Dogma
One of the clearest arenas where scientific honesty overrides tradition is education. Mystrikism insists that the BCOA of truth, established through the scientific method and rigorous evidence (the "R O V R R T E L F - Rovrrtelf standards of reliability, objectivity, verification, reproducibility, relevance, trustworthiness, empiricism, logic, and falsifiability), must be taught even if it contradicts religious dogma or cultural teachings. In practice, this pits Mystrikal honesty against any tradition that attempts to substitute faith for fact in the classroom. Consider the example of the Taliban's policies on schooling. The Taliban regime, guided by an extreme ideological interpretation, has banned girls from receiving a complete education, depriving them of scientific and factual knowledge in favour of strict religious doctrine. In 2021, after retaking control of Afghanistan, Taliban authorities closed girls' secondary schools and even questioned the value of formal education itself, with one Taliban minister brazenly stating that "No PhD or master's degree is valuable today, the Mullahs and Taliban that are in power have no PhD, masters or even a high school degree, but they are the greatest of all." This stance glorifies wilful ignorance and dogmatic authority at the direct expense of the BCOA of truth. A Mystrik finds such an attitude ethically unacceptable. The objective benefits of education (from improved well-being and economic development to personal empowerment) are well-documented, so no appeal to "tradition" can justify the harm of keeping people, especially young women, uneducated. The Union's commitment to honesty means it would firmly oppose policies like the Taliban's, holding that denying education, and thus access to truth, is a grave injustice, not based on cosmic moral facts, but as a methodologically objective judgment, given the transparently declared moral goal of supporting flourishing and reducing unnecessary harm.
A similar tension plays out in debates over teaching science versus creationist beliefs in schools. In some communities, there is pressure to teach biblical creationism or other faith-based narratives as if they were scientific theories, sometimes even incorporating them into science curricula. Mystrikism's view is unequivocal: science class must convey scientific truths, for example, evolution by natural selection, which is supported by mountains of evidence, and not bow to sectarian beliefs that lack factual support. While families are free to discuss their religious creation stories at home or in church, imposing those stories in public education (where they masquerade as "science") is dishonest to students and society. Mystriks would argue that doing so not only fails the honesty test (since creationism is not supported by reliable, falsifiable evidence) but also ultimately harms students' long-term well-being by misinforming them about reality. The Mystrikal ethos insists on teaching what is demonstrably true over what is traditionally revered. In practice, this means supporting curricula that favour evolution, cosmology, and evidence-based history over any attempts to inject unverified dogma into the classroom. Even if a community's culture is deeply religious, being Honest requires that education remain grounded in objective inquiry. In short, the pursuit of truth in education takes precedence over cultural or religious sensitivities, much as Galileo's commitment to astronomy superseded the church's dogma. Mystrikism would rather confront a community's disapproval than compromise on factual truth: better an uncomfortable truth taught than a comfortable lie perpetuated.
Deception and Misinformation: Truth Over Tribal Allegiance
Another domain where Mystrikal honesty must supersede cultural or political norms is the battle against deception and misinformation. In many societies, people feel pressure to conform to the narratives of their political party, nationalist ideology, or social group, even when those narratives are false. Mystrikism, by contrast, demands allegiance to reality above all. Honesty is a non-negotiable virtue, so a Mystrik will call out falsehoods and reject lies even if they are popular or politically expedient. We see this play out in issues like public health, historical truth, and propaganda. For example, consider the proliferation of anti-vaccine propaganda in recent years. In some circles, rejecting vaccines became almost a badge of cultural identity or political loyalty, propped up by conspiracy theories and disinformation. Mystrikism views this phenomenon as a moral failing, as it elevates group dogma above clear scientific evidence of well-being. The anti-vax movement notably gained steam from a now-debunked 1998 study and has been fueled by echo chambers of false claims. Mystriks point to the objective harm caused by these lies; vaccine misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, led to millions of preventable deaths and eroded public trust in medicine. No amount of cultural or political rhetoric can justify the continued spread of deadly falsehoods. Thus, a Mystrik would actively confront and correct such misinformation, even if it means breaking with one's in-group or challenging widely held beliefs. Being Honest in this context means refusing to "go along" with a lie, no matter how socially convenient it is. In practical terms, Mystriks advocate for critical thinking and fact checking as ethical obligations: sharing a comforting myth (such as the notion that vaccines are part of a grand conspiracy) is seen as morally wrong when it endangers lives. The only loyalty that matters here is loyalty to truth and well-being, not loyalty to a faction or ideology that spreads lies.
This principle similarly applies to state-sponsored disinformation and denial of historical atrocities. All too often, nationalist or authoritarian regimes pressure citizens to accept falsified versions of history, for example, denying that war crimes or genocides ever happened, or propagating blatant falsehoods about minority groups to justify their oppression. Under Mystrikal ethics, such deception is flatly unethical. Justice requires an honest accounting of reality, including the dark chapters of history; one cannot achieve true justice based on lies. Thus, if a government or cultural tradition insists on denying a well-documented atrocity (be it Holocaust denial, climate change denial, or any form of dangerous revisionism), a Mystrik feels duty-bound to oppose that narrative with evidence. Indeed, Mystrikism notes that the roots of widespread denialism usually lie in ego, greed, or fear. Take climate change denial as an example: for decades, specific industries and political groups have deliberately sown doubt about climate science. Internal records now show that major fossil fuel companies knew the truth, they had scientific evidence of artificial climate change, yet funded misinformation campaigns to protect their profits. In other words, they prioritised short-term cultural and economic interests over scientific honesty, misleading the public and stalling action. Mystrikism roundly condemns this. From the Union's perspective, those who ignore or suppress evidence are culpable for the harm that follows. No patriotic fervour, economic ideology, or cultural bias can excuse rejecting facts when lives and the planet are at stake. A Mystrik facing a climate denier (or, say, a propaganda piece claiming some enemy is to blame for all problems) will respond with patient but unyielding facts. The ethic of honesty means choosing truth over tribe: even if one's social group unanimously chants a falsehood, the moral course is to stand up and say, "This is not true, and we have the data to prove it." In summary, Mystrikism's honesty vanquishes misinformation by prioritising reality over group allegiance, believing that in the long run, truth-telling is the only path to genuine well-being and trust in society.
Why Mystrikism Draws These Lines: Mystrikism rejects harmful traditions not as a claim to cosmic moral authority, but as a principled application of evidence-informed moral navigation. Once aims like reducing unnecessary suffering are declared, the harm caused by specific practices (such as mutilation, systemic dishonesty, or deliberate injustice) can be objectively assessed using empirical methods. The moral condemnation of such practices is thus a methodologically objective and constrained procedural conclusion, grounded in natural reality, rather than a metaphysical declaration of universal wrongness.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 9 of 12
Lines in the Sand - Cruelty and Harm: Justice Over Oppressive Traditions
The core principle of justice in Mystrikism centres on promoting well-being and preventing harm. This is not based on metaphysical moral absolutes, but on methodologically objective evaluations of real-world outcomes relative to declared moral aims. Any custom or system that inflicts cruelty, suffering, or gross inequality cannot be justified when assessed against the stated goal of reducing unnecessary suffering. Mystrikal justice overrides even the oldest, most deeply rooted traditions if empirical evidence shows they sanction ongoing harm. This conclusion arises from conditionally objective, evidence-based assessments relative to Mystrikism's declared moral aims, not from metaphysical claims of moral truth. In practical terms, this pits the Union's values against various forms of entrenched oppression worldwide. Mystrikism does not accept "it's our culture" as a valid excuse for injustice; instead, it asks, "What are the consequences of this practice? Does it cause unnecessary suffering or violate human dignity?" If the answer is yes, then being 'just' requires opposing that practice, objectively and compassionately, but unequivocally. For example, consider the persistence of systemic discrimination, such as racism or the subjugation of women in some societies. These injustices are often embedded in social norms, religion, or law, making them seem "normal" to those within that culture. We name it clearly: a moral failure, no matter how long it's been dressed up as tradition. If an institution (be it racial segregation, caste hierarchy, or patriarchal law) consistently produces measurable harm, no appeal to tradition can ethically justify its continuation. Mystrikism treats such systems as methodologically identifiable failures relative to declared moral aims, such as harm reduction and flourishing. The only moral course is to seek reform or abolition of that harmful system. History provides support for this approach, practices like slavery or denying women fundamental rights were once defended as 'customary,' yet over time, evidence-based reasoning and empathy revealed them as empirically harmful to human flourishing. Within Mystrikism, they are thus judged as conditionally and methodologically wrong, relative to declared moral aims, not metaphysically wrong in an absolute sense. We see this as moral progress, evidence that reason and empathy can reveal truths that tradition once concealed. Thus, a Mystrik stands with those challenging cruel norms (whether they be activists against racism, advocates for women's equality, or whistleblowers exposing abuse), even if it means defying one's upbringing or community. Justice is a higher call than conformity.
To illustrate, Mystrikism often highlights practices like female genital mutilation (FGM) or severe corporal punishments as cases where cultural tradition blatantly conflicts with well-being. FGM is a ritual in specific communities, justified by custom or notions of purity; yet empirically, it causes profound and lasting harm to girls and women. A Mystrik confronting FGM will not accept cultural relativism on this point; the medical and psychological evidence of harm is overwhelming, making FGM indefensible by objective standards. From the Mystrikal standpoint, no cultural norm can justify such tangible suffering. Instead, the ethical response is twofold: courageously oppose the harmful practice while empathetically engaging the community to find a better way. In the case of FGM, Mystriks would support educational campaigns and encourage alternative rites of passage that preserve cultural identity without the mutilation. This approach, compassionate but unflinching, exemplifies how justice operates in Mystrikal ethics. The same logic is applied to other forms of culturally-sanctioned cruelty: whether it's child marriage, "honour" killings, violent religious punishments, or authoritarian repression of dissent, Mystrikism's metric is always the real-world impact on well-being. If a practice systematically causes trauma, injustice, or fear, it stands condemned by objective moral criteria, even if it is cloaked in the language of heritage or tradition.
Importantly, Mystriks do not advocate a smug moral imperialism; we recognise the need for cultural understanding and dialogue. The goal is not to disrespect a culture wholesale, but to identify specific harms with evidence and address them effectively. For instance, in opposing systemic racism, a Mystrik will cite data on how racial bias in policing or housing leads to poorer outcomes for certain groups, demonstrating that such inequality is empirically bad for flourishing (and not just "bad according to us"). In resisting the subjugation of women, Mystriks point to studies on how educating and empowering women benefits entire communities, improving health and prosperity for all, proof that equity is objectively reasonable. Thus, Mystrikal justice arms itself with facts and humane reasoning to persuade and transform society from within. But suppose persuasion fails and an oppressive practice continues unabated. In that case, Mystrikism's principle of being 'just' may require more direct opposition, for example, supporting those who break unjust laws or aiding victims in escaping harmful environments. The Union explicitly "champions decency and opposes injustice," calibrating our response to the severity of harm and the willingness of oppressors to change. In extreme cases, this could mean aligning against a tyrannical regime or an extremist group, even if they claim cultural legitimacy (just as one would morally oppose Nazism or apartheid, which were culturally entrenched in their time). Ultimately, Mystrikal ethics employs a simple compass: practices that significantly hinder well-being are wrong, full stop, regardless of how ancient or widespread they may be. Being Honest and 'Just', in these scenarios, means seeing the suffering involved and acting to end it, guided by evidence and empathy rather than sentiment or obedience.
In summary, Mystrikism's core principles demand standing up to culture itself when necessary. Whether in education, where truth must displace comforting myth; in information and politics, where facts must defeat propaganda; or in social practices, where compassion must overturn cruelty, a Mystrik remains steadfast. This stance flows directly from the metaethical commitments detailed in earlier chapters: the belief that morality is objective and evidence-based. If something is truly harmful, it is damaging regardless of local opinion, and if something is true, it remains true, regardless of who denies it. Mystrikism thus empowers our adherents to be respectful yet resolute agents of moral progress, unafraid to say "no" to our own culture when conscience and reason dictate so. This is not a license for arrogance, but a call for integrity, a call to prioritise honest facts and just outcomes. History has shown that humanity's greatest moral leaps (ending slavery, granting equal rights, repudiating brutal practices) came when people were willing to challenge prevailing norms in the name of a higher, evidence-backed goodness. Mystriks see themselves as continuing that tradition of principled courage. In the Mystrikal point of view, being Honest and employing justice isn't always easy or popular, but it is the only path toward "appreciable flourishing" for all. No matter how strong the cultural tide, the twin lights of honesty and justice must guide our way, even if that means rowing against the current.
Clarifying Justice in Mystrikism: Mystrikal justice is not derived from metaphysical beliefs about right and wrong. It is grounded in disciplined, method-based assessments of whether actions, systems, or practices empirically support or undermine openly declared aims, such as reducing suffering and fostering well-being. When a practice causes sustained, unnecessary harm, Mystrikism judges it as wrongful, not because the universe cares, but because real-world evidence shows it contradicts our declared ethical aims.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 10 of 12
Moral Knowledge through Science and Reflection
Under Mystrikism, moral knowledge is not fixed in scripture or authority; it is discovered and refined much like scientific knowledge. However, this moral knowledge is conditionally objective: it is derived from empirical methods applied to achieving declared moral aims, rather than from discovering metaphysical moral facts. Mystrikism holds that moral conclusions can be methodologically objective, relative to declared aims such as harm reduction or flourishing. These conclusions are not mind-independent truths embedded in the universe, but empirically supported judgments that emerge from rational inquiry and evidence once moral aims are explicitly stated. In practice, this means moral questions invite the same rigour as any investigation of nature. Mystriks ask, what does evidence show about the effects of this action on living creatures? Social science, biology, psychology, and environmental science all become relevant to ethical inquiry, as they offer empirical insights into how real-world actions affect living systems. This data allows for conditionally objective assessments of which actions reliably support or hinder declared moral goals. For example, research in psychology reveals that acts of compassion improve the mental health of both the giver and the receiver. Such findings aren’t just academic; they directly inform the Mystrikal moral code, reinforcing kindness as not only intuitively good but demonstrably so. Values like justice, honesty, and compassion do not descend from metaphysical reality or divine edicts; they arise from the practical benefits they produce in real systems containing valuing minds. Mystrikism treats such values as procedural tools for moral navigation, not as cosmic imperatives. Scientific and social research help determine what fosters sapient, sentient, and ecosystem flourishing, creating a feedback loop between data and values. This approach reflects a form of ethical naturalism, though in Mystrikism, moral values are recognised as conditionally objective. They hinge on observable well-being within living systems, not because well-being is intrinsically or metaphysically ‘good,’ but because once well-being is declared as a goal, empirical evidence constrains which actions fulfil that aim. Mystrikism thus treats moral progress as a kind of ongoing experiment: hypothesising, testing, and revising conclusions about what actions best serve declared moral aims. Objectivity, in this framework, resides entirely in the empirical method and evidence-based adjustment of strategies, not in the discovery of eternal moral facts. If a community implements a policy (say, a restorative justice program) and sees a measurable drop in recidivism and trauma, that is taken as moral knowledge gained. If, on the other hand, a well-intentioned practice doesn’t produce the hoped-for improvement or has side effects, Mystriks are willing to revise our approach. In ethical matters, as in science, hypotheses must withstand empirical testing. A moral ideal is only credible if it proves conducive to well-being in the real world.
Crucially, Mystrikism emphasises that moral understanding is not infallible or complete. There is a strong ethos of epistemic humility, recognising the limits of what we currently know and being open to new evidence. The Union explicitly notes that our positions may evolve with new information, even as our fundamental methods and priorities remain constant. In a Mystrikal framework, nothing, not even a cherished ethical principle, is above question. All is subject to re-examination in light of better evidence or arguments. This keeps the moral system responsive and self-correcting. As one Mystrikal text stresses, the community advocates “continual re-examination and intellectual growth,” ensuring our principles stay relevant and responsive to new discoveries. In effect, Mystrikism builds mechanisms for moral progress into its core. The scientific method itself becomes a tool for ethical refinement, allowing us to observe the outcomes of our moral practices, hypothesise improvements, test them in society, subject them to peer review through open debate, and iterate. This dynamic process is very different from moral systems that rely on immutable commandments. Mystrikism’s naturalistic rationalism enables it to incorporate interdisciplinary insights, such as those from neuroscience (for example, understanding the neurological basis of empathy) and economics (for instance, data on policies that reduce poverty), thereby updating our moral framework over time. The result is a living ethical system, one that grows in tandem with our collective knowledge. Far from drifting in relativism, Mystrikism anchors change to a steady criterion (well-being) and a steady method (evidence and logic), aiming to get ever closer to moral truth as understanding deepens. In summary, moral knowledge in Mystrikism is cultivated through the same virtues that drive scientific knowledge: curiosity, honest evidence gathering, open dialogue, and a willingness to be proven wrong. This yields a mindset in which moral “beliefs” are never mere dogmas, but provisional conclusions always subject to improvement, much like scientific theories that become more refined as data accumulates.
The Arc of Moral Progress
This empirical, naturalist outlook also shapes how Mystrikism interprets moral progress over history. Where some worldviews might view shifts in ethics (for example, the abolition of slavery or the advancement of women’s rights) as arbitrary social change or divine providence, Mystriks see them as humanity gradually converging on better evidence-based moral behaviours. In the Mystrikal view, when societies abandon deeply entrenched injustices, it is often because reason, evidence, and empathy have finally prevailed over ignorance and fear. For example, a recognition that no being should be subjugated, a conclusion consistent with pursuing measurable well-being and with recognising the inherent value we assign to persons. Enlightenment era arguments against slavery were bolstered by facts (all races share the same human capacities) and by the moral intuition, validated by reason, that cruelty and exploitation are universally harmful. Likewise, the expansion of women’s rights and LGBTQIA+ inclusion in many societies reflects a rational awakening. People realised that denying rights or dignity based on gender or sexual orientation caused demonstrable harm and squandered human potential. Mystrikism embraces these developments as moral progress, not just change, but improvement toward the good. One founder notes approvingly the “emphasis on tolerance, democracy, minority rights, environmentalism, women’s rights, sexual rights, and so on, that I wholeheartedly embrace” in secular humanism, a philosophical neighbour to Mystrikism. Such values are celebrated in Mystrikism because they align with our core ethical anchors of justice and compassion for all. The rise of environmental consciousness is a similar story. As scientific knowledge unveiled our dependence on healthy ecosystems, and as we came to appreciate the sentience of other animals, an objective case emerged that exploiting nature unchecked or treating animals as mere resources is morally wrong. The modern environmental and animal welfare movements can thus be seen, through a Mystrikal lens, as moral progress, as society widens our circle of concern based on a clearer understanding of reality and consequences.
Importantly, Mystrikism’s realist stance means it does not view moral progress as automatic or guaranteed. Instead, progress occurs when we apply reason and evidence to challenge outdated norms and assumptions. History shows that appeals to tradition or authority have often hindered progress on issues such as scientific understanding, gender equality, and human rights. Many religious or culturally inherited moral systems claimed absolute certainty, only to find their dictates in conflict with new evidence and evolving standards of well-being. Mystrikism explains that genuine progress requires breaking free of those dogmas – a transition from moral pronouncements based on ancient beliefs to principles based on reality. As an illustration, consider how attitudes toward homosexuality changed in societies where evidence and empathy replaced superstition. Medical science dispelled false notions of “harm,” psychology showed that acceptance benefits mental health, and personal narratives humanised LGBTQIA+ individuals. Over time, what was once morally condemned (often by religious edict) became understood as ethically permissible or even laudable, because the facts changed our understanding. Mystrikism sees this change as society getting closer to a rational moral insight: that love and autonomy between consenting adults do no harm (and thus should not be seen as wrong), while inflicting unjustified suffering through stigma or violence is demonstrably harmful and wrong. Similarly, emerging issues, such as technology ethics, are approached proactively. Where moral absolutism might fail to address new dilemmas (for instance, how to handle AI decision making or genetic engineering), Mystriks treat these frontiers as opportunities for further moral insight. We ask empirical questions, for example, how do specific AI algorithms impact welfare or fairness towards all life? And adjust our ethical guidelines accordingly. In sum, for Mystrikism, moral progress means our actions and norms come to align ever more closely with the empirical realities of well-being as our knowledge expands. As we learn more about human nature, society, and the environment, we uncover better ways to uphold well-being and fairness. The significant social reforms in history stand as milestones along this upward path, achieved when humanity applied its highest faculties of reason and compassion to correct moral errors. Mystrikism holds that by continuing to ground our ethics in evidence and universal principles, further moral progress, however halting, is not only possible but likely, as reason increasingly steers the ship once charted by superstition.
Clarifying Mystrikism’s Moral Epistemology: In Mystrikism, moral knowledge is conditionally objective and method-driven. It emerges from assessing how actions impact real-world flourishing or suffering in relation to stated ethical aims, such as harm reduction. This knowledge is provisional, testable, and revisable, not metaphysical or absolute. Mystrikism treats morality as evidence-informed navigation, guided by declared goals and empirical feedback from natural reality.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 11 of 12
Mystrikism Versus Tradition
The naturalistic, evidence-based morality of Mystrikism contrasts sharply with traditional religious or cultural moral systems, not by claiming access to metaphysical moral truths, but by applying methodologically objective inquiry to empirical outcomes relative to declared moral aims, such as harm reduction and flourishing. Where does moral authority come from? This is a key point of divergence. In Abrahamic religions, for example, morals are typically handed down via divine command, the will of a god as recorded in scripture or tradition. Such edicts often claim universality, but from a Mystrikal perspective, they lack empirical grounding and methodological verification. Mystrikism critiques these systems not because it claims to have discovered universal moral facts, but because evidence shows that such doctrines often fail to promote the declared moral goals of well-being and justice reliably. Without empirical grounding, one is left to accept them on faith or reject them, and historically, this has led to moral doctrines that are absolute in theory yet inconsistent across cultures and eras. Mystrikism pointedly rejects unverifiable revelations and dogmatic decrees. As one Mystrikal writer notes, traditional religions base morality on a deity's decrees. This premise cannot be tested, whereas Mystrikism bases its ethical framework on observable and natural phenomena, applying evidence-informed, methodologically objective reasoning. Its moral conclusions are conditionally objective, assessable by anyone willing to examine empirical outcomes relative to stated aims, not proclamations of cosmic moral facts. In other words, anyone can explore the evidence of what causes harm or flourishing; one does not need to belong to a particular cultural group or take anything on faith to understand a Mystrikal moral claim. The authority behind an ethical principle like 'honesty is good' lies in empirical evidence showing that honesty fosters trust and well-being, relative to declared aims such as human flourishing, rather than in metaphysical pronouncements or religious decrees. This gives Mystrikism a form of practical universality: its core values are grounded in the shared features of sentient experience and ecosystem interdependence, and its conclusions are conditionally objective, arising from the application of empirical methods to declared aims, rather than metaphysical moral claims. Even if someone had never heard of Mystrikism, they could arrive at the same moral conclusions by observing reality with compassion and logic. Mystriks often argue that many societies and individuals implicitly follow such principles already. Mystrikism is simply making them explicit and grounded in philosophy.
Another point of contrast is flexibility Versus dogmatism. Traditional moral codes tend to be static, drawing on ancient texts or customs that may resist modification. This can lead to friction as the world changes; consider how some scriptural rules conflict with modern understandings of human and animal rights, or with scientific advancements. Mystrikism, by contrast, is explicitly adaptive. Because our moral framework is tied to outcomes and evidence, it can evolve when new challenges arise or new knowledge comes to light. Mystriks see this not as a weakness but as honesty. If, for instance, environmental degradation becomes a pressing moral issue (which few pre-modern scriptures anticipated), then morality itself must respond. Clinging to outdated rules in the face of contrary evidence would be, in the eyes of Mystrik, a failure of integrity. Traditionalists might argue that without fixed rules, society will lack a moral compass. Still, Mystrikism answers that reality provides the compass, our growing understanding of the natural world and well-being for all life gives us direction.
Far from descending into relativism, Mystrikism maintains firm core values (like compassion, fairness, and truthfulness) that are exceptionally hard to dispute, yet it allows our specific applications to be updated. This approach prevents the moral stagnation that can occur when one insists that an iron age law must apply unchanged in the digital age. It also avoids the moral exclusivity problem. Many religious systems assert that only believers of their creed follow the true morality, sometimes implying that outsiders lack a moral foundation. Mystrikism flatly rejects such exclusivity. Since the criteria for moral action in Mystrikism are derived from the fabric of reality (in the sense that they depend on observable effects on well-being), no culture or sect has a monopoly on moral insight. In practice, this means Mystrikism is open to learning from the ethical insights of various cultures or secular philosophies (so long as they can be rationally justified) and likewise hopes our insights can be appreciated by anyone, regardless of their background. The moral authority in Mystrikism comes from reason and reality themselves. Values like honesty and compassion gain authority not by divine fiat but by the tangible benefits they bring to sapient and sentient life. In sum, where traditional moral systems often say "X is right because our ancestors or gods decreed it," Mystrikism says "X is right because it improves lives, see for yourself." This marks a profound shift in the source of ethics' legitimacy, from the top down to the ground up. It is a shift mirrored in Mystrikism's language of "trust" over "faith", trust being earned through evidence and consistency, rather than demanded by authority.
Clarifying Mystrikism's Contrast with Tradition: Mystrikism's rejection of religious and traditional moral authority is not based on asserting its metaphysical moral truths. Instead, Mystrikism offers a conditionally objective moral framework, rooted in evidence and method, that assesses actions relative to openly declared aims, such as reducing suffering and promoting sustainable flourishing. Objectivity, in this context, is procedural and empirical, not metaphysical.
Meta-Ethics
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 12 of 12
Embodying Mystrikal Ethics
Finally, how do Mystriks live out these ethically committed actions, which are conditionally objective and methodologically grounded, on a day-to-day basis? The abstract principles of methodologically objective morality and rational compassion, conditioned upon declared moral aims, are meant to be actively practised in one’s lifestyle, choices, and advocacy. On a personal level, Mystriks strive to be mindful and intentional in our conduct, continually aligning our actions with our core values of kindness and honesty. A simple but powerful habit in Mystrikal practice is to pause and reflect before acting, essentially a moment of moral deliberation. In that pause, a Mystrik will ask themselves, “How can I respond in a way that reduces harm and protects or improves the well-being of all involved?”. This reflective question encapsulates Mystrikal ethics in action: applying methodologically objective, evidence-informed moral reasoning to everyday decisions, evaluated in relation to the declared aim of reducing harm and promoting well-being. By creating space for conscious thought, Mystriks aim to replace knee-jerk reactions (which might be driven by anger, selfishness, or bias) with reasoned, compassionate responses. For instance, if provoked in an argument, a Mystrik might recall the value of patience and the evidence that staying calm leads to better outcomes, and thus choose a gentler reply. Or if considering a purchase, we might weigh the product’s impact using evidence-based criteria: was it made ethically? Is it environmentally sustainable? These assessments reflect methodologically objective reasoning relative to the declared aim of promoting well-being. Over time, this discipline of constant moral evaluation becomes a habit, described as “a mode of existence where actions result from deliberate choice rather than unexamined habit.” Mystrikism provides practical techniques (akin to secular “spiritual exercises”) to support this ethos, such as meditation, breathing exercises, and affirmative reminders of one’s values. All these serve to cultivate what Mystriks see as a distinctly human capacity, the ability to transcend impulsive instincts and act according to empathy and rational insight. In living this way, every Mystrik becomes a kind of moral scientist, applying empirical reasoning to personal conduct and continually testing and refining actions to better align with declared moral aims, such as kindness and harm reduction. Mystrikal ethics treat daily choices as opportunities for method-based moral navigation.
Beyond individual conduct, Mystrikal ethics naturally extend to community and activism. Identifying as a Mystrik often means committing to improve the world in concrete ways, guided by the twin lights of science and justice. Many Mystriks engage in social and environmental causes, seeing this as a direct consequence of our belief that morality can be objectively guided by evidence and shared values. After all, if one truly accepts that the well-being of all life and ecosystems is the fundamental good we aim for, then one should work to promote it wherever possible. Thus, Mystriks can be found advocating for policies and initiatives that align with our evidence-based values. We might support renewable energy projects to combat climate change, conservation programs to protect biodiversity, animal welfare campaigns, or public health drives, always emphasising measurable improvements in lives over ideology. The Union of Mystriks explicitly encourages our members to contribute to global solutions “guided by science and ethics,” whether that means promoting sustainable technologies, advocating for fair economic practices, or working toward universal access to essentials such as clean water and healthcare. Importantly, Mystrikal activism tends to rely on evidence-based arguments and rational persuasion rather than rhetoric or partisan fervour. Mystriks aim to educate, to engage in respectful debate, and to use democratic means (voting, policy advocacy, community organising) to advance well-being and fairness. Our moral rationalism impels them to build bridges using facts and shared values, rather than amplifying tribal divisions. Even in public discourse, Mystriks endeavour to embody our mantra of “honesty and justice”, fact-checking information, admitting uncertainty when appropriate, and remaining civil and empathetic. In doing so, we practice what could be called rational altruism, letting the best available knowledge guide our good intentions.
In everyday life, this philosophy also translates into myriad small choices that reflect a care for objective good. A Mystrik might reduce our carbon footprint out of regard for future generations’ well-being, donate to effective charities that have demonstrated impact, or simply volunteer time to help others, all the while mindful that these actions are meaningful contributions to the greater flourishing. Mystrikism teaches that even seemingly minor acts of goodness can have a ripple effect in the interconnected web of life. For example, choosing kindness in one interaction can propagate positivity through social networks, or conserving resources at home contributes (in however small a way) to global sustainability. The philosophy instils confidence that ethical living matters; each person’s consistent efforts, grounded in reason and compassion, are part of an evidence-backed solution to the world’s suffering. In the community, Mystriks support one another in these efforts, sharing insights from science or philosophy that might illuminate a complex moral question, and celebrating progress (personal or societal) as proof that a rational, benevolent approach to life is practical. We often engage in open discussions and constructive critiques of each other’s ideas, reflecting the principle that truth seeking is a collaborative venture. In this sense, the Union of Mystriks functions almost like an ethical research team, with each member both practising and refining the doctrine in real time.
In summary, Mystrikism’s belief in objective morality, moral realism, and rationalism is not merely theoretical; it fundamentally shapes how Mystriks act and interact in the world. From tackling grand ethical issues like justice and environmental stewardship with dispassionate analysis and compassion, to refining moral norms through evidence and learning, to living intentionally and ethically each day, Mystrikism offers a vision of morality as both firmly grounded and continually advancing. It stands in contrast to systems that derive morality from unchallengeable sources, instead deriving it from the shared reality we all inhabit. And it challenges our adherents to embody our highest principles, holding them to a standard that is at once inspiring and demanding. To know what is right through reason, and to prove it in action. Such is the Mystrikal point of view when meta-ethics meets the messiness of real life, a steady belief that with honesty as our method and justice as our goal, we can navigate even the most challenging moral terrain and inch closer to “appreciable flourishing” for all.
Bringing Method-Based Objectivity Into Life: Mystrikal ethics are not abstract theories disconnected from real life. They provide a practical, evidence-informed framework for making decisions, where actions are evaluated not by appeal to metaphysical moral truths, but by their measurable effectiveness in fulfilling stated aims. In this sense, Mystriks live as moral navigators: using disciplined reflection and empirical feedback to guide conduct towards reducing harm and enhancing flourishing.
most clearly revealed through critical inquiry.
Reality
A Mystrikal Perspective
[Audio version]
There are few questions more foundational than this one. While it’s easy to get lost in linguistic loops or philosophical paradoxes regarding this question, Mystrikism offers a grounded and rational way forward.
We begin by offering our working definition:
[ Reality is everything that exists, whether or not we notice it, believe in it, or understand it. It includes all entities and phenomena that follow the patterns of the natural world, even if those patterns aren’t yet discovered or fully explained. It isn’t limited by human thoughts, language, or cultural agreements. Reality spans what we can outright measure and what remains utterly mysterious. If something can influence or leave even the faintest trace, no matter how subtle or delayed, it belongs to reality. Ultimately, reality is revealed by its effects and interactions. If it can do something or make a difference, it’s part of the world we strive to understand. ]
Of course, we are aware there is a clear contradiction in defining reality using human language when our definition recognises that reality exists independently of it. However, this paradox doesn’t weaken the claim; it reminds us that language is a lens, not the landscape.
Our position is drawn from metaphysical naturalism, which holds that nothing exists outside the natural world. It’s a claim not of certainty but of the best current understanding and the latest verified evidence, rooted in centuries of scientific observation and practical prescient success.
Some may immediately ask: How do we know this is true? We don’t know with absolute certainty. But we trust this provisional model because, so far, it works, and it works across space, cultures, and time. That’s not just convenience, it’s predictive power. If gravity follows the same rules in India as it does in orbit of Mars, if water boils at 100°C in both labs and kitchens and if vaccines developed using evolutionary theory save lives across the globe. We’re looking at a reality that behaves in consistent, measurable ways.
Consistency across observers and outcomes is the first sign we’re dealing with something objective, not just imagined. This is how science operates. It doesn’t depend on who is watching or believing. It depends on what can be repeated and tested. We don’t assume reality, we measure it.
Critics sometimes point to solipsism, the idea that nothing exists outside your own mind. It’s an interesting thought experiment but not a useful worldview. If solipsism were true, planes wouldn’t fly unless you believed in lift. Computers wouldn’t function unless you willed the electrons into motion. But they do. And they do it even when you’re asleep, or no one is watching. That’s how we know we’re not fabricating the external world. It resists us, surprises us, and continues without our permission.
Another counterargument we often hear is this: “All we ever know is filtered through our senses and minds. So how can we know anything at all?”
This is true, and Mystrikism fully acknowledges it. Human cognition is fallible. Our memories distort. Our biases mislead. Our perception can deceive. Our cognition has limits. That’s why we don’t rely on just one person’s perception, not even our own. Especially our own! We correct for human error by using tools: microscopes, surveys, double-blind trials, and peer review. We don’t trust a single viewpoint; we look for convergence. If thousands of unrelated people with different languages and cultures all observe the same effect under the same conditions, following the same rules of study, that’s not subjectivity, that’s shared reality.
What about: “But what about personal truths? Isn’t everyone entitled to their own version of reality?”
Personal experience is important and meaningful. That subjectivity is what gives our lives colour and uniqueness. However, Mystrikism makes a distinction. Subjective experience is real for the person having it, but that doesn’t mean it accurately reflects external reality. You may feel that a loved one is still with you after they’ve died. That’s real, emotionally. But it’s not actual objective evidence that consciousness survives death. If something is to be accepted as true beyond you or even a group of like-minded people, it must stand up outside of your/their feelings. It must be observable, measurable, verified and ideally, falsifiable.
This brings us to belief. In the debate, some dismissed the word belief entirely. Others argued that scientists use it all the time, saying, “I believe this is the most likely explanation, given the evidence.” Mystrikism adopts this second view but with a caveat.
We believe in things only to the extent they’ve earned our trust. Not because they’re emotionally satisfying, not because they’ve been passed down, but because they’ve been tested, retested, and haven’t yet been disproven.
We call this earned trust the kind you get from results, not reverence. It’s the kind of belief that says, “This is true for now, but if tomorrow’s evidence contradicts it, we will update.” This isn’t weakness. It’s intellectual honesty. And it’s why science, not dogma, built the modern world.
Now, let’s address language itself. Someone in the discussion pointed out that definitions are human constructs. And they’re right. Language is flexible. Words evolve. What “reality” means today may not be what it meant 200 years ago. But the fact that words shift doesn’t mean that reality does. The sun burned hydrogen long before we had the word “star.” Dinosaurs ruled the Earth long before anyone spoke Latin. Reality doesn’t require our vocabulary. It predates it.
When people ask us, How do you know what’s real?, the answer from Mystrikism is: We know something is real when it continues to exist and behave consistently, regardless of who observes it, and when it responds predictably to cause and effect.
The supernatural fails these tests. Not because we dislike it but because it has never produced consistent, verified, and falsifiable outcomes under controlled conditions. No prayer has stopped a volcano, and no ghost has passed peer review. These claims may be meaningful in personal or cultural terms, but they do not meet the bar for shared truth - and that’s the bar Mystrikism insists on.
More colloquially, reality is the stage on which everything plays out. It’s what we all share, regardless of belief. It’s what continues, even when no one’s looking or when we are long gone. It’s not shaped by opinion but most clearly revealed through critical inquiry.
Truth
A Mystrikal Perspective
[Audio version]
To a Mystrik, “truth” is what currently best corresponds to reality. We have to test, observe, and reason our way toward it. Even then, we prefer to call it the best approximation of truth.
Within Mystrikism, “truth” is not an absolute or final declaration but as a provisional, incomplete and evolving approximation of reality, grounded in evidence, critical thinking, and the scientific method.
Truth like our understanding of reality is always seen, by Mystriks, as dynamic and incomplete. We don’t cling to the notion of certainty, instead, we embrace epistemological humility and doubt, recognising that our current understanding may change with new evidence or better reasoning.
The Union places discovery and truth finding at the heart of their purpose, relying on observation, experimentation, and logical analysis. Assertions must withstand scrutiny using the integrated principles of science, which include empirical testing, critical thinking, rules of evidence, logical coherence, and peer review. Truth is meticulously deduced, not merely declared.
Nature
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 3
[Audio version]
Nature
“Nature” means the totality of existence, the whole of reality governed by natural laws, with nothing supernatural beyond it. For Mystriks, nature is simply everything that exists. Every phenomenon, from the tiniest quark to the grandest galactic cluster, is part of one continuous, law bound reality, complete and self contained. There is no evidence supporting the existence of hidden realms or magical forces outside its domain. If something can affect our world, then it belongs within nature. This perspective aligns with philosophical realism, the view that a world exists outside our minds and can be known, and gives Mystriks a solid ground to stand on. Our stance is that what fits within nature is what truly exists. This isn’t a claim that can be proven like a scientific hypothesis. Still, a foundational commitment: the most consistent, predictive, productive way to understand reality is to treat everything we encounter or discover as part of nature, until corroborating evidence forces us to reconsider.
For a Mystrik, talking about nature is the same as talking about reality itself. We make no meaningful distinction between the two, they’re one continuous fabric of existence. What people usually call “the natural world” isn’t just forests, oceans, or stars, it includes everything that exists, including human beings, our minds, and the things we create. A smartphone or a city might be “artificial” in everyday language, but both still operate under nature’s laws. Humans are products of nature, so everything we invent or do remains part of nature too. Even things we don’t yet understand are assumed to be natural, not magical or divine. If solid evidence ever emerged for something once thought supernatural, we’d simply incorporate it into our understanding, showing it was part of nature all along. In this way, nature is an ever expanding frontier: each discovery enlarges our knowledge without breaching some separate supernatural order.
Mystriks don’t reject supernatural claims out of stubbornness or dogma, but from humility in the face of nature’s consistency. Across the span of human history, countless events once believed to be the work of gods, spirits, or magic have yielded to natural explanations, their mysteries dissolved by evidence and reason. Yet there is no example, none, of a phenomenon that was fully understood in natural terms later being shown to have a supernatural cause. This track record is why we trust nature as the ultimate reality. Instead of filling gaps in our understanding with superstition, we investigate with reason and observation. Nature isn’t some dull mechanism we need to escape with fantasies, it’s often more intricate and awe inspiring than any imagined realm. From the event horizon of a distant black hole to the emergence of life, its grandeur needs no supernatural embellishment. We approach it with both honesty and connection: honesty, because if something is real, it must be natural - and connection, because it means we are part of the same unfolding story. In recognising this, we find clarity, belonging, and inspiration in the truth that the cosmos itself is enough.
Nature
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 3
[Audio version]
Natural
In the Mystrikal view, the word “natural” refers to anything that arises from the principles of the physical universe, without invoking supernatural forces. Calling something natural means it belongs to the same testable, law bound reality as a falling stone or a blooming flower. If someone claims an event is purely magical or beyond natural explanation, we treat that claim with deep scepticism until convincing evidence is shown. Only natural causes have proven consistently reliable for explanation and prediction. Supernatural ones have never passed rigorous tests or produced useful forecasts. For us, “natural” is the gold standard for what we can trust as real, something observable, understandable, and explainable within the unified framework of the universe.
Natural does not mean “untouched wilderness” or “raw instinct.” It covers everything that exists, including human culture, technology, and creativity. Many imagine “natural” as the opposite of “artificial,” but Mystrikism rejects that split: humans are part of nature, so our inventions are too. A dam built by engineers is as natural as one built by beavers, because both follow the same physical laws. A synthetic chemical is as natural as one from a plant, both are arrangements of atoms behaving according to chemistry. And “natural” does not mean “good.” Nature contains poisons, diseases, and disasters alongside beauty and vitality. It does not hand us moral rules.
In everyday speech, “natural” often means innate or aligned with human nature. Mystrikism recognises that human nature includes both destructive and cooperative impulses. Greed, aggression, and tribalism are just as natural as empathy, fairness, and kindness. The difference is that we do not treat everything natural as good. We consciously choose to elevate the pro-social instincts that promote long term well-being. Evolution shaped humans with powerful social tendencies, altruism, generosity, even self sacrifice, because they helped our ancestors survive. Groups bound by mutual aid often outcompeted those without it. Cooperation, in this light, is not an artificial virtue but a deeply natural strategy for thriving. For a Mystrik, the “better angels” of our biology are not a denial of our other instincts, but a deliberate choice about which ones deserve to guide our ethics.
From this perspective, humane and empathetic behaviour is profoundly natural for humans. In practice, Mystriks aim to make goodwill their first response to others, not as naïve tolerance, but as the default stance that best supports understanding and mutual survival. When harm is done, empathy must be paired with justice, but whenever possible, we choose dialogue over hostility. Aligning with what is “natural” for us means favouring the capacities for reason, empathy, and cooperation that evolution has built into us, not using “nature” as an excuse for cruelty or indifference. Kindness, as we see it, is part of our evolutionary inheritance, proven by the thriving it makes possible.
Lastly, calling something natural also means it is grounded in reality, not in wishful thinking. If something is natural, it can be studied, understood, and integrated into our knowledge. Claims of miracles or magic cannot be examined unless they demonstrate themselves in the arena of nature. By focusing on natural explanations, we gain practical power: finding viruses instead of blaming curses lets us predict, prevent, and heal. We reject “unnatural”, meaning supernatural, explanations, because they neither explain nor solve. For us, “natural” marks authenticity and reliability, indicating that something belongs to the shared reality we can investigate. Whether it’s a feeling, a behaviour, or a cosmic event, if it’s natural, it’s part of the actual fabric of the universe, and in Mystrikism, there’s no higher compliment than that.
Nature
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 3
[Audio version]
Naturalism
For Mystriks, naturalism is more than simply the belief that nature is all there is. It’s the conviction that every phenomenon, from the simplest particle to the most complex mind, is entirely part of the natural world and governed by physical laws. We reject the idea that some properties or realities are inherently irreducible or require supernatural forces to exist. In Mystrikism, even so called “emergent” properties are understood as provisional labels, helpful in describing complex outcomes we don’t yet fully understand, but never the final explanation. Consciousness, ecosystems, or any other intricate system may appear to be “more than the sum of their parts,” but we see this as a gap in present knowledge, not proof of irreducible magic. Given enough time, evidence, and refinement of science, we hold that every phenomenon will ultimately be explained through increasingly precise, reductionist principles.
We embrace epistemological emergentism, acknowledging that complexity often looks irreducible due to current cognitive, technological, or methodological limits. But we reject ontological emergentism, which claims specific properties are fundamentally new or beyond reduction. This stance aligns with epistemological reductionism, the view that the best way to understand complex phenomena is by analysing their simpler, underlying elements, while still appreciating that complex systems can display patterns and behaviours not yet evident from their parts alone. By combining this reductionist confidence with a naturalistic worldview, Mystrikism maintains both intellectual humility (accepting that we don’t know everything yet) and trust in the scientific process to uncover the underlying truths of reality.
All these insights converge into the Mystrikal perspective on nature: the entirety of reality, one unified natural world with nothing supernatural outside it. We see no real boundary between the physical and the mental, or between “natural” and “artificial,” because everything from distant galaxies to human thoughts exists within the same continuum. Recognising that reality is entirely natural and law governed frees us from the false comforts and confusions of supernatural thinking. It gives us a clear, coherent view of existence, one in which we are participants, not spectators, and entirely at home in the cosmos that produced us. We are beings produced by nature and entirely at home here in the cosmos.
To call something natural is, for us, the strongest way to affirm it as real. That means we ground our understanding and decisions in evidence, reason, and cause and effect. By insisting on natural explanations, we use tools that work, from science and medicine to systems of justice, instead of chasing miracles or myths. Embracing the natural gives us the power to change things for the better: we can fight disease by studying biology, and foster peace by understanding human nature. Knowing that nothing about us is “above” nature keeps us humble. Our triumphs and flaws alike have natural causes, meaning they can be studied, understood, and improved. We reject the idea of a supernatural rescue or doom, and instead accept responsibility for our own lives, societies, and planet, guided by the reality before us.
Well-Being
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 2
[Audio version]
Mystriks define well-being as a consciously chosen, subjective ideal that describes a state of flourishing for sapient beings, sentient life, and nature’s ecosystems - that can nonetheless be approached objectively through adherence to our Integrated Principles of Science, guided by the scientific method and the evidence-based evaluation of our actions.
-
Flourishing: A positive state of existence where the needs of living creatures and systems are met, physical, emotional, psychological, or ecological - enabling growth, fulfilment, and sustained well-being. Flourishing reflects optimal functioning, resilience, and a condition of relative ease, balance, and vitality.
In Mystrikism, well-being is not seen as a cosmic law or as some mind-independent feature of the universe. Instead, it is understood as a consciously chosen moral goal, a value deliberately selected by reflective minds as something worth pursuing. Yet, this subjectivity does not make it random or meaningless. Mystrikism holds that logic, reason, and evidence, not to mention common sense, can and should guide us in supporting well-being as a rational, sensible, and intellectually defensible aim.
In short, while the goal is subjectively chosen, pursuing increasing flourishing and reducing suffering is a coherent and justifiable foundation for any ethical system seeking sustainable flourishing.
-
Suffering: A negative state of experience, encompassing physical pain, psychological distress, emotional anguish, or any condition that diminishes well-being or creates harm for a living creature or ecosystem.
Once well-being is consciously adopted as a moral goal, its pursuit can be guided through methodologically objective and empirically grounded means. Science, reason, and critical inquiry then become tools for assessing and effectively achieving this aim.
NB - When discussing well-being, Mystrikism avoids the expression “conscious creatures” because, despite being broadly accurate, it can potentially blur essential distinctions between the different meanings of the term “conscious”. Though less concise and a bit clunky, at times, we prefer the more precise and inclusive phrase: “sapient beings, sentient life, and nature’s ecosystems.” While sapient beings possess reflective awareness and sentient life experiences sensation, each warrants ethical concern in its own distinct way, despite areas of overlap.
Well-Being as a Chosen, Rational, Evidence-Guided Aim
In Mystrikism, well-being is recognised as:
-
Subjectively Declared: A moral aim chosen by reflective minds, not dictated by metaphysical moral facts.
-
Rationally Defensible: Supported by logic, reason, common sense, empathy and virtually universal ideals as a coherent and sensible aim.
-
Methodologically Objective in Pursuit: Once adopted, science and empirical methods can objectively assess which actions most effectively support and sustain it.
-
Dynamically Responsive: Well-being is not a static concept. New evidence, societal shifts, evolving technologies, and changing ecological realities continually inform and reshape the understanding and pursuit of well-being.
Thus, Mystrikism champions “Subjectively-Chosen, Rationally-Supported, and Methodologically-Objective Well-Being”, a moral framework grounded in compassionate intent and empirical inquiry.
Mystrikism divides well-being into three interrelated domains:
-
Sapient Beings: The flourishing of entities capable of self-awareness, reflective thought, abstract reasoning, and conscious decision-making.
-
Sentient Life: The minimisation of suffering and promoting healthy existence in all beings capable of subjective experience, such as pain avoidance or simple learning.
-
Nature’s Ecosystems: The restoration and maintenance of ecosystems that support life, and provide protection, integrity and stability.
Each domain is ethically significant, measurable, and actionable, using evidence-based strategies to support practical interventions.
Well-Being
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 2
[Audio version]
1. Well-Being of Sapient Beings (Humans and Advanced Intelligences)
Definition: The sustainable flourishing of self-aware beings capable of reflective thought and complex reasoning.
Subjective Yet Rational Aim: Though valuing human and sapient flourishing is a subjective choice, it is one supported by rational reflection, common human empathy, and evidence showing that thriving individuals create more stable, cooperative, and innovative societies.
Measurable Indicators and Strategies:
Physical Health:
-
Life expectancy
-
Chronic illness rates
-
Nutritional sufficiency
-
Access to clean water, sanitation, and medical care
Mental Health:
-
Psychological resilience
-
Prevalence of depression and anxiety disorders
-
Suicide rates
-
Cognitive performance metrics
Social and Civic Health:
-
Levels of social trust and cohesion
-
Reduction in crime, violence, and discrimination
-
Educational attainment rates
-
Economic opportunity and job quality
Autonomy and Rights:
-
Protection of civil liberties and personal freedoms
-
Access to fair legal systems
-
Participation in democratic or consensual governance structures
Strategies:
-
Evidence-based healthcare systems
-
Comprehensive education access
-
Social welfare policies promoting stability and equality
-
Fair justice and legal protections
-
Community-building initiatives
2. Well-Being of Sentient Life (Non-Sapient Conscious Beings)
Definition: Reducing unnecessary suffering and promoting healthy, thriving lives in beings capable of subjective experience, regardless of sapience.
Subjective Yet Sensible Aim: Choosing to reduce animal suffering stems from a subjective moral valuation, yet is supported by empathy, biological kinship, and common-sense compassion, reinforced by scientific understanding of animal sentience.
Measurable Indicators and Strategies:
Freedom from Suffering:
-
A decrease in the number of animals subjected to industrialised farming or harmful experimentation
-
Reduction in pain and distress indicators (hormonal, behavioural, neural markers)
-
Species-appropriate living conditions
Positive Welfare:
-
Evidence of natural behaviours
-
Environmental enrichment standards
-
Successful reproduction, where appropriate
Population Health:
-
Biodiversity and species population stability
-
Disease prevalence rates
Strategies:
-
Reduction or replacement of factory farming
-
Humane treatment standards
-
Wildlife conservation policies
-
Public education on animal welfare science
3. Well-Being of Nature’s Ecosystems
Definition: The restoration, preservation, and sustainable management of ecosystems capable of supporting life diversity and environmental stability.
Subjective Yet Sensible Aim: Valuing ecosystem health is a consciously chosen ethical goal, yet reason, evidence, and common sense reveal that human and animal flourishing are impossible without stable ecological foundations. Thus, ecosystem well-being is not only a rational aim but a practical necessity.
Measurable Indicators and Strategies:
Biodiversity Health:
-
Species richness and population monitoring
-
Presence of key pollinators and keystone species
Environmental Quality:
-
Air and water purity indices
-
Soil fertility measures
-
Ecosystem service assessments (pollination, water filtration, etc.)
Sustainability Metrics:
-
Deforestation/reforestation rates
-
Carbon sequestration capacity
-
Ocean acidification levels
-
Rates of coral bleaching
Strategies:
-
Protected area expansions
-
Climate change mitigation (emissions reduction, renewable energy)
-
Ecological restoration projects
-
Sustainable resource use policies
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 11
[Audio version]
We find ourselves pondering an age-old question: How can a universe of simple particles give rise to minds, morals, and meaning? Mystrikism, a modern, secular philosophy grounded in rational naturalism and scientific inquiry, offers a distinctive perspective on this mystery. It embraces the scientific conviction that all phenomena have natural explanations. Yet, it also urges a profound sense of wonder (what Mystriks and Phil Zuckerman, the Sociologist who coined the term, calls "Aweism") toward the intricate complexities of life and the cosmos. In exploring emergentism and reductionism, Mystrikism walks a thoughtful line: acknowledging that many lofty phenomena appear "greater than the sum of their parts," while insisting that even the most emergent marvels ultimately arise from, and are explainable by, simpler natural components. This treatise will delve into Mystrikism's view of emergent and reductionist thinking – from consciousness and biology to society, morality, and physics – blending scientific clarity with the sense of humanistic awe that thinkers like Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell exemplified. In doing so, we will see how Mystrikism harmonises the poetic wonder of "the whole" with the logical understanding of "the parts," all while staying true to its credo: nothing supernatural required, but an open heart and mind essential.
Two Lenses on Complexity
Emergentism is the philosophical idea that complex systems can exhibit properties their individual parts do not possess, a point Aristotle famously expressed as, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” This means that when many components interact, new patterns or behaviours can emerge that one would not predict just by examining each component in isolation. A classic example is a simple one: a single water molecule is not "wet," yet the collective behaviour of countless molecules gives rise to the wetness of water. Likewise, individual neurons in a brain are just cells firing electrical impulses, but together they produce the emergent phenomenon of consciousness; a single ant is a simple creature, but an entire colony can manifest complex, colony-wide behaviours like building bridges or regulating nest temperature. Emergentism draws our attention to these novel properties that materialise at higher levels of organisation – in biology, mind, society, and beyond – suggesting that something new and meaningful "emerges" that cannot be fully captured by reduction to the parts alone. It's a perspective that celebrates complexity and often cautions us that understanding a system may require looking at relations, patterns, and wholes, not just atoms and equations.
Reductionism, on the other hand, is the view (and scientific method) that any complex phenomenon can be understood by breaking it down into its constituent parts and simpler interactions. In practice, reductionism is what has driven much of science's success: we explain the behaviour of a cell by understanding its molecules, we explain molecules by the atoms that compose them, and we explain atoms by subatomic particles and forces. The reductionist lens seeks the fundamental building blocks and principles underlying the complexity. As a philosophical stance, reductionism holds that no mysterious extra ingredients are needed once you've accounted for the parts and their arrangement – the whole is the sum of its parts, operating together. A strong reductionist would argue that even phenomena like consciousness or love are "nothing but" the interplay of neurons, hormones, and physics. Critics sometimes caricature this as a "machine-like" or overly simplistic view of life, one that might, if taken naively, miss the forest for the trees. But in its nuanced form, reductionism doesn't deny the beauty of the forest – it simply says the beauty comes from the trees and their interactions. The physicist Nobel laureate Philip Anderson captured this tension in the title of his famous essay "More Is Different," acknowledging that while new phenomena arise at higher levels, they ultimately stem from lower-level laws. In short, reductionism gives us explanatory power by drilling down to basics, and emergentism reminds us that knowing the pieces isn't always the same as appreciating the patterned tapestry they form.
These two perspectives are sometimes cast as opposites: one asks "How do the parts produce the whole?" and the other asks "Why does the whole not feel like just the parts?" Yet, as we shall see, Mystrikism finds these lenses compatible and complementary. The emergent properties are real and wondrous, but not mystical; the reductionist explanation is essential, but without losing the sense of awe they inspire. By understanding both concepts clearly, we set the stage for Mystrikism's balanced worldview – one that uses reductionist science to demystify the world while still revelling in the emergent splendour of nature's complexity.
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 11
[Audio version]
Naturalism, Awe, and the Infinite Unknown
Before examining emergentism and reductionism through a Mystrikal lens, it's crucial to grasp the core principles of Mystrikism that inform its approach. Mystrikism is staunchly naturalistic: it asserts that reality consists of the natural world alone, with no supernatural realms or forces behind the curtain. Every phenomenon – from the tiniest quark to the quilt of galaxies, from the firing of a neuron to the flowering of morality – is part of one natural universe operating by discoverable laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. "Nothing is beyond nature," a Mystrik might say, meaning not that we currently know everything, but that we trust whatever exists will ultimately have a natural explanation. This is metaphysical naturalism, the bedrock of Mystrikism's ontology. It leads directly to methodological naturalism – the commitment to the scientific method and empirical inquiry as the honest and reliable way to investigate reality. If ghosts or spirits were real and testable, they would just become part of nature's catalogue; but until then, Mystriks reserve belief, preferring hypotheses they can scrutinise with evidence. This rational, evidence-based stance is sometimes called epistemological naturalism, where one requires sound reasoning and data before accepting claims about the world.
Importantly, Mystrikism couples this scientific rationality with a deep reverence for the unknown. Rather than filling gaps in knowledge with supernatural beliefs, Mystriks practically revere the mystery itself – not with literal prayer or personification, but with impersonal respect, awe and humility. The movement even speaks of the "infinite unknown" as a kind of metaphorical "higher power" – not a deity with a mind or will, but a symbolic reminder of how much lies beyond our current understanding. Standing under a starry sky, a Mystrik doesn't feel the need to invoke angels or astrology, yet they do feel a profound sense of wonder and insignificance in the face of an immensely complex cosmos. This emotional posture is what Mystrikism calls Aweism: finding "spiritual" (in quotes) depth in natural reality itself. By embracing awe, Mystrikism ensures that a devotion to rationality never calcifies into a cold or cynical outlook. As Carl Sagan beautifully expressed, "The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together." In other words, understanding that we are "just" atoms organised by evolution does not diminish the splendour of life – it elevates it, by revealing the delicate way those atoms are arranged to create a rose, a whale, or a human mind.
Finally, Mystrikism espouses ethical naturalism, viewing moral values as arising from natural facts about sentient beings' well-being rather than from any supernatural commandments. We'll explore this more later, but it's key to note that in a Mystrik's eyes, even morality is part of the natural emergent tapestry. Kindness, cooperation, love – these are not ethereal gifts from above, but emergent features of social and biological reality (shaped by evolution and human reason). This means Mystriks look to psychology, sociology, biology and many other scientific disciplines to inform ethics, treating morality as something to be understood through consequences (suffering or flourishing caused) rather than obeyed as mysterious doctrine.
In summary, the Mystrikal worldview is one of scientific humanism: utterly secular and naturalistic, but “spiritually” (in quotes) rich in its appreciation of nature's wonders and morally earnest in its commitment to compassion and evidence-based ethics. This worldview sets the stage for how Mystrikism handles the interplay of emergentism and reductionism. With nothing supernatural allowed, any emergent phenomenon must ultimately have a natural explanation; with awe and humility at heart, reductionist explanations are welcomed as deepening our wonder, not quenching it. Mystrikism seeks cohesion in these principles – as the doctrine puts it, all four facets of naturalism support one another, forming "a rational, wonder-filled tapestry" of understanding. Against this backdrop, let us see how Mystriks interpret emergent complexity and reductionist science in harmony.
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 11
[Audio version]
Complexity as "Seeming" Beyond the Sum
To a Mystrik, emergent phenomena are real, but not magical. When confronted with something like consciousness, life, or the self-organising behaviour of an ecosystem – things that feel profoundly novel relative to their ingredients – a Mystrik acknowledges the genuine wow-factor of such complexity. These phenomena appear "greater than the sum of their parts," and it's helpful to label them "emergent" as a way of saying "a lot is going on here that isn't obvious from the parts alone". However, Mystrikism pointedly emphasises the word "seems" in that phrase "greater than the sum," insisting that this impression reflects the current gaps in our understanding rather than any ultimate irreducibility. In other words, "emergent" is a provisional concept in Mystrikism – a placeholder term we use when we haven't yet fully traced the detailed chain of cause-and-effect from the parts to the whole. It is an admission of complexity, not a confession of mysticism.
Mystrikism explicitly rejects ontological emergentism, the philosophical stance that emergent properties are fundamentally new kinds of reality, irreducible to physical components. To claim, for example, that life or mind involves some non-physical essence or a new force beyond physics would violate Mystrikism's naturalism. Instead, Mystriks align with epistemological emergentism – the idea that emergent properties appear irreducible because of the limits of our knowledge or analytical methods at present. This view says: "Yes, it looks novel and we don't yet see exactly how the parts give rise to it, but we expect that with enough scientific progress, those mechanisms will be uncovered". It's a stance of patience and confidence in future understanding. An emergent phenomenon, in this light, is not a miracle; it's a complex puzzle. Consciousness is considered an emergent property of neural activity that can, in principle, be fully explained once all underlying mechanisms are identified. We may not have all the pieces yet (brain science is still young). However, there is no "ghost in the machine" – just a very intricate machine we're still learning how to read.
By treating emergence as a practical descriptor rather than a metaphysical explanation, Mystrikism maintains intellectual humility without surrendering to mystification. The complexity of, say, an ant colony's behaviour is astonishing and not trivial to derive from individual ant rules – in that sense, it's emergent. Mystriks happily study such emergent systems with systems science, network theory, or holistic models when those are the appropriate tools. But they do so consistently with the underlying conviction that those emergent patterns are born from lower-level interactions, however complicated. As a result, Mystriks often speak of emergent properties with a tone of reverence and determination: reverence for the intricate "dance" of countless parts that produces, say, a human consciousness; determination that one day, step by step, science will choreograph every step in that dance and demystify it. In the interim, calling something "emergent" is acceptable shorthand for "we don't yet fully know how X arises from simpler Y," but it is never taken to mean "X involves spooky ingredients or breaks the laws of physics".
This balanced view allows Mystriks to celebrate complexity without idolising ignorance. There's an almost poetic sentiment here: each new layer of natural complexity – whether the blooming complexity of a rainforest ecosystem or the collective intelligence of a human society – is seen as an "astonishing product of physical processes, no gods required." The more we learn about those processes, the more our awe can increase, not decrease. A great example is how understanding the stars as gigantic nuclear furnaces billions of miles away (a very reductionist astrophysical explanation) makes the night sky more awe-inspiring, not less – because we now perceive the true scale and grandeur of what those pinpoints of light really are. In the same way, Mystriks believe that unravelling emergent phenomena scientifically will only deepen our appreciation. As the doctrine notes, rational inquiry doesn't drain the magic from life; instead, "the more we discover, the more extraordinary the universe appears.". Emergence, then, is part of the mystery that Mystrikism reveres, but it's a mystery we actively investigate rather than enshrine. Mystriks are fond of saying that today's mysteries are tomorrow's knowledge – today's emergent phenomenon is tomorrow's explained mechanism. This optimism is tempered with patience; nature is infinitely deep, so there will always be emergent layers at the edge of understanding, keeping us humble. The key is, none of those layers are viewed as supernatural gaps; they are natural frontiers.
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 4 of 11
[Audio version]
Peering Deep without Diminishing Wonder
If emergentism reminds us to marvel at the complex whole, reductionism is the strategy that Mystrikism uses to probe and understand how those wholes come to be. At its core, Mystrikism is unapologetically reductionistic in its epistemology. This means Mystriks operate on the working belief that to explain anything, one should break it down to its fundamental components and causes, and that ultimately even the highest-level phenomena will yield to such analysis. The doctrine states plainly that Mystrikism "aligns with an entirely natural, reductionistic and explainable universe grounded in logic". This echoes the physicalist conviction that if you had infinite knowledge of all particles and forces, nothing in the universe would remain unintelligible or beyond prediction. While we humans don't have that omniscient grasp, the reductionist commitment serves as a guiding principle: no matter how complex or "emergent" something looks, keep digging, because there is a mechanism under there waiting to be found.
However, Mystrikism is careful to distinguish good reductionism from bad reductionism. Bad reductionism would be crudely saying, "Oh, love is just a bunch of chemicals, so it's nothing important," or "Art is nothing but neurons firing, so who cares." Mystrikal philosophy firmly rejects that dismissive attitude – it cherishes love and art as deeply meaningful human experiences. The reductionist explanation of their mechanics doesn't equate to a reduction of their value. Mystriks often emphasise that understanding the ingredients of life can enhance our appreciation. To paraphrase a common sentiment: knowing that a rose's red colour comes from specific molecules and sunlight interactions doesn't make it less beautiful; if anything, it adds layers to the beauty, when you realise that those pigment molecules evolved over millions of years to attract pollinators, linking the rose to the entire tapestry of life and sunlight. In the words of a famous science communicator, "It does no harm to the romance of the sunset to know a little bit about it." This quote (often attributed to Richard Feynman) captures the Mystrikal spirit: reductionist knowledge and poetic wonder are not enemies. When a thunderstorm was explained by atmospheric physics instead of Zeus's anger, we did not lose the raw awe of thunder and lightning – we gained admiration for the natural forces at play. The lightning is even more astonishing when you understand the electric charges and cloud dynamics behind it, and yet it remains every bit as breathtaking across the sky.
So what kind of reductionism does Mystrikism advocate? Essentially, it's methodological and epistemological reductionism. Methodological, in that Mystrikal scientists will tackle problems by analysing components (neurons in a brain, individuals in a society, species in an ecosystem) and looking for bottom-up explanations. Epistemological, in that Mystriks believe our knowledge is most secure when we can trace phenomena to their simpler elements and verify cause-and-effect at that level. But Mystrikism stops short of an ontological claim that only the smallest things "really" exist. It fully acknowledges that higher-level structures are real in their own right – a human being is real and not merely an abstraction of atoms, even if atoms ultimately compose the human. In practical terms, this means Mystriks use reductionism as a tool, not an ideology to denigrate the higher levels. They "trust in ever-more precise reductionist explanations" but also use holistic perspectives as needed without ever invoking mysterious forces. A weather system, for instance, might be studied with holistic models (since it's tough to calculate every molecule). Still, a Mystrik holds that the weather in principle arises from all those molecules following physical laws. No Gaia spirit or external teleology is guiding the storm, even if we use higher-level models to describe it.
Mystrikism's reductionism is encapsulated well by an image: imagine peeling an infinite onion of nature – each layer you peel (reducing to smaller scales or simpler components) reveals another layer beneath. The Mystrik is confident there is no ghost hiding between the layers, no magical core; it's natural onions all the way down (or as far down as reality goes). But importantly, Mystriks also look at the whole onion and appreciate how those layers come together. In plainer terms, Mystriks see no conflict between understanding the parts and admiring the whole. They often admire scientists and thinkers who exemplify this unity. For instance, Bertrand Russell, in his writings, combined rigorous logical analysis (reductionist in approach) with lyrical humanism and ethical concern. Carl Sagan, as mentioned, could discuss the biochemical evolution of life (a reductionist account) and yet leave his audience feeling uplifted by how "special" that makes life – that we are "star-stuff" turned conscious, a way for the cosmos to know itself. This iconic Sagan idea of "we are made of star-stuff" is a perfect Mystrikal example: it's a stark reductionist fact (our atoms were forged in ancient stars), but it is delivered as a sublime, almost “spiritual” (in quotes) realisation. Reductionism, in the Mystrikal view, doesn't rob us of poetry; it writes poetry in equations and evidence.
In practice, then, when a Mystrik hears someone claim a phenomenon is irreducibly mysterious, their response is gentle scepticism. They will say, "Perhaps it seems that way now, but history has shown countless 'mysteries' eventually yielding to natural explanation." From the once-miraculous phenomenon of combustion (now explained by oxidation chemistry) to the "vital force" of life (now understood through biology and DNA), time and again, reductionist science has demystified things without destroying their wonder. Mystrikism carries that lesson forward. It encourages trust in the scientific process: not faith in anything supernatural, but faith that patient reductionist inquiry will continue to illuminate the darkest corners of complexity. And until it does, we use terms like "emergent" or "holistic" as helpful signposts – but we never treat them as impenetrable walls. In a line from the doctrine, "eventually, all phenomena, no matter how complex, are expected to yield to ever-more precise reductionist explanations. 'Emergent' is merely a provisional term in Mystrikism.". The take-home message is clear: Reductionism is the roadmap; emergentism describes the scenery. Both are true in their way, but one points the direction to deeper understanding.
With this general philosophy set, we can now explore how Mystrikism applies it across different domains, from the enigma of consciousness to the evolution of morality. We will see emergent "wholes" interpreted through reductionist "parts" in each case, and how Mystriks navigate the insights and pitfalls of each stance.
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 5 of 11
[Audio version]
Consciousness: Mind as an Emergence of Matter
Perhaps no phenomenon feels more emergent – even enigmatic – than consciousness. Our subjective awareness, with its rich qualia and sense of self, has long been termed "the hard problem" in philosophy. Throughout history, many have doubted that mere physical matter could ever give rise to the glow of mental experience. Spiritual traditions posited immaterial souls; even some scientists have flirted with dualism (mind and matter as separate) or with panpsychism (the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property pervading all matter). Mystrikism approaches consciousness with both open-minded curiosity and firm naturalism. The stance is that consciousness is an emergent property of complex biological processes, especially the neural networks in our brains. In plainer terms, the mind arises from matter when matter is organised in particularly intricate ways. The evidence overwhelmingly supports this view: we can alter or abolish consciousness by manipulating the brain (with drugs, injuries, stimulation), demonstrating that mental states depend on physical states. Thus, Mystriks see no need to invoke a separate spirit or a magical spark to animate the mind.
The brain is an electrochemical organ, and somehow those electrochemical signals – when sufficiently networked – produce the subjective theatre of the mind. This is an epistemologically emergent story: we do not yet fully understand how the signals become the "movie" of consciousness, so we label it emergent and investigate further. But ontologically, Mystrikism is confident there is nothing supernatural at work. To quote a line from a famous biologist, "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." That cheeky remark by Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) was meant to jolt us into recognising that our entire rich inner life is, at root, the activity of nerve cells. A Mystrik would add: "…and isn't that astonishing?!" It's not depressing that neurons create consciousness – it's wondrous that the laws of physics have orchestrated matter into such a self-aware symphony.
Mystrikism rejects panpsychism firmly, despite finding it "entertaining speculation," because there is no empirical evidence that inert matter has any conscious experience at all. The allure of panpsychism is that it tries to solve the hard problem by simply declaring consciousness a basic feature of reality (like mass or charge) present in all things to some degree. But Mystriks point out that this doesn't actually explain consciousness – it just disperses the mystery into every electron and grain of sand. Moreover, it's not testable or evidenced: nothing in physics or neuroscience suggests that an atom has a tiny spark of experience. So, while keeping an open mind (if some evidence of mind-matter dual properties emerged, they'd study it), Mystrikism currently views panpsychism as an unnecessary leap beyond data. Instead, Mystriks invest hope in fields like cognitive neuroscience, complexity theory, and information theory to gradually crack the puzzle of consciousness in reductionist terms – For example, by identifying how certain neural circuits correlate with self-awareness, or how integrated information might reach a threshold that yields the subjective "I".
On the other side of the aisle, Mystrikism also counters theological interpretations of consciousness. Many religions hold that the mind (or soul) is a gift from a god, something breathed into humans that sets us apart from mere matter. In such views, consciousness might be seen as evidence of a divine spark – a case where the whole truly transcends the parts by design. Mystriks, committed to naturalism, respond that this is an argument from ignorance. Just because we don't yet know how neurons produce the mind doesn't mean we should insert a ghost or a god into the explanation. History has repeatedly seen “god of the gaps" arguments falter as gaps closed; Mystriks expect the same here. They note, for instance, that damage to specific brain areas can erase specific mental capacities (like language or memory), which is strange if a unified soul were solely responsible for those faculties. The more we map the brain, the more the so-called "soul" appears to be a constellation of brain processes. Mystrikism finds it more parsimonious that consciousness emerged gradually in the evolution of nervous systems, conferring survival advantages, rather than being inserted whole-cloth by a deity at some point. We can even see rudiments of consciousness in animals – the spectrum from simple stimulus-response in an insect to perhaps genuine self-awareness in chimps or dolphins. This continuity fits an emergent natural view better than a binary divine impartation.
In Mystrikal discourse, you might hear an analogy: "The mind is to the brain as a rainbow is to raindrops – a beautiful emergent effect of many tiny interactions, not a thing floating by itself." Just as a rainbow emerges from water droplets and sunlight (and disappears if the physical conditions change), consciousness emerges from neurons and their firing patterns (and flickers or fades if those patterns are disrupted). Seeing it this way doesn't cheapen the rainbow or the mind – it just roots these phenomena in nature's grandeur. And since Mystrikism holds reverence for the infinite unknown, it finds the brain to be one of the most awe-inspiring unknowns of all. The complexity of 86 billion neurons weaving the fabric of a life's experience is mind-boggling – quite literally! Mystriks are fascinated by this "emergent story" and eager participants in its unravelling. They anticipate that as neuroscience advances, it will detail the step-by-step of consciousness (perhaps even replicate aspects of it in AI or simulations), giving a reductionist explanation that still leaves us marvelling at how astonishing it is that atoms in combination can do that. Consciousness is treated as an epistemologically (not ontologically) emergent phenomenon, a complex result of physical processes in the brain and nervous system. It's a challenge to our understanding, but not a violation of our naturalistic creed.
In closing this section, let's recall the humanistic side: Recognising the mind as an emergent property of matter can instil a sense of kinship and responsibility. If mind is a natural phenomenon, then it likely abides by cause and effect – mental illnesses have biochemical roots, meaning we can treat them; our sense of self can be understood and perhaps improved or extended through science; and crucially, if consciousness arises under certain conditions, it suggests we are not metaphysically special exceptions, but rather part of the continuum of nature. This humbles us and also raises ethical considerations: if certain animals show significant signs of consciousness, we owe them moral regard as fellow emergent minds. Mystrikism's reductionist-emergent view of consciousness thus reinforces both a pursuit of knowledge and a compassionate outlook toward other sentient life. It's a beautiful example of how understanding the parts (neurons, biology) informs how we value the emergent whole (a conscious being with feelings).
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 6 of 11
[Audio version]
Life and Biology: From Chemistry to the "Magic" of Life
Life itself was long considered a mystery that mere chemicals could never explain. Ancient thinkers believed in a vital essence or élan vital – some spark of life force that living beings had and inanimate matter lacked. In the 19th century, this view (known as vitalism) began to crumble as scientists managed to synthesise organic molecules from inorganic ones, and as Darwin unveiled how the complexity of organisms could arise gradually via natural selection. Mystrikism fully embraces the modern scientific consensus: life is an emergent phenomenon of chemistry, needing no special vital spark or supernatural intervention. The emergence of life is arguably the most profound example of order emerging from chaos – a theme that Mystriks find deeply awe-inspiring. Simple molecules, given the right environment and energy flows, can self-organise into complex polymers; some of those polymers can become self-replicating (like RNA), and from that humble beginning, evolution by natural selection can eventually produce cells, multicellular organisms, and the entire teeming biosphere we see today. This bottom-up explanation is reductionist in that it posits no additional forces beyond physics and chemistry. Yet, it yields something genuinely new: the self-sustaining, reproducing, adaptive complexity that defines life.
Mystriks often highlight evolution as the master class in emergent complexity. Starting from single-celled organisms billions of years ago, life diversified and complexified, not by any guiding hand, but by the accumulation of changes filtered by survival and reproduction. The results – whether the iridescent wing of a butterfly or the intricate ecology of a coral reef – can feel purposeful or designed, but Mystrikism joins scientists like Richard Dawkins in asserting that this is "the blind watchmaker" at work. There is no need to invoke an external designer when natural selection and deep time can do the job. To quote Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Through that light, the emergence of elaborate biological forms is illuminated as an expected outcome of simple rules (variation, heredity, and selection) iterated over eons. In Mystrikal terms, the beauty and diversity of life are "astonishing products of physical processes" – the physical processes here include genetic mutations (physical changes in DNA) and ecological interactions (physical survival challenges). The awe remains, even increases, when we understand this. As Darwin himself wrote in the stirring final passage of On the Origin of Species, "From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." In that sentence, Darwin captures the emergent splendour (the endless beautiful forms) arising from the reductionist basis (a simple beginning with perhaps one or a few original life forms and simple laws of variation and inheritance).
Mystrikism also uses the story of life's emergence to reinforce its non-supernatural stance. Many religious narratives insert miracles into the origin of life – a divine spark that ignited the first cell, or a creator specially designing each species. Mystriks point out that every attempt to find a shortcut in life's history has either failed or been pushed further back: lightning and atmospheric gases can produce amino acids (Miller-Urey experiment), showing life's building blocks form naturally; self-assembling molecules like lipids form cell-like membranes spontaneously in water; no fossil or genetic evidence indicates a sudden "hand of a god" event – instead we see gradual transitions (For example, feathered dinosaurs transitioning into birds, or ape-like ancestors into humans). The reductionist program in biology has been astoundingly successful: we've mapped DNA (showing the code of life is literally chemistry), we've understood metabolism as chemistry, we use physical drugs to alter biological processes, etc. At this point, claiming life has an extra supernatural ingredient is as unnecessary as suggesting that planets need angels to push them in orbit. Natural laws suffice.
That said, life does pose some of science's great unsolved questions (For example, how exactly did life begin from non-life, the abiogenesis problem). Mystriks label these as emergent puzzles, not as evidence for supernatural intervention. The origin of life is an emergent threshold where chemistry became biology – it's hard to replicate or fully explain yet, but it doesn't require positing a ghost in the test tube. Researchers make progress each year in understanding prebiotic chemistry, and Mystriks are confident that eventually, a plausible natural path from chemical soups to the first microbe will be charted. They are comfortable saying "we don't know yet" and revering that unknown, rather than grasping at metaphysical straws.
In living organisms, we also encounter the concept of teleology (purpose). Biological features often seem designed for a purpose – eyes for seeing, wings for flying. Emergentism here reminds us that this purposefulness is itself emergent and apparent: eyes evolved because creatures with light-sensitive patches survived better, incrementally improving over generations – not because evolution had a plan, but because of cumulative selection. So the "purpose" in biology is retrospective: it emerges from what works, not from foresight. Mystrikism enjoys such explanations because they take something humans used to invoke a god for ("What is the purpose of this?") and answer it with a natural principle ("It appears purposeful because of selection for function, but no external purposer needed"). In that sense, evolution is a reductionist's dream and a theologian's headache – it explains the emergence of organised complexity through simple rules, no miracles included. Mystriks, of course, side with the reductionist view and see evolution itself as one of nature's most awe-inspiring processes.
Another emergent phenomenon in biology is consciousness, which we addressed separately, but we can note here that humans are part of the biological continuum. The human mind emerging from the brain is a late chapter in the grand story of life's emergence from simple beginnings. Mystrikism stresses this continuity: no abrupt, supernatural leap separates us from the rest of life. We are extraordinary, yes, but explainably extraordinary – our capacities emerged from the capacities of our ancestors. Understanding this fosters a sense of kinship with other animals (we share a common origin) and deepens ethical naturalism (we see rudiments of empathy, cooperation in other social animals, suggesting morality's roots are biological – more on that soon).
Finally, let's consider the phenomenon of "the spark of life" in everyday terms. A human being is made of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., which themselves obey physics. Yet when arranged as a living body, these atoms partake in something profoundly different from when they are in a rock: metabolism, growth, reproduction, sensation. Life is emergent in that respect. But reductionism reminds us that if we had perfect knowledge, we could, in principle, map each atom's movement and chemical reaction in a cell and see no laws broken. The challenge is that even one cell contains trillions of atoms – it's practically impossible right now to simulate that entirely, but conceptually, nothing except complexity stops us. Mystrikism holds that complexity does not imply supernatural, it implies patience and powerful tools needed. Already, fields like systems biology and synthetic biology are making headway in dissecting life's complexity and even recreating aspects of life artificially (For example, minimal synthetic cells, or gene editing, constructing new functions). These achievements bolster Mystrikism's confidence that life's emergence can be understood in mechanistic terms.
In sum, Mystrikism views biology as an epic of emergent complexity driven by mindless, natural processes. It's an epic that commands reverence – indeed, many Mystriks speak almost religiously about nature's creativity and the miracle of life, quickly adding that it's a "miracle" in the figurative sense only. A flower blooming is beautiful not because a fairy makes it bloom, but because countless molecules inside the bud are interacting (cells dividing, hormones flowing) in a dance that was choreographed by evolution and DNA. Knowing the choreography doesn't dull the beauty; it might cause us to gasp in greater admiration. The Mystrikal tone encourages exactly that: let understanding deepen your awe. Life's reductionist explanation – as chemical code and evolutionary algorithm – is itself poetic, a testament to what blind nature can yield given time. If that isn't worthy of reverence, what is?
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 7 of 11
[Audio version]
Society and Culture: Individuals, Networks, and Emergent Order
Zooming out from individual organisms, we arrive at society and culture, which introduce another layer of emergent phenomena. A single human is complex; a million humans interacting create complexities of a wholly different order – economies, languages, civilisations, the Internet. Mystrikism, consistent with its naturalistic stance, treats societies as natural phenomena that emerge from the interactions of individuals, without invoking mystical collective spirits or destinies. There is a temptation in some ideologies to treat a nation or society as if it had its own consciousness or fate (for example, speaking of a "national spirit" or the "soul of a people"). Mystriks avoid such reifications; they see these as poetic metaphors at best, not literal entities. Society is emergent, yes, in that it has properties no individual has (no single person has a "language," but a community does; no single person constitutes an "economy," but together trade emerges). Yet all those emergent social facts ultimately supervene on individual thoughts, communications, and actions.
A concrete example: language. Language is an emergent cultural phenomenon – it evolves and exists only in a population sharing it. No one person can have a private language in the full sense. It's more than the sum of individual vocabularies; it includes shared rules, meanings, and nuances that arise through collective use. But there's nothing mystical in language's existence – it's a product of many brains interacting over time, subject to social and cognitive forces (like ease of pronunciation, utility of certain words, etc.). Mystrikism would analyse language emergence through linguistics (sound changes, grammaticalisation, etc.), essentially a reductionist approach to a complex adaptive system.
Another example: markets and economies. Adam Smith famously described how individuals pursuing their own gain can lead, as if by an "invisible hand," to overall social benefit (under some conditions). That invisible hand is an emergent order – no one intends the complex outcomes, yet they arise from aggregate behaviour. Modern complexity economics and network theory explore these emergent orders without assuming any guiding hand (literal or divine). For Mystriks, the invisible hand is just a metaphor for emergent self-organisation. They would extend this to other phenomena like traffic flow (emergent patterns of jams and oscillations form from individual driving decisions) or the growth of cities (urban patterns emerge without a central planner, from many local actions).
One area where emergent social phenomena become particularly meaningful is morality and norms, which we will discuss separately in the next section. But in general, Mystrikism sees human culture as an evolving emergent system akin to a living organism's evolution, but happening in the realm of ideas (memes, if you will). There's a parallel here: just as life's diversity emerged via natural selection, cultural diversity and complexity emerge via a kind of evolution of ideas, practices, and technologies – shaped by human needs and preferences (selection pressures of a sort). Crucially, no supernatural guidance is assumed in Mystrikism's view of history or culture. History has trends and trajectories, but they are driven by human psychology, environmental factors, chance events – not by destiny or a metaphysical purpose. This aligns with what many historians and anthropologists find: complex social structures (like religions, governments, economies) can be explained through material and psychological causes (geography, inventions, conflicts, cooperation dynamics) rather than invoking that a particular empire was "meant" to rise or fall.
That said, society often exhibits holistic properties that challenge reductionist simplifications. For instance, if you only analyse individuals separately, you might miss phenomena like "mob behaviour" or "culture" which arise from interactions. Mystrikism acknowledges the need for holistic models (For example, sociology uses concepts like social networks, institutions, which aren't reducible to one person's traits). But again, they stress that these holistic descriptors are conveniences – at root, a mob behaves as it does because of many individual decisions influenced by crowd psychology (which itself is a science connecting individual psychology with group context). There's no group mind separate from the members. This stance is closely related to methodological individualism in social science, tempered by the understanding that individuals themselves are influenced by emergent structures (like being raised in a culture shapes one's preferences – a feedback loop of emergence).
Another interesting point: some philosophies (and especially some mystical or New Age ideas) flirt with the notion of a collective consciousness – that humanity or all life forms an overarching mind or spiritual entity. Mystrikism does not endorse this literal notion. Figuratively, one might say "we are all connected" as a statement of ecological and social interdependence, a view with which Mystriks would agree. But they wouldn't posit that there is an actual global brain or consciousness that we tap into (ideas found in Teilhard de Chardin's concept of the noosphere, or certain interpretations of the Gaia hypothesis). Gaia hypothesis, for example, initially proposed by James Lovelock, suggested that Earth's biosphere behaves like a single self-regulating organism. Mystrikism would interpret that charitably as a useful systems metaphor: life and Earth co-evolve and stabilise certain conditions (like oxygen levels) in a quasi-homeostasis. But they'd reject any implication of Gaia having intent or consciousness. It's emergent order, yes (feedback loops can make Earth's climate somewhat self-correcting), but it's not evidence of Earth as a sentient being.
In sum, at the social level, Mystrikism continues its theme: order and complexity emerge naturally from simpler elements following understandable principles. Whether it's cooperation emerging from self-interest (game theory shows how even selfish agents might evolve cooperation under repeated interactions) or culture emerging from individuals learning and imitating each other, none of it requires a supernatural push. And just like with other emergent phenomena, understanding the mechanics can guide better outcomes. For instance, if we realise that polarisation in society emerges partly from social network echo chambers (a kind of emergent information cascade effect), we can mitigate that by changing how information flows. This is the practical payoff of a reductionist approach to emergent social issues: by identifying the micro-mechanisms, we can intervene at that level to change the macro outcome.
Mystriks also tend to be optimistic that knowledge can help shape emergent social outcomes for the better, precisely because there's no mysterious fate but rather patterns we can learn and influence. This aligns with the movement's ethical emphasis on improving well-being through rational means. A society is not a capricious god; it's a human construct that can be reformed with human intelligence and empathy. That is an empowering thought: it means we are not at the mercy of some mystical zeitgeist, but rather participants in a large, complex game whose rules we can study and gradually improve.
Lastly, consider how Mystrikism's view contrasts with a theological one in this domain. Some religious outlooks see societies as guided by divine providence or judged by divine standards (For example, “a god will bless a nation that follows him", etc.). Mystrikism rejects any such supernatural oversight. If an empire falls, look to economics, moral decay, resource depletion, war – not to a god's anger. If a social movement succeeds, credit human ideals and effort, not divine mandate. This doesn't make social change any less meaningful – in fact, it puts the responsibility squarely on our shoulders. We can't say “a god will fix society" or "it's destined anyway"; instead, it's "we collectively will shape society, and emergent outcomes will reflect our actions." That's a call to mindful action under uncertainty, very much in line with Mystrikal ethics.
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 8 of 11
[Audio version]
Morality and Meaning: Emergent Ethics in a Natural World
Morality is a domain where people have often assumed a supernatural element – be it a god's commandments, cosmic justice, or karmic balance. Mystrikism takes a bold and refreshing stand: morality is an emergent feature of the natural world, specifically of human nature and the realities of suffering and flourishing. In other words, ethics arise from the interactions of conscious creatures trying to live together, not from any outside instruction. This stance is known as ethical naturalism, and Mystriks champion it strongly. We do not need a deity to tell us what is right or wrong; rather, notions of "good" and "evil" emerge from the observable impact of actions on well-being. If kindness tends to produce happiness and social harmony, we naturally start calling kindness "good." If theft and violence cause suffering and chaos, we label them "bad." Over time, these shared conclusions become moral norms, often codified in cultural rules or laws. But their root is in our nature: humans (and other social animals) have empathy, we can feel pain and pleasure, and we have reason to extrapolate consequences. From those ingredients, morality blossoms as a social technology to maximise our flourishing and minimise our suffering.
Mystrikism's emergent view of morality aligns with thinkers like the philosopher David Hume (who suggested our moral sentiments arise from human nature) and biologists like E.O. Wilson (who saw the evolutionary roots of social behaviour). It also resonates with contemporary proponents of a science of morality, such as Sam Harris, who argues that facts about the well-being of conscious creatures can inform objective morals. A Mystrik might point out, for example, that altruism can be observed in rudimentary form in other animals – apes console each other, wolves cooperate, dolphins support sick companions. These behaviours hint that our moral instincts are an emergent product of evolution: species that live in groups develop behaviours (and corresponding emotions) that help the group thrive, because those groups outcompete nastier, less cooperative ones. So evolution "programmed" empathy and fairness into us at a basic level (not perfectly, but as tendencies). Culture and reason then build on that, refining moral systems over centuries. But nowhere in this story do we need to appeal to a holy book or a divine spark.
This approach naturally contrasts with religious morality. In religious contexts, morality is often portrayed as handed down from a supernatural source (For example, a god's commandments in a “holy” document). Mystrikism rejects that on multiple grounds: first, the plurality of moral codes in world cultures (often conflicting on specifics) is better explained by different social environments and histories than by multiple gods issuing edicts. Second, even religious people tend (in practice) to use reason and empathy to judge morals. For instance, many today reject archaic scriptural injunctions (like stoning adulterers) because by our natural lights we see it as cruel, regardless of divine endorsement. That implies our moral sense stands apart from scripture; it emerged from human considerations. Mystriks would say the progress we've made in morality (For example, abolishing slavery, expanding human rights) has come not from new divine revelations, but from humans applying empathy and rational thinking to social conditions – an emergent, bottom-up process of ethical improvement.
Mystrikal ethics focuses a lot on consequences – this is a broadly utilitarian or pragmatic streak. It asks, "What actions lead to suffering, and what lead to flourishing?". Those questions can, in principle, be studied with the tools of science: psychology experiments, sociology studies, etc. In that sense, morality is seen as a kind of emergent science of well-being. It's not as exact as physics, of course. Still, the idea is that moral truths (like "unnecessary cruelty is wrong") are true because of natural facts (cruelty causes harm, humans and animals dislike pain, societies full of cruelty collapse or are miserable). Thus, moral principles emerge from reality itself. We discover them somewhat the way we discover medicine – by understanding cause and effect in human life. This is a dynamic view: as we learn more (say, find that a particular punitive policy causes more crime and suffering), we adjust our moral stance (perhaps shifting to rehabilitation over punishment). Mystrikism is very comfortable with this evolving, evidence-informed morality. It stands in contrast to any notion of fixed, eternal decrees. Far from seeing that as a weakness, Mystriks see it as a strength: we aren't chained to ancient rules; we are free to improve our ethical understanding as our knowledge grows.
Another emergent aspect of morality is cultural values. Different societies develop different norms – for example, some cultures highly value filial piety (respect for elders), while others value individual freedom more. These can be seen as emergent solutions to local circumstances or historical contexts. Mystrikism respects cultural diversity but also believes in a kind of convergent core of morality based on the common nature of humans. No matter the culture, cruelty, betrayal, and arbitrary violence tend to be seen negatively once people think them through, because the underlying impact is negative. And virtues like honesty and kindness tend to be lauded because they reliably produce trust and happiness. So, Mystriks would argue there is an objective basis (the well-being of conscious creatures) that underpins morality, even as the expression of that basis can vary. The emergent view here is: morality emerges from human nature interacting with the environment, and though the flowers of morality might be diverse, the soil (human nature) has common elements across our species.
Because morality is emergent, Mystrikism also tends to support the idea that we can use rational discourse to improve it. We can reason about ethical dilemmas, appeal to facts about consequences, and come to better solutions. There's nothing mystically unknowable about ethics – it's hard, yes, because human life is complex and our information is incomplete, but it's in the domain of understandable problems. Compare that to a worldview where morality is just obedience to divine will – in that view, without a god's revelation, we'd be lost. Mystriks say, "No, we have the tools within us – empathy, reason, shared human experience – to figure this out, however imperfectly." This is a very empowering and also humbling stance: empowering because it's up to us (we are the authors of morality), humbling because it means if the world is unjust, we can't blame it on anything but our own failings, and we must strive to fix it.
A practical upshot of emergent naturalistic ethics is the emphasis on harm reduction and well-being. Mystrikism often frames moral questions in terms of reducing suffering and increasing flourishing for not only humans but all sentient beings. This leads to a broad compassion – for animals (since they feel pain and emotions to varying degrees), for the environment (since destroying ecosystems ultimately causes suffering to countless creatures, including us), and for future generations. None of these concerns requires a supernatural belief; they emerge logically once you value well-being naturally. For example, environmental stewardship can be seen as emergent moral insight. Initially, a society might not think dumping waste is "immoral," but as we understand the consequences (pollution harms health, future generations suffer), a moral norm against pollution emerges. It's not delivered by thunderbolt from Zeus; it's learned by evidence and empathy.
Does Mystrikism allow for any higher meaning or purpose beyond what nature provides? In a world of pure naturalism, isn't there a risk of nihilism (if everything is just atoms and void)? Mystrikism addresses this by reframing meaning as itself an emergent property. Purpose is not handed down from on high; it emerges from our values, relationships, and aspirations. We create meaning by what we choose to care about and pursue. For a Mystrik, the lack of cosmic predestined purpose is not depressing – it's liberating and motivating. It means we are the authors of meaning in our lives. Our sense of purpose might emerge from our evolutionary drives (to love, to create, to explore), but we can reflect on those and embrace them consciously. A Mystrik might say the universe has no inherent meaning, but we are meaning-generators in the universe. That is a profoundly beautiful emergent fact: little lumps of carbon (humans) have arranged themselves into beings that dream, hope, and assign significance to things. It's like the universe woke up through us and now experiences itself with intention. Carl Sagan phrased something similar: "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." That line captures how a reductionist fact (we are made of cosmos) and an emergent reality (we have knowledge) combine into a meaningful perspective.
In conclusion to this section, morality and meaning in Mystrikism stand as testament to the emergent capacities of natural beings. We evolved not only to survive, but to care and to question. Ethics is the blossoming of primal instincts into principles of justice and kindness, guided by reason. Purpose is the bloom of conscious reflection on the raw fact of existence. None of this requires myths about immortal souls or divine plans – and yet it fulfills much of what those myths aim to provide: a guide to live a good life, a reason to treat each other well, and a sense of belonging to something larger (in our case, the community of life and the ongoing adventure of the cosmos). Mystrikism finds that reverence for the infinite unknown is again helpful here: we do good and seek meaning while humbly aware that we don't have all the answers. We strive, guided by evidence and empathy, refining our emergent moral compass as we go. In a way, we co-create morality together in the same fashion that we co-create a culture or a language – organically, over time, through trial and error and shared experience. This makes morality a living, breathing aspect of the natural world, one which merits our respect and careful tending, just like a garden we hope to see flourish.
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 9 of 11
[Audio version]
Physics and Cosmology: Fundamental Reductions and Emergent Realities
Finally, we turn to the most fundamental level of understanding: physics and the cosmos at large. At first glance, one might think physics is all reductionism and no emergence – after all, physics seeks the basic laws of nature, the ultimate building blocks like quarks, electrons, and forces. And indeed, Mystrikism is thoroughly on board with the reductionist triumphs of physics: the Standard Model of particle physics, the laws of electromagnetism, gravity, and quantum mechanics – these are the bedrock explanations for how matter and energy behave. In principle, if you know the physics of all particles, you could derive everything else (that's the dream of a Theory of Everything). However, even within physics and cosmology, scientists recognise emergent phenomena. A classic example: temperature is an emergent concept – a single atom doesn't have a temperature; temperature makes sense only as an average kinetic energy of a vast number of atoms. Similarly, concepts like solidity (a table feels solid, yet it's mostly empty space between atoms – solidity emerges from electromagnetic forces and quantum rules among zillions of atoms) or pressure (emergent from particle collisions) are not present at the particle level but become real at aggregate scales.
Mystrikism delights in these examples because they illustrate again that "more is different" – new properties appear at higher complexity – but none of them violate or escape the lower-level rules. There's no new mysterious force that makes a gas have pressure; it's the collective result of countless molecules bouncing around. This pattern holds true up the chain: chemical properties (like "wetness" of water, or the reactive behaviour of an acid) emerge from physical interactions of atoms; biological properties arise from chemicals; consciousness from biological networks; and so on. Physics is the foundation, but by the time we reach living or cosmic scales, we often need new descriptive frameworks (you wouldn't calculate human history with quantum equations, even though, in principle, human bodies obey quantum physics). Mystrikism understands this as the hierarchy of science: each level (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology...) has its own emergent regularities, which we treat with some autonomy, but that autonomy is one of convenience and complexity, not of separate existence. We still believe a sociological phenomenon is being implemented by microphysical processes; currently, we can't track all of them, so we treat the emergent level on its own terms.
In cosmology, emergence shows up in the formation of large-scale structures. After the Big Bang, the universe was just a hot soup of particles (pretty reductionist chaos). But gravity – a simple fundamental force – gradually pulled matter into clumps, which became stars, galaxies, clusters, creating the beautiful hierarchical structure of the cosmos we see today. One might say galaxies are emergent structures from gravitational dynamics. They even have emergent behaviours (spiral density waves making the spiral arms, for instance, or the way galactic ecosystems cycle gas through star formation and supernovae). Again, nothing supernatural, just lots of pieces interacting. But the outcome is something like the Milky Way, which has patterns and perhaps could even be thought of as having a kind of "life cycle" (forming, evolving, possibly dying in the distant future).
Another fascinating frontier is how space and time themselves may be emergent in some modern physics theories. For example, specific approaches to quantum gravity (like string theory or quantum entanglement hypotheses) suggest that spacetime geometry might emerge from more fundamental quantum information. This is highly speculative and cutting-edge, but it shows that even at the bedrock, physicists are entertaining the idea that what we consider fundamental (space, time) might actually be emergent from something deeper (maybe a network of entangled bits). Mystrikism, while not presuming to solve quantum gravity, is certainly intrigued by the idea that the pattern of emergence might be fractal – it could go all the way down and all the way up. At every scale, new effective laws appear that make sense at that scale, derived from lower scales. For instance, the smooth fabric of spacetime emerges from the grainy quantum level like a fluid's smooth flow emerges from molecular chaos. If this holds true, then "reductionism" is always the guide to get to the next layer down, but there may always be another emergent layer below, until we truly hit rock bottom of reality (if there is one). Regardless, the process of science is to keep peeling those layers.
Does Mystrikism expect everything to reduce nicely? Are there any candidates for truly irreducible emergent "laws" that are independent? The stance is that even if our human minds need emergent laws (like thermodynamics) to work with, those laws are statistical summaries of underlying laws. For example, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy tends to increase) is a fundamental-seeming principle, but it's actually emergent from the statistical properties of particle motion. It's not separate from particle physics; it's a consequence of it. This reinforces the viewpoint that reductionism undergirds even emergent regularities.
Another concept often discussed is determinism vs free will, which ties physics to human-level questions. If everything reduces to physical law, is free will an illusion? Mystrikism tends toward a compatibilist view (though individuals might have nuanced opinions): basically, yes, in a strict sense our decisions are products of brain chemistry responding to inputs, so at a physical level they're determined (or probabilistic if quantum effects matter). But free will as we experience it is an emergent phenomenon of our complex brains making choices, and it remains meaningful at that emergent level (we feel deliberation, we can change based on reasoning, etc.). Mystriks often say we should live as if we have free will and are responsible, because that emergent perspective is practically valid, even if philosophically we know it's underpinned by causal chains. This again shows comfort with multiple levels of description – we don't have to choose one and deny the reality of the other. We can say "free will is how decision-making feels from the inside, when a brain with certain complexity performs choices" – an emergent self-description of a deterministic system. This is how a Mystrik might reconcile everyday experience with reductionist philosophy.
One more interplay of reductionism and awe in cosmology: consider the concept of a unified theory (the reductionist dream: one equation to rule them all). If scientists find it, would that make everything trivial? Mystriks doubt it. As the physicist Stephen Hawking once mused, even if we had a theory of everything, we would still have to understand the 10^80 particles' worth of stuff the theory applies to – in other words, the equation might be simple, but its solutions (our universe's actual state) are complex. And beyond that, we'd still have the emergent questions: how does that theory produce life, mind, beauty? So far from ending wonder, a final physical theory might mark a new beginning of understanding emergent phenomena on a fully known foundation. Imagine the joy of truly knowing the rules of the game and then exploring all the patterns they can produce – that's a very Mystrikal aspiration, combining ultimate reductionism with ultimate curiosity about emergence.
In wrapping up this section, it's worth highlighting a quote that Mystriks admire by J. B. S. Haldane: "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." This captures the humbling idea that no matter how deep our reductionist knowledge goes, reality's layers of emergent strangeness may never end. There will always be new surprises as systems combine into forms beyond previous imagination. Mystrikism takes this not as a defeat, but as inspiration: an infinite unknown to revere, yet bit by bit to illuminate. Physics gives us the laws, but those laws allowed galaxies, stars, planets, life, and consciousness to emerge – a cascade of wonders from quarks to poets. It's hard to imagine a more awe-inspiring narrative, and it's entirely naturalistic. In the grand sense, one can even say the cosmos itself is an emergent unfolding: from a near-uniform fireball at the Big Bang to the richly structured cosmos now, complexity keeps increasing in pockets (even as overall entropy increases). We, as thinking beings, are part of that increase in local complexity. Mystrikism finds profound meaning in viewing the human quest for knowledge as the universe, through us, turning back to understand itself. And it affirms that we do so not by denying our material nature, but by embracing it fully – because it is from matter and energy that this capacity for reflection and awe has emerged.
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 10 of 11
[Audio version]
Contrasts with Other Philosophical Perspectives
It's illuminating to place Mystrikism's approach to emergentism and reductionism alongside a few other worldviews:
-
Scientific Materialism / Physicalism: Mystrikism is, in essence, a form of scientific materialism – it agrees that only matter-energy (and their interactions) exist and everything must be explained in those terms. Where it distinguishes itself is in tone and emphasis. Some caricatures of materialism portray it as cold or dismissive of human experience ("we're nothing but atoms, so love or beauty are illusions"). Mystrikism explicitly rejects that nihilistic streak. Instead, it insists that understanding our "nothing but atoms" nature heightens our appreciation for love and beauty, precisely because they are rare emergent phenomena of those atoms. Unlike a purely reductionist materialist who might say emergent properties are irrelevant epiphenomena, Mystrikism says they are significant consequences of material reality. In practice, this aligns Mystriks with thinkers like Carl Sagan, who was a materialist in ontology but almost “spiritual” (in quotes) in his reverence for the material processes that produce them. A strict materialist might also eschew any talk of "spirituality" (in quotes) or "higher power" even metaphorically. In contrast, Mystrikism comfortably uses such language (carefully qualified with naturalism) to express the emotional significance of the unknown. So one could say Mystrikism is materialism with a soul – not a literal soul, but a poetic human depth. This makes it more palatable to those who fear materialism is dehumanising. In content, there's no difference (both deny the supernatural, both trust reductionist science); in spirit, Mystrikism reclaims wonder and morality as natural phenomena to be treasured, whereas old-school materialism sometimes ignored those aspects.
-
Panpsychism and Idealism: We touched on panpsychism earlier – the idea that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous. Idealism is a broader notion that the mind or spirit is the primary substance, and matter might even be a manifestation of the mind. These views are, in a way, the polar opposite of reductionist physicalism. Mystrikism rejects them for lack of evidence and for adding unnecessary complexity to explanations. The world behaves exactly as we'd expect if matter is mindless until organised in very special ways. There's no hint, for example, that electrons make choices or experience qualia; their behaviour is fully explained by physical laws without mental attributes. Panpsychists often argue that physicalism can't explain consciousness, so they propose that consciousness is everywhere. Mystriks argue back that just because we don't yet have a full explanation doesn't mean we should flip the ontology. They see panpsychism as a kind of neo-vitalism for mind: an appealing but speculative leap beyond what data support. Mystrikism also values falsifiability – panpsychism is notoriously unfalsifiable (if everything has consciousness, how do you prove or disprove it? If a rock is conscious in some invisible way, no experiment can confirm that). Mystriks prefer to stay grounded in what can be tested and observed. Similarly, idealistic monism (all is mind) or dual-aspect theories (mind and matter are two sides of one coin) are seen as conjectures that complicate the picture without predictive power. They might be interesting philosophically, but Mystrikism's attitude is: unless such theories produce some empirical handle, they remain speculative metaphysics that one should not commit to. Instead, stick with what has worked – a reductionist physicalist approach – and see how far it can go. So far, it has an excellent track record.
-
Holism and New Age Spirituality: There are philosophical and spiritual movements that champion holism – the idea that wholes are primary and perhaps that the universe is an interconnected whole with its own quasi-consciousness. The New Age slogan "everything is one" sometimes veers into claiming a mystical unity, where personal consciousness can tap into a universal consciousness. Mystrikism shares a rational version of holism in acknowledging interconnectedness (ecologically, we're all interdependent; physically, we all obey the same laws; socially, our actions affect each other globally). But it stops short of any mystical holism. If someone says "the universe has a plan for you" or "we can manifest reality with our thoughts because mind underlies matter," a Mystrik will politely disagree. These notions conflict with the evidential, law-bound nature of reality Mystriks hold dear. The universe's "plan," if any, is just the unfolding of natural laws, which cares not for individual fates except insofar as cause and effect play out. That might sound bleak, but Mystriks prefer truth over comforting illusions. The meaning we find in our narrative or sense of connection with the cosmos is valid as an emergent subjective experience, but not to be mistaken for an objective cosmic teleology. In short, holism as a perspective (looking at whole systems) is fine, even useful; holism as an ontology that whole systems have independent agency or spiritual essence is not supported in Mystrikism.
-
Theological and Dualistic Views: In religious worldviews, one often finds a reductionism of a different sort: everything is reduced to a god. That is, any complex question (like why does consciousness exist, or how did life arise, or what gives us moral sense) is ultimately answered with "because a god made it so" or "it reflects a god's nature." This is a top-down reduction: reducing diverse phenomena to one supreme agency. Mystrikism rejects this for multiple reasons. First, it's not a helpful explanation – saying “a god did it" doesn't tell you how it was done, and thus doesn't deepen understanding or allow predictions (whereas scientific reductionism leads to concrete understanding, For example, knowing biochemistry led to medicine, whereas attributing disease to devils did not help cure it). Second, invoking a god often pushes the complexity up a level: if a human mind is so complex it needs a designer, then a god's mind would be even more complicated – so who designed this god? It raises a bigger question than it answers. Mystriks, therefore, see supernatural answers as avoiding the real work of tracing cause-and-effect in nature. With dualism (mind and matter separate, or body and soul separate), similar issues arise: how does an immaterial soul interact with a material brain? (Descartes' old puzzle.) No dualist has provided a clear mechanism, whereas the materialist view of mind-brain at least aligns with what neuroscience finds (electrical stimulation of the brain yields experiences, etc.). So theological and dualistic frameworks are, in Mystrik's judgment, not only unsupported by evidence but also stagnating inquiry – historically, whenever phenomena were ceded to "the unknowable will of a god," scientific progress stalled, only resuming when people assumed there is a natural mechanism to seek. Mystrikism explicitly aligns itself with keeping the flame of inquiry alive and never attributing to the supernatural what can be explained naturally (a principle similar to Laplace's famous response about the lack of need for the god proposition (doesn’t qualify as a hypothesis as it is unfalsifiable) in celestial mechanics). This doesn't mean Mystriks attack people's faith gratuitously; they don't base their understanding on it. They aim to show that the naturalistic story is not only sufficient but also more majestic and honest. To paraphrase Dawkins quote goes: "The universe has exactly the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, nothing but blind physical forces – and yet look at the beauty those forces have wrought over eons!". In place of a divine plan, Mystrikism offers the sublime vision of a self-organising cosmos.
In contrasting these perspectives, it's clear Mystrikism is not a radical outlier but rather a synthesis and humanisation of a scientific worldview. It stands very much in line with mainstream secular, scientific thought (physicalism, evolution, secular ethics). Still, it repackages it in a way that addresses human “spiritual” (in quotes) and moral yearnings without lapsing into the supernatural. In doing so, it differentiates itself from both ends: from a dry reductionism that fails to inspire, and from a mystical holism that sacrifices rigour. It tries to have the best of both: the intellectual integrity of reductionist science and the heartfelt wonder and meaning often associated with spiritual traditions.
Emergentism & Reductionism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 11 of 11
[Audio version]
A Unity of Understanding and Wonder
Emergentism and reductionism, as treated in Mystrikism, turn out not to be adversaries but partners in the human quest for understanding. Throughout this treatise, we've seen that Mystrikism harmonises these concepts by remembering the wisdom in both: "Look to the parts for the explanation, but cherish the whole for its significance." A Mystrik might say that reductionism gives us the knowledge to answer "how," while emergentism ensures we keep asking "why does it matter" and "what new wonders arise when things combine." In a Mystrikal worldview, one can revel in the poetic truth that we are stardust contemplating the stars – a line that contains a reduction (stardust: we are made of atoms forged in stars) and an emergence (contemplation: a cognitive miracle of those atoms). There is no contradiction in that duality; it's precisely the union of those perspectives that gives the thought its power.
Mystrikism stands as a modern torchbearer for the kind of worldview championed by thinkers like Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and many others who refused to accept that one must choose between science and meaning. It asserts that a scientific, naturalistic universe is not a dead universe – it's a living panorama of emergent complexity. Every reductionist discovery, from the DNA double helix to the quantum behaviour of electrons, has eventually opened up new fields of wonder – molecular biology, electronics, you name it – which in turn spawn emergent phenomena and new questions. As our knowledge expands, so does our perimeter of mystery (to paraphrase Einstein or Haldane). Mystriks find that exhilarating. They feel, in a genuine sense, a reverence when faced with facts like the age of the cosmos or the intricacy of a cell – a reverence devoid of superstition, but reverence nonetheless.
In the ethical realm, this worldview places responsibility on our shoulders. If everything reduces to natural law and emergent consequence, then our fate is truly in our own hands. No saviour or karma will rescue us from climate change or global conflict; only our understanding of those problems (reductionist analysis) and our emergent collective action (social cooperation) can. That can sound daunting, but it is also empowering and meaningful. It means our choices matter immensely – they ripple through the natural web of cause and effect. It also means small actions can scale up: an emergent property of many people making ethical choices is a better world for all. In that sense, Mystrikism gives people both a realistic outlook and a hopeful call to action: reality may be indifferent at base, but within it we can create pockets of care, joy, knowledge, and beauty.
The Mystrikal tone throughout is one of an "unmistakably human voice" – by which we mean a voice that acknowledges human feelings, doubts, and aspirations. We have seen how Mystrikism doesn't shy away from words like "mystery," "spiritual (in quotes)," "higher power (metaphorically)." It uses them to articulate the human experience of a natural world that is at once intelligible and humbling. Bertrand Russell once noted that love and knowledge, both, were necessary for a good life, and that neither should be sacrificed. In a way, emergentism corresponds to the love of the rich tapestry of existence, and reductionism corresponds to the knowledge of how the threads are woven. Mystrikism marries the two in a philosophy of life that seeks truth through science and meaning through understanding our place in nature.
Standing beneath a night sky, a Mystrik doesn't feel small because we're "merely" matter. Instead, they might feel a profound connection: the iron in our blood was born in supernovae, the photons hitting our eyes travelled light-years – we are intimately connected to the cosmos by physical processes. That perspective is only available through reductionist discoveries, yet it triggers what can only be described as an emergent feeling of awe or even transcendence. This is the Mystrikal sweet spot: grounded in reality, but elevated in spirit.
In conclusion, Mystrikism's view on emergentism and reductionism teaches us that we need not choose between cold fact and warm meaning. The world can be seen as one grand natural order, where from simplicity springs complexity, and from understanding springs wonder. The emergent and the reductionist viewpoints are like two eyes giving us depth perception on truth – with both, our vision is richer. As we continue to explore, Mystriks will carry a toolkit in one hand (the analytical, dissecting mind) and a poem in the other hand (the appreciative, synthesising heart). And with those, they walk forward, eager to discover how the universe works and equally keen to be moved by what it reveals. In the words of a modern sage (and in true Mystrikal fashion, we can agree), "What a privilege it is to be part of this universe – to study it, to know it, and to feel at home in it." Each of us is a participant in nature's story, an emergent chapter of the cosmos understanding itself, and through Mystrikism's lens, that is more than enough "magic" (in quotes) for one reality – it is a magic we can trust, because it is real.
Free Will
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 6
[Audio version]
The Timeless Puzzle of Free Will
For ages, philosophers and scientists have wrestled with the free will conundrum, the perplexing question of whether our choices are truly our own or the inevitable outcome of prior causes. We feel ourselves choosing: to speak or remain silent, to act or abstain. Yet we know that behind every choice lies a chain of events stretching back beyond memory. Is our sense of agency a grand illusion, or is there a way to reconcile it with a world governed by natural laws?
Many thinkers lean toward the first answer: determinism, the view that all our actions are the inevitable products of preceding events and conditions. In this deterministic picture, every decision is the effect of prior causes, pointing toward a law-governed future (deterministic, or probabilistic if quantum effects matter, either way leaving no room for contra-causal freedom). Our cherished feeling of being free to choose may then be an illusion, a byproduct of neurons and chemistry unfolding in the brain. Indeed, experiments have found that the brain often initiates actions moments before we consciously "decide" to act, hinting that our sense of volition might be a post hoc story we tell ourselves. In this camp, a leading voice is neuroscientist Sam Harris, who argues unequivocally that free will is an illusion. In his book Free Will (2012), Harris contends that we do not control the origin of our thoughts or intentions as we assume; instead, they emerge from a cascade of prior causes that we neither initiate nor oversee. He often cites such neuroscience experiments to show that the brain can "decide" on a course of action before our conscious mind is even aware of it – implying that our feeling of making a choice is simply the mind catching up to what the brain has already done. In Harris's view, even our deepest deliberations are the product of background processes we do not consciously direct, making our cherished sense of autonomy more of a compelling narrative than an objective fact. Understandably, this conclusion is deeply unsettling: if we never truly choose, what becomes of personal accountability or moral responsibility? Not to mention, what the fuck is the point?
Not everyone is ready to write free will off as a mere illusion. The problem of free will has always been about finding space for genuine choice between total determinism and random chance. If our decisions are not fully determined, the alternative shouldn't be pure randomness, as randomness offers no more control than strict fate. For centuries, those who defend free will have struggled to show that our actions "depend on us" and are not preordained by fate, divine decree, or physical causality. Modern philosophers often seek a middle path in compatibilism, the idea that even in a law-bound universe, a meaningful form of free will can exist. Compatibilists argue that we are "free" so long as our choices flow from our own internal desires and reasoning, without external coercion, even if those desires have causal roots. Still, others remain unsatisfied: some insist that true freedom requires a breach in the chain of causation (a position known as libertarian free will). In contrast, others maintain that any real free will is impossible and our sense of agency is entirely a construct. The debate spans philosophy, science, and religion, with high stakes and no final consensus in sight.
Mystrikism, a modern worldview grounded in naturalism and wonder, offers a fresh resolution to this age-old impasse. It invites us to neither deny our scientific understanding nor dismiss our lived experience, but to integrate them in a fuller perspective. Rather than choose sides in the stalemate, Mystrikism seeks a balance, blending clear-eyed rationality with humility and a sense of awe at the mysteries that remain. In this exploration, we'll journey through Mystrikism's approach, one that shows how free will can be both not absolutely real and yet profoundly meaningful for how we live our lives.
Free Will
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 6
[Audio version]
Mystrikism's Naturalistic Worldview: Honesty, Humility, and Awe
Before tackling free will directly, we must ground ourselves in the "spirit" of Mystrikism. This philosophy stands on the pillars: naturalism, honesty, justice, humility, and awe. It is uncompromisingly naturalistic – it posits that nothing exists outside matter-energy and the lawful cosmos, yet it cherishes the richness of human experience. In Mystrikism, which uses evidence as our guide, there are no observed and verified supernatural loopholes or mystical forces steering our decisions, only the intricate dance of nature unfolding through us. Being honest means upholding empirical truth above comforting fiction, embracing the integrated principles of science as our best tool for understanding reality. Humility means recognising the limits of our knowledge and being willing to be proven wrong, especially when peering into the great unknown. And through it all, Mystrikism urges a reverent awe: an appreciation that even a thoroughly natural universe can inspire profound wonder. We approach life's mysteries, free will included, not with dogmatic certainty, but with curiosity and respect.
Crucially, Mystrikism rejects false dichotomies. It "rejects both extremes" of rigid objectivism and free-floating subjectivism, seeking instead a balance where subjective human experience is honoured yet tested against reality. In other words, this worldview will not let us simply say "experience says I have free will, end of story," nor "science says I don't, case closed." True to its principles, Mystrikism guides us to an integration: True wisdom lies in integration, where subjective experience is refined through objective inquiry, and objective knowledge is enriched by human meaning. With that integrative mindset, let us turn to the puzzle at hand and see how Mystrikism's approach to Emergentism and Reductionism can resolve the free will paradox.
Emergentism and Reductionism: A Key to the Paradox
At the heart of Mystrikism's resolution of the free will dilemma is its understanding of emergentism and reductionism. These terms sound academic, but the idea is intuitive. Reductionism holds that any complex phenomenon can be explained by breaking it down into its fundamental parts and laws. In the reductionist view, we are ultimately collections of atoms obeying physics; in principle, if one had godlike knowledge of every particle and force, one could predict every action we take. There is much truth here. Mystrikism fully embraces the triumphs of reductionist science, which has revealed the basic building blocks of nature (quarks, electrons, fields) and their laws. Indeed, if you know the physics of all particles, you could derive everything else, that is the classic dream of a Theory of Everything. Determinism, in this sense, means the state of the universe at one moment fixes the next. At the microscopic level of molecules and neurons, there is no room for ghostly "free" interventions.
Emergentism, however, reminds us that new properties and realities appear at higher levels of complexity – even though nothing supernatural is added. Nobel physicist Philip Anderson once said, "More is different," and Mystrikism delights in this truth. Consider a simple example: temperature. A single atom doesn't have a temperature; temperature only makes sense as an average behaviour of countless atoms moving together. It is an emergent property of a crowd. Likewise, a single water molecule isn't wet in isolation; wetness is a quality that emerges when billions of H₂O molecules cohere in liquid form. The wetness is real to our fingers, yet if you zoom into the molecular level, you won't find a tiny drop of "wet" attached to any one particle. As the Mystrikal ethos explains, concepts like solidity or wetness "are not present at the particle level but become real at aggregate scales." New properties appear at higher complexity without violating the lower-level rules – "there's no new mysterious force" that makes water wet or gives a gas pressure; those phenomena are the collective result of many interacting units. All emergent phenomena still obey the fundamental laws, but they have their own identity and character at their level.
Mystrikism applies this same reasoning up through all layers of reality: from physics to chemistry to biology to psychology and beyond. Each level introduces concepts and rules that are useful and valid in their own right, even though, at bedrock, nothing exists except the interactions of the lowest-level ingredients. We do not commit a mistake by talking about "cells" or "minds" or "societies" as real things, even though each of those ultimately consists of atoms. We recognise that at each scale, specific patterns emerge that deserve their own descriptions. Mystrikism considers this a hierarchy. Each level (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology) has its own emergent regularities, which we treat with some autonomy. Still, that independence is one of convenience and complexity, not of separate existence. Higher-level phenomena are real and meaningful in context, even though they are entirely made of lower-level components.
Free Will
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 6
[Audio version]
The Water and Wetness Metaphor: Scale-Dependent Reality
To truly grasp this, let's linger on the water and wetness metaphor, for it holds a powerful lesson about scale-dependent experience. Imagine a single molecule of water drifting in space. It has atoms vibrating, bonds stretching, but it makes no sense to ask whether that solitary molecule is "wet." Now imagine a vast quantity of such molecules, pooled together in a lake. Dip your hand in, and you feel the cool wetness. You might even be moved by the beauty and tranquillity of the water. The property of wetness emerges only at the collective level. It is scope-dependent. Under a microscope, you see the dance of H₂O molecules, but "wetness" disappears; zoom out, and wetness reappears as an experiential reality. Both perspectives are valid: at one level, there are just molecules in motion, at another, there is genuinely "wet" water.
Mystrikism uses this as an illustrative analogy for many phenomena. It's not just a metaphor, it's how scientists themselves understand the world. We know that solidity (the hardness of a rock) is mostly empty space at the atomic scale, yet the solidity is no less real to our everyday dealings. Consciousness itself can be viewed this way. The Mystrikal perspective posits that chemical properties (like 'wetness' of water) and consciousness from biological networks and so on, all arise in just this emergent fashion. No single neuron in your brain has the awareness of self or the capacity to choose, yet when billions of neurons interconnect in just the right way, this "miracle" of the mind appears. Think of it. A mind, with all its colours of perception, memory, desire, and choice, blooming out of electrical and chemical exchanges among cells. To a Mystrik, there is profound awe in this realisation, a feeling of reverence at how nature self-organises into greater complexities. It doesn't require invoking anything supernatural; it requires us only to appreciate the layered richness of the natural world.
So, when we ask whether free will exists, we should remember water and wetness. We should ask: at what level are we looking? If we inspect the microscopic level of physics and neurons, perhaps we will find no little kernel of "free will" floating about, just as we find no "wetness particle" in a single molecule. But if we observe at the level of a whole conscious being navigating life, we may find that "free will" is a valid description of what's happening, just as wetness describes what water does at our scale. In Mystrikism, scope matters. We learn to be comfortable saying something is not real in one sense and entirely real in another, without contradiction.
Consciousness and Choice as Emergent Phenomena
Let's apply this insight directly to consciousness, choice, and the feeling of agency. Neuroscience tells us that every decision we make corresponds to physical events in the brain: neurons firing, signals cascading, neurotransmitters releasing. If we were to observe this at the reductionist level, we'd see a biochemical chain reaction, a deterministic (or at times probabilistic) process following the laws of cause and effect. From that outside perspective, one might be tempted to say: "It's all just neurons and physics, therefore what we call 'decision' is merely an illusion; free will doesn't exist." This is one extreme that some hold, a view that our sense of making choices is completely mistaken.
But pause and consider. There is another perspective, the inside perspective. From within our minds, we experience a very different reality. We weigh reasons, imagine future outcomes, feel torn between options and finally decide. That lived experience of deliberation is not a trivial thing to be brushed aside. It is an emergent reality in its own right, "we feel deliberation, we can change based on reasoning, etc.". The language of desires, intentions, and plans operates at the level of minds, not at the level of molecules, yet it genuinely explains what we do. A neuroscientist could describe the synaptic currents behind my choosing words as I speak. Still, I, at the human level, would say, "I'm trying to express this idea clearly." Both descriptions are true: one in the language of physics, one in the language of agency.
Mystrikism teaches that these perspectives do not cancel each other out, they complement each other. It encourages us to avoid what one might call "category errors" – like expecting to find wetness in a single molecule, or expecting to pinpoint free will in a single neuron. Instead, we see conscious choice as an emergent property of the brain, just as mind itself emerges from matter. Free will is how decision-making feels from the inside, when a brain with a certain level of complexity makes choices. In other words, free will is the subjective experience of a very complex deterministic system engaging in self-directed action. It's the name we give to the phenomenon of a brain weighing information, reflecting on itself, and producing behaviour in a flexible, adaptive way. From this vantage, free will is not an illusion at all, it is the accurate description of what's happening at the level of persons, even though at the level of particles, the description looks different.
The 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza intuited something like this long ago. He observed that humans feel free simply because we are aware of our desires and choices, but unaware of the deeper causes influencing us. "Men believe themselves free," Spinoza wrote, "because they are conscious of their actions and ignorant of the causes of them." We now know those causes include genes, conditioning, neural wiring – the whole chain of physics and biology. Yet Spinoza also noted a remarkable fact: even if you come to know that your will is determined, you will still experience it as free. He likened it to the way we see the sun. We know the sun is 150 million kilometres away, but it looks about twenty feet overhead. Likewise, "even if we adequately understand that our will is not free… we will still experience it as free.". This is a crucial insight. The appearance of freedom is built into how our minds perceive their own activity. In Mystrikal terms, this is because freedom is the mind's self-experience of its complex volitional process. It's not a mistake to feel that way, it's simply how a choosing mind manifests internally. Thus, our consciousness gives us a first-person window on an emergent process that, from outside, looks determined but from inside feels open.
Free Will
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 4 of 6
[Audio version]
Reconciling Freedom with Causality: The Mystrikal Resolution
So, is free will real or not? The Mystrikal answer is a reconciliation. Yes and no. It depends on the level of analysis. At the most fundamental level of description, free will, in the absolute sense, does not exist. We are not magic beings outside of nature. Every choice we make, every whim or effort, arises from prior conditions and causes. In this strict reductionist sense, one could say our will is not "free" from causation at all, it's woven into the great causal tapestry. However, and here is the beautiful twist, free will as we experience it does exist, and it matters a great deal. Mystrikism leans toward what philosophers call compatibilism, the idea that free will is compatible with a deterministic universe so long as we define it at the right level. That 'right level' is the familiar compatibilist one: reasons-responsive, coercion-free agency that runs on biology and physics, not against them.
What does this mean? It means shifting our understanding of free will from some mysterious ability to defy causality, and instead seeing it as our mind's capacity to imagine options, to deliberate, and to choose based on reasons. None of that requires breaking the laws of physics, yet it's a freedom in its own domain. Our decisions are products of brain chemistry responding to inputs, so at a physical level, they're determined. Still, free will as we experience it is an emergent aspect of our sapient brains making choices, and it remains meaningful at that phenomenological level. In simpler terms, we have free will in the way that matters to us. We make choices consciously, we reflect and can change our behaviour in light of reflection, and thus we act with a kind of autonomy, even though that autonomy is implemented by deterministic processes.
Mystrikism reframes the old question. It's not "do we have free will, yes or no?", a question that pits subjective intuition against objective analysis in a winner-takes-all battle. Instead, it asks: "At what level is free will real, and how do these levels harmonise?" The answer is that both levels can be affirmed. We acknowledge the causal story, that from the Big Bang to this very moment, a law-governed chain of events has led each of us to our current state (deterministic at scale, and at times probabilistic in the details). And we acknowledge the personal story, that as human beings we authentically weigh choices, set goals, and act according to our character and values. There is no contradiction because these are two descriptions of the same reality. As Mystrikism expounds, we don't have to deny the reality of one level to validate the other. Both can be true: I chose freely, and my brain-state causally produced that choice. In a sense, free will is the experiential aspect of complex decision-making, an emergent-level description of the mind (in the epistemic sense), fully reducible in principle to underlying physical processes. This is the Mystrikal solution to the controversy. Free will exists at the emergent level, even though it does not exist as a fundamental force in physics.
The philosopher Daniel Dennett echoes this view from a secular standpoint. He notes that the popular debate often swings between two extreme and mistaken images of free will: "the magic libertarian thing that many ordinary folks believe in" versus "the fatalistic determinism that these folks see as the only other choice." But, Dennett says, there is something in between these extremes, a robust conception of freedom that is "the kind of free will worth wanting." It is the freedom of being an "active agent" rather than a puppet, even if the agent is made of robotic components at bottom. Mystrikism wholeheartedly agrees. It explicitly rejects the nihilistic notion that if we are "nothing but atoms," then our cherished experiences (love, beauty or moral choice) are meaningless illusions. Instead, Mystrikism insists that understanding our "nothing but atoms" nature should heighten our appreciation for things like love, creativity, and yes, our sense of freedom, precisely because they are rare emergent phenomena of those atoms. In embracing both levels of explanation, we enrich our view of life. We can marvel at how the law-governed 'sheet music' gives rise to the song of a deliberating mind. We can be inspired materialists, utterly scientific in our grounding, yet lyrically poetic in our awe for what science has uncovered, and for all it has yet to unveil.
Free Will
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 5 of 6
[Audio version]
Responsibility, Compassion, and Growth in a Determined World
One might worry: if prior causes ultimately determine our choices, do concepts like moral responsibility or personal growth still make sense? Mystrikism's answer is a resounding yes. These concepts remain not only meaningful but vital. The emergent perspective assures us that we are not mere passive bystanders to fate. We are active participants whose decisions make a difference to the world and ourselves. We still praise, blame, reward, and correct behaviour, not because anyone has a spooky contra-causal free will, but because those social responses help shape the causes that lead to future behaviour. Understanding the causal web more deeply can foster compassion. If a person has done wrong, a Mystrik sees both the individual choice and the surrounding causes (such as upbringing or environment) that led to it. This nuanced view encourages us to respond with empathy and a focus on improvement rather than with simplistic condemnation. We realise "there but for circumstances go I," and this insight tempers judgment with kindness without absolving accountability. We still hold people accountable in the practical sense because accountability itself is a cause shaping future behaviour, while aiming our systems toward justice, rehabilitation, and societal well-being. In Mystrikism, determinism is not a moral dead-end, it's a call to understand better and guide the causes that shape human lives.
Even Sam Harris, perhaps the most outspoken critic of the traditional free will concept, emphasises that recognising free will as an illusion should increase our empathy rather than lead us to nihilism. He argues that once we fully appreciate that people's actions emerge from circumstances beyond their control (their genes, childhood experiences, brain wiring, etc.), it becomes harder to hate them and easier to respond with understanding. For example, rather than simply condemning a criminal as "evil," Harris suggests we consider the biological and social factors that led that person to commit wrongdoing. This doesn't mean we deny the need to protect society from harm, but it does reframe our attitude. We still hold people accountable, yet without the needless anger that comes from assuming everyone had absolute freedom to choose differently.
Another common fear is fatalism, the despairing idea that if everything is determined, our efforts don't matter, and the future is fixed regardless of our actions. This is a profound misunderstanding. Determinism is not the same as fatalism. In a deterministic framework, outcomes are indeed fixed by prior causes – but one of those causes is you, your will, your effort! The future is shaped by what you do in the present. As Daniel Dennett clarifies, a "fixed future doesn't mean an unchanging future". It simply means that changes unfold lawfully. Your choice to study, to apologise, or to stand up for justice is part of the causal chain that alters the world's course. The fact that it was inevitable that you would choose as you did (in hindsight) does not mean it wasn't you choosing it in the moment, with uncertainty and resolve. Ahead of time, no one can perfectly foresee the outcome in practice. From your own perspective, the future is open as you deliberate. You genuinely don't know what you will decide until you've made a decision. That subjective openness is not a lie, it's a consequence of our finite knowledge and the complexity of the world. In the Mystrikal view, this ever-present uncertainty underwrites our sense of freedom and possibility. Life is like a book being written, the ending may be determined once written, but as the author writing it (even if the "author" is ultimately the physical universe working through you), you experience the story as full of branching possibilities.
Thus, personal growth remains real. A person can be "determined" and yet change for the better, because that change is accomplished through learning, reflection, and effort, all of which are deterministic processes too. There is no static fate that ignores your input, instead, your input is exactly what fate consists of. A Mystrik might say: we must live as if we have free will and are responsible, because that emergent perspective is practically valid, even if we know it's underpinned by causal chains. In practice, this means we continue to encourage virtue, discourage harm, set goals, forgive, repent, and improve ourselves. We do so with a humble awareness that our will is part of nature, not above it, not separate from it, which fuels compassion. As the Mystrikal outlook emphasises, we should be humble in victory and understanding in failure, knowing each outcome has deep roots. We "co-create" our lives within the framework of causality, much like gardeners cultivating a garden that ultimately grows by natural laws.
For example, Sam Harris argues that losing belief in free will need not make one fatalistic. It can increase one's sense of freedom. Becoming aware of the real causes behind our thoughts and actions can, paradoxically, give us more creative control over our lives. In this framing, seeing ourselves as fully within the causal chain pushes us to grab all the levers we can reach, shaping habits, environments, and incentives, rather than pretending we float above causality. Far from crushing the will, this perspective can empower it.
Free Will
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 6 of 6
[Audio version]
Freedom Reimagined with Humility and Wonder
In the Mystrikal perspective, the ancient riddle of free will is resolved not by a simplistic verdict of "true" or "false," but by a synthesis that honours both our scientific understanding and our lived reality. We discover that the paradox dissolves when we recognise free will as a matter of perspective and scale. At the level of quarks and neurons, there is just the unfolding of physical law. At the level of conscious persons, there is choice, intention, and responsibility. These statements are not enemies. They are two facets of one extraordinary reality, a reality in which the universe has, as Carl Sagan so eloquently noted, "awakened" to contemplate itself through us. We don't have to choose one and deny the reality of the other. Determinism and freedom reconcile as the wind and the sail, each illuminating different aspects of existence.
And what a wondrous existence it is! Consider this: the same cosmos that in its youth was a swirl of blind forces has, through eons of evolution, given rise to beings that ponder morality, invent art, and debate the nature of their own free will. Our capacity for free action, understood emergently, is part of the grandeur and splendour of the natural world and the unknown. It means the laws of physics have choreographed a scene in which those laws themselves are discussed on a stage, where concepts like freedom, choice, and purpose hold sway. Far from diluting the significance of our will, this realisation should fill us with gratitude and awe. Understanding our material nature can heighten our appreciation of phenomena like love, creativity, and purpose. They are significant consequences of material reality, not mere epiphenomena. In embracing this view, we embrace a naturalistic humility. We are not gods above causal law, but also have deserved dignity. Humans and other sapient beings (if they exist) are nature become conscious, nature with a voice and a choice.
Finally, Mystrikism encourages us to hold this knowledge with an open heart. We haven't necessarily resolved the free will conundrum, but with a diplomatic harmony of perspectives, we offer a truce. We remain, always, investigators of the best current approximation of truth and lovers of mystery. Even as we conclude that free will is real in one sense and not real in another, we do so with a smile, knowing that reality is nuanced and "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose". There will always be new layers to explore, deeper emergent and reductive wonders to uncover. With honesty, we accept what science tells us about causality. With humility, we admit our experience of freedom might be bounded. And with awe, we cherish the subjective emergent freedom we do possess, the freedom to reflect, to choose in accordance with our nature, and to grow. In that spirit of reconciliation and reverence, the free will conundrum finds a resolution of sorts. We step forward as humble agents, determined yet free, writing our own chapter in the ever-unfolding story of the cosmos.
Overpopulation
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 7
Human overpopulation is one of the most pressing, yet consistently under-addressed, moral dilemmas of our time. It quietly magnifies virtually every other crisis: climate change, ecological collapse, species extinction, resource depletion, and widespread suffering. Yet society often tiptoes around this reality in ethical discourse, drowning the topic beneath slogans about freedom, tradition, or religious imperative. Mystrikism does not tiptoe around this truth. We face these realities with eyes open and ethics grounded in empirical truth and frank justice.
The Inherent Value of Life
For Mystriks, the well-being of the world is not limited to sapient beings alone. We extend our ethical consideration to all sentient life, creatures capable of feeling pain, fear, comfort, or joy, and to ecosystems themselves, recognising their indispensable role in sustaining life. Our desire to protect all life and ecosystems isn't just about their utility or interdependence, it stems from recognising their intrinsic value. Every species, every forest, every river has its own existential right to thrive. When we destroy a habitat or drive a species to extinction, we are not only undermining our own survival but also extinguishing something sacred and irreplaceable, diminishing the sheer diversity and beauty of living, thriving ecologies.
This holistic view makes overpopulation not just a numbers game or a geopolitical inconvenience; it is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach. It becomes a moral crisis. A crowded planet isn't merely inconvenient; it is actively unjust, contributing to widespread harm in both immediate and systemic ways. When human numbers swell at the expense of other life, it violates a principle of balance and fairness: a theft of existence from other beings and the future generations of all species.
Overpopulation
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 7
Reproduction, Rights, and Responsibility
To knowingly contribute to rapid population growth in this age, especially by having a large number of children, is to ignore the ripple effects of one's choices. Every additional child born into the modern industrial world brings with them a lifetime of consumption, emissions, and ecological footprint. Yes, life is beautiful, but on a biosphere already stretched beyond sustainable limits, it is also costly. When individuals choose to have many children in the current context, they are no longer just building a family. They are, whether intentionally or not, vandalising the fragile ecological systems upon which all life depends. It may sound harsh, but justice is not always gentle.
We do not say this with disdain for those who were simply unaware of the consequences when they made their choices. Mystrikism embraces human fallibility, many people only begin to understand the full scope of ecological interdependence later in life, after choices have been made. But once that awareness arrives, moral responsibility begins. Those who continue to reproduce without ethical consideration, especially those who promote the idea of ever-larger families as a virtue, must be seen for what they are: agents of unchecked harm.
Many people develop a deep concern about overpopulation after having already had children, which can create significant internal conflict. It's not easy to admit that a choice so personal and meaningful might also have contributed to ecological strain, suffering, and injustice on a global scale. But cognitive bias kicks in hard here. The mind starts defending the past, rewriting motives, minimising impact, and resisting new truths. That's human. But it's also a trap. Just because the realisation came late doesn't mean it should be ignored. That's when moral courage matters.
Loving your children and being honest about population ethics are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to say, "I didn't know then, but I know now, and I want to be part of the solution." What matters most is what people do after the realisation: choosing not to have more kids, supporting education and access to contraception, raising awareness, and modelling the kind of honesty the world desperately needs right now. You don't have to erase the past. But don't let it justify inaction either. Growth is uncomfortable, but it's the price of becoming truly ethical.
Some will argue that having children is a human right. And it is. But rights are not moral absolutes; they are entitlements bounded by context and consequences. The right to have a campfire ends in a drought-stricken forest - the right to build ends where a fragile reef lies. The right to reproduce, too, must yield to reality when the cost of each new life includes further destruction of already collapsing ecosystems and the worsening of suffering for future generations.
Furthermore, the impact of reproduction isn't confined to one's immediate family or even one's own lifetime. When we bring a child into the world, we set in motion a lineage that could persist for generations. Each new person carries not only their own burden on the planet, but also potentially that of their children and grandchildren. This suggests that when considering the limits of sensible reproduction, we must think beyond just our sons and daughters. We must account for the compounding burden that their children, and those after them, will place on the world. In short, ethical reproduction demands looking beyond our immediate descendants and weighing the future lives that each new birth may eventually give rise to.
Overpopulation
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 7
Rethinking Legacy and Parenthood
There are many reasons not to have children, or to have fewer than society's norms expect, and they go far beyond reducing an individual carbon footprint. Choosing not to reproduce (or having a very small family) frees up time, energy, and resources that can be redirected to making the world better in the here and now. It opens the door to adoption, mentorship, community building, and direct action - ways of nurturing that don't involve creating new life but rather improving life that's already here. This choice aligns with the deep Mystrikal aim of prioritising long-term well-being over short-term instinct or tradition. It resists the pull of blind evolutionary programming in favour of considered, principled restraint.
Importantly, Mystrikism doesn't see voluntary childlessness or small families as a sacrifice. We view it as an act of generational justice, of cosmic humility, and ecological stewardship. It is a choice that says, "My purpose is not merely to replicate myself, but to reduce harm, increase flourishing, and live in harmony with the finite systems that support us all." There is awe in such restraint. There is reverence in self-limitation, knowing that one's legacy is measured not by the number of one's offspring, but by the state of the world one leaves behind.
To those who boast of having four, six, eight, or ten children as some kind of legacy or divine blessing, we pose a simple question: "Legacy for whom?" What will your multitude of descendants inherit when the oceans are acidic, the forests razed, and the air choked with heat? The brutal truth is that celebrating massive families in today's world is not admirable, it is ecological arrogance, a wilful blindness to the consequences that an army of offspring will unleash on an already burdened planet.
This is not to suggest that Mystrikism opposes parenthood altogether. Raising one or two children with care, awareness, and ethical clarity can indeed be an act of deep love and hope for the future. But that love must extend beyond the walls of one's home. Love that ignores its impact on other beings and the Earth isn't love, it's self-indulgence. Parenthood is no longer a morally neutral act. In an era of global crisis, bringing new life into the world must be reevaluated as a serious ethical decision with serious planetary consequences.
Overpopulation
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 4 of 7
Stewardship, Education, and Hope
Mystrikism encourages us to live by four core virtues: to be Curious, Honest, Real, and Just. To be real is to face the facts unflinchingly: we are living through a mass extinction event, a climate emergency, and a resource crisis, all driven mainly by human numbers and extravagant consumption. To be just is to recognise that every child born into this world inherits its suffering and adds to its burden unless we change course. To be kind is to consider not only the child you might want, but the children already here, the animals already endangered, and the ecosystems already on the brink of collapse.
Ultimately, Mystriks strive to be stewards, not conquerors. Being a steward means letting go of the romanticised myth of lineage, letting go of the idea of legacy through blood, and instead embracing a legacy defined by action, wisdom, restraint, and care. It means standing with the voiceless: creatures and future generations who will never vote or build human temples, but whose lives and well-being matter nonetheless. To stand for them is to practice a love that protects rather than consumes.
Education is a critical part of this stewardship. If we wish to turn the tide, we must nurture a generation that understands the dangers of thoughtless, wanton reproduction and values sensible, mindful family planning. This means teaching our children, and all children, that creating life is not a casual endeavour, but a profound responsibility to the world. By instilling in young minds the importance of mindful reproduction, we prepare them to make choices that balance their desires with the needs of other people, other species, and future generations. Sensible breeding policies and cultural norms rooted in restraint and respect can transform what is often seen as a private decision into a public good. In short, educating each other about responsible parenthood is as crucial as any other act of compassion, because it safeguards the very future that our children will inhabit.
Overpopulation
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 5 of 7
Green Habits vs. the Footprint of a New Human
Well-meaning individuals often go to great lengths to shrink their environmental footprint. They meticulously recycle their waste, install solar panels or wind turbines to power their homes, choose natural, sustainable materials and energy-efficient appliances, bike or drive electric cars instead of gas guzzlers, avoid single-use plastics, and compost their food scraps – you name it. All these eco-conscious habits stem from a genuine conscience and do make a positive difference. Greener lifestyle choices (like giving up personal cars, air travel, or meat) can cut one's carbon emissions far more than many everyday "green" habits; for example, going car-free or avoiding flights reduces emissions by orders of magnitude more than diligent recycling or using energy-efficient light bulbs. Climate researchers emphasise that while such low-impact actions are worthwhile, they are "more of a beginning than an end" – certainly not sufficient to address the scale of the climate crisis on their own.
However, even these excellent practices pale in comparison to the impact of adding one extra human being to the planet. The carbon footprint of bringing a new person into the world – especially in a high-consumption society – is astronomically larger than any day-to-day conservation measures. One study quantified this stark contrast: living without a car saves roughly 2.4 metric tons of CO₂ per year, whereas having one fewer child saves about 58.6 metric tons per year. In other words, the "carbon legacy" of a single additional child (who will likely live a similar lifestyle to their parents) dwarfs a lifetime of conscientious habits. That 58.6-ton figure isn't a typo, it includes the projected emissions of that child's entire future lineage (the child, their children, grandchildren, etc.), apportioned to the original parent. Every extra person comes with a cascading climate impact that echoes for generations. So while solar panels, recycling, composting, bicycling, and other green habits do help, they "are certainly not sufficient" when compared to the massive footprint of creating an entire new life. It's a sobering perspective: a couple's decision to have one less child outweighs decades of careful sustainable living in mitigating climate change. This isn't to discourage eco-friendly living (every bit helps), but to highlight a hugely inconvenient truth: personal lifestyle tweaks, however virtuous, are tiny drops in the bucket next to the tidal wave of impact from population growth.
Overpopulation
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 6 of 7
Perpetual Growth and Baby Incentives
Why, then, do our leaders and institutions still encourage ever more people on this overcrowded planet? The short answer: they're hooked on perpetual economic growth – at all costs. For decades, society has treated GDP growth as the holy grail of progress, an unquestioned good. Politicians, CEOs, and mainstream economists behave as if an economy that isn't endlessly expanding is on the verge of collapse. In election after election, the mantra is "growth, growth, growth," with leaders promising to "grow the economy" and improve living standards by expanding everything in sight. Population growth is baked into this equation as a feature, not a bug. More people mean more consumers to buy products and more workers to drive industry – essentially, an "inherent ingredient" of the growth model. A growing populace also ostensibly props up aging societies (more young taxpayers to support older people) in the short term. But this is a devil's bargain. As one report put it, it's a pyramid scheme that merely "kicks the can down the road at the expense of future generations". In the pursuit of an ever-expanding economy, environmental and human costs are often overlooked. After all, infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible – "it is not feasible to expect a finite planet to support infinite growth" – and pushing it leads to ecological disaster (resource depletion, mass extinction, climate upheaval) in the long run.
Nevertheless, governments and businesses today remain addicted to growth. Corporate interests love an expanding population because it means more demand, more sales and cheaper labour – an ever-bigger market to exploit. Economists in pro-growth industries promote the enticing idea that "more is better": more people consuming more goods, fueling more profits – at least until resources are depleted or economies collapse. In this "Ponzi demography" scheme, the profits of growth are privatised (flowing to investors and corporations). At the same time, the costs – including overcrowded cities, polluted air and water, stressed infrastructure, depleted ecosystems – are socialised onto the public. Advocates of endless expansion work hard to equate population growth with prosperity and national success, repeating ad nauseam that "economic growth requires population growth". Questioning this dogma is often treated as heresy; politicians and even environmental organisations have tiptoed mainly around the population topic, fearing backlash. Meanwhile, many leaders simply can't resist the short-term allure – more people today means a quick bump in GDP, tax revenues, and even votes, so they cling to the growth-at-all-costs narrative.
One glaring way this growth obsession manifests is through pronatalist policies – incentives that encourage people to have more children. Around the world, numerous governments (at least 55 countries as of a few years ago) have rolled out explicit programs to raise birth rates. They dangle all sorts of carrots to encourage baby-making: tax breaks and cash "baby bonuses", subsidised housing and child allowances for families, generous paid parental leave, free or discounted childcare, and even fertility treatment subsidies for those who struggle to conceive. Some countries offer outright one-time payments for each new baby, while others provide ongoing stipends and benefits per child. Campaigns urge citizens to do their "patriotic duty" by reproducing – in Singapore, for example, government ads cheerfully exhort couples to "Have three or more, if you can afford it." In more blunt terms, pronatalist rhetoric sometimes sounds like "Have one for Mum, one for Dad, and one for the country". Even in the United States – which historically hasn't had overt baby-bonus policies – influential voices are now calling for more babies. Tech billionaires and politicians warn of a "population collapse" and a "baby bust," and float proposals for new incentives to spur childbearing. Across the board, the message is that more births lead to greater economic vitality, thereby propelling the labour force and consumer base.
Future generations, however, may look back at this growth-at-any-cost mindset with bafflement and horror. They'll inherit a world strained by our refusal to curb expansion, and likely ask, "What the fuck were they thinking?". How could we be so short-sighted, trading long-term planetary health for short-term economic kicks? All the cheerleading for larger families and endless GDP growth will be seen as tragically myopic. It was all for the almighty dollar, after all - an endless chase for profit and power. And in truth, no matter how many riches are amassed from this frenzy, you can only ski behind one jet boat at a time. In the end, the pursuit of perpetual growth at the expense of our one and only Earth will go down as a colossal folly of our age.
Overpopulation
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 7 of 7
There are no easy answers in this conversation, but there are clear imperatives.
To be born into this world today is to arrive at a moment of profound ethical weight. The stage is already crowded. The lights are hot. The walls are creaking. And yet, each new arrival comes not only with promise, but with consequence. In an age where collapse is no longer hypothetical, restraint is not asceticism, it is wisdom and justice in action.
Mystrikism does not fantasise about suffering. It doesn't romanticise austerity. But it refuses to ignore the mathematics of harm. Hope, real hope, is not denial wrapped in optimism. It is the fierce clarity that sees what is and still dares to act. It's not about giving up, it's about giving the planet, and all who live upon it, a chance.
Imagine a world with only a hundred million humans. That's not a utopian daydream; it's a counterfactual morality tale - a rewilded world, not empty of humans, but full of life. Not abandoned, but shared. Picture ancient forests that were never clear-cut. Ecosystems flourish not because of human management, but because we stepped back. Imagine being able to walk a continent and hear more birdsong than engines, to drink from rivers that don't need filtration, to share space with elephants, wolves, whales, and orchids, without a sense of intrusion or guilt.
Cities would still exist, but humbler, human-scaled. Communities would thrive, not on frantic extraction or algorithmic distraction, but on depth, slowness, and interdependence. We'd feel the sky again. Know the stars. Know silence. We would still love, still invent, still explore, but from a place of balance, not burden.
This isn't misanthropy. It's radical empathy, for all sapient beings, all sentient life, and the delicate systems that cradle them. It's the honest recognition that the most compassionate act we can perform in this age is to say enough. Enough extraction. Enough expansion. Enough people.
Because this isn't just about the present. This is about the unborn, the vast chorus of future beings whose lives hinge on the choices we make now. Will they inherit a war zone of scarcity and extinction, or a sanctuary of possibility?
There is no more neutral ground. Reproduction is not just a family matter. It is a planetary matter. And in that light, choosing fewer children, or none at all, is not defeat. It is not despair. It is defiance, discipline, and devotion to a better world.
Good & Evil
A Mystrikal Perspective
The notions of “good” and “evil” are often accompanied by supernatural and religious overtones and date back to our deepest myths and primitive past. Despite this, Mystriks aren’t above using these terms, with our own particular attributes, mainly because they help identify and categorise the ethical quality of behaviours by sapient beings.
Secular or sceptical people often feel the concept of ‘good’ is represented by actions that promote love, justice, compassion, and prosperity - while ‘evil’ is its opposite: representing actions that promote cruelty, harm, injustice, and distress.
The Union of Mystriks views these moral dichotomies regarding scientifically measurable outcomes for sapient beings and nature’s ecosystems along a broad spectrum of well-being, from peak flourishing to wretched suffering.
Mystrikism’s Definition of Evil:
In Mystrikism, the concept of “Evil” is illustrated by any action, ideology, or person (someone who practically and actively personifies these practices) - that, whether knowingly intentional, maliciously reckless, or born of egregious negligence, dismantles, undermines, reduces, or compromises the well-being of others. Examples from a vast array of choices include deliberate cruelty, malicious injustice, pernicious deception, and heinous exploitation.
It further encompasses these same practices and those who carry them out, that, despite genuine, repeated attempts at education, persuasion, and diplomacy, continue to inflict intentional suffering, are knowingly harmful, and consistently destroy the well-being of sapient beings and nature’s ecosystems.
Evil must contain these key elements:
Intentionality – means the harm is not accidental or incidental. It includes deliberate actions carried out with foresight, calculation, or strategy, as well as actions stemming from malicious recklessness or egregious negligence. Whether driven by political, ideological, financial, or personal motives, these actions demonstrate either direct intent or a culpable disregard for the predictable harm inflicted on others. This distinguishes genuinely harmful intent or reckless disregard from mere impulsive mistakes or unconscious biases.
Knowingness – involves either full awareness of the negative consequences or a wilful refusal to consider them adequately. An individual or group may explicitly understand the harm they are causing, or they might deliberately choose ignorance to avoid accountability. Both represent moral corruption: either knowing harm is being done and persisting anyway or deliberately ignoring clear evidence to evade responsibility, indifferent to or even deriving satisfaction from the suffering caused.
Consistency – pertains primarily to people or ideologies (not actions) and describes a repeated pattern of harmful behaviour or thought over time. It’s not a momentary lapse or an isolated incident but a sustained commitment to destructive actions or misinformation. Such repetition forms a character, a brand, or a movement that reliably produces misery and suffering or perpetuates destructive ignorance. In contrast, isolated harmful actions, though serious, do not represent the persistent, calculated malevolence described here.
Mystrikism’s Definition of Good
In Mystrikism, the concept of “Good” is illustrated by any action, ideology, or person (someone who practically and actively personifies these practices) - that, whether knowingly intentional, thoughtfully careful, or born of deliberate care, builds, supports, increases, or enhances well-being. Examples from a vast array of choices include purposeful compassion, righteous justice, diligent care, equitable consideration, transparent honesty, conscientious caution, and sustained generosity.
It further encompasses these same practices, and those who carry them out, that, despite genuine, repeated challenges, obstacles, and adversity, continue to bring intentional improvement, are knowingly beneficial, and consistently elevate the well-being of sapient beings and nature’s ecosystems.
Good must contain these key elements:
Intentionality – means the beneficial outcome is not accidental or incidental. It encompasses deliberate actions carried out with foresight, calculation, strategy, as well as conscientious care or diligent attention. Whether motivated politically, ideologically, financially, or personally, the actions reveal intentional commitment or deliberate consideration aimed at enhancing others' well-being. This intentional approach clearly separates purposeful goodwill from impulsive generosity or unconscious kindness.
Knowingness – involves either full awareness of the positive consequences or deliberate consideration of the potential benefits and their associated costs. Individuals or groups clearly understand that their actions will foster well-being, recognising any sacrifices of time, money, or energy required. This knowing awareness underpins moral integrity: one perseveres with benevolent actions precisely because they appreciate the good they are doing, sometimes even finding joy in the flourishing they create.
Consistency – pertains primarily to people or ideologies (not actions) and refers to a repeated pattern of beneficial behaviour or thought over time. It isn’t merely an isolated act of kindness but a sustained commitment to constructive influence. This consistent repetition builds character, defines a brand, or shapes a movement known for reliably fostering flourishing and spreading enlightened understanding. Single acts of kindness, while commendable, do not equate with the persistent, intentional benevolence outlined here.
Abortion
A Mystrikal Perspective
Mystrikism approaches the issue of abortion through a commitment to justice, scientific honesty, and the objective enhancement of well-being, for sapient beings, sentient life, and ecosystems alike.
We reject the idea that morality is dictated by religious decree or metaphysical dogma. Instead, Mystrikism recognises that ethical reasoning must begin with declared moral aims, such as reducing preventable suffering and enabling long-term flourishing, and then use logic, compassion, and evidence to discover which actions best achieve them.
Abortion is one of those complex moral questions that requires a wide-angle lens:
-
It is personal, about autonomy, health, trauma, and choice.
-
It is societal, about healthcare systems, sex equality, and social justice.
-
And it is ecological, about human population levels, resource strain, and the survival of countless other species.
In these circumstances, we hold that:
Sentience, Not Biology Alone, Is the Moral Threshold
Personhood is not magically conferred at conception. A zygote or early embryo does not experience pain, fear, joy, or awareness, it is a non-sentient human organism. Mystrikism makes a moral distinction between developing life and sentient life. The ethical weight of a fetus increases as it develops conscious experience. Therefore:
-
Early-term abortion, before the emergence of sentience, carries far less moral concern.
-
Later-term abortion, where sentience may be present, demands stronger ethical justification, such as serious health risks, trauma, or the likely suffering of the unborn.
Bodily Autonomy and Justice
Compelling someone to remain pregnant against their will, especially in cases of rape, incest, abuse, danger, or poverty, violates the principle of justice. It disregards the suffering and autonomy of a sapient being already capable of pain, thought, and fear.
To prioritise a non-sentient fetus over a conscious individual is, from our perspective, morally backwards. We therefore affirm the right to safe, legal, compassionate abortion services as part of an ethical society.
Overpopulation and Ecosystem Harm
Human population levels are not ethically neutral. When numbers rise beyond what ecosystems can sustain, the results are ecological collapse, loss of biodiversity, and intensified suffering and harm for both human, nonhuman life and ecosystems.
Reproductive choices must be understood not just in terms of individual freedom, but also in terms of planetary impact. While we respect personal autonomy, bringing new life into an already overburdened world is not automatically ethical. Mystrikism supports a culture of reproductive responsibility, education, and compassionate family planning, not coercion, but conscious awareness of the broader web of life.
A Note on Existential Risk
Should circumstances ever arise in which humanity’s survival as a species is genuinely at risk, where widespread reproduction becomes imperative for our continued existence, this ethical policy would need to be revisited. Mystrikism affirms that humans, like any other species, possess an existential right to persist and flourish. In such cases, the moral calculus may shift, and actions that support the survival of sapient life, even at cost, may become ethically necessary, though they must still be guided by compassion, justice, and proportionality.
Abortion is not a question of metaphysical personhood, but of competing impacts on well-being. The developing fetus deserves ethical consideration in proportion to its sentience. The pregnant person deserves autonomy and compassion. And the planet deserves thoughtful stewardship.
Mystrikism does not reduce this issue to yes or no, it asks: what causes the least unnecessary harm and the most lasting benefit for all life, and the clearest alignment with our declared aims?
Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 15
Belief as a Spectrum of Mental Postures
In the Mystrikal framework, belief is broadened to include every mental stance we take toward a claim, not just “yes” or “no,” but also doubt, neutrality, and everything in between. Cognitive science and philosophy remind us that any attitude about the truth of a proposition is a kind of belief. As one neuroscience review puts it, “Beliefs are convictions about what we accept as true” – the framework our mind uses to engage with reality. Even refusing to decide is a stance: when we say “I don’t know,” we implicitly assert a meta-belief that the evidence isn’t sufficient yet. In this sense, suspending judgment or admitting uncertainty doesn’t mean our mind is blank. The mind is neutral toward the proposition. Philosophy calls all these doxastic attitudes (attitudes about truth), emphasising that believing, disbelieving, or withholding belief are just different “settings” on the same mental dial.
To a Mystrik, belief encompasses various rational stances toward a given proposition. Each stance remains provisional, always open to revision based on reliable, objective, verified, reproducible, relevant, trustworthy, empirical, logical, and falsifiable evidence.
-
Belief - Essentially holding an assertion to be fact. For example, you believe “the sky is blue” if you keep that to be true. Psychologists define belief as mentally treating a proposition as true. Formally, to feel a proposition is literally “to think that p is true”. This is the standard affirmative stance, which our brain uses to build an internal model of the world. Example: Belief in gravity based on extensive empirical verification.
-
Disbelief (Belief in Negation) - Actively rejecting a claim, i.e. accepting its negation. Disbelief is simply believing the opposite. Philosophers note that “to disbelieve a proposition is to believe that a proposition is false”. So if I say “I disbelieve it will rain tomorrow,” I’m really asserting the belief “it will not rain tomorrow.” This is a full-fledged belief state about the negation of the proposition, just on the “false” side. Example: Disbelief in astrology due to consistent scientific refutations.
-
Absence of Belief - Simply not holding any view on the claim. This often occurs due to ignorance or a lack of concern. For instance, if asked about a mythological creature you’ve never thought of, you have an absence of belief about it. You neither accept it nor reject it because you lack evidence. Even this “blank slate” is a posture: implicitly, you hold the belief “I do not have enough information.” In Bayesian terms, you have a flat or uninformative prior. It’s a passive stance that can shift as soon as new information arrives. Example: Encountering a newly proposed scientific theory without sufficient data to decide its validity.
-
Belief in Absence (Negative Belief) - This is a strong form of disbelief: explicitly believing something is absent or a claim is false. Example: Believing “there are no unicorns in the field” is an active belief in the absence of unicorns. It’s still a belief (about the proportion) rather than mere silence. In epistemological terms, it’s a positive commitment to the negative proposition, akin to the disbelieving stance above.
-
Non-Belief - Distinct from mere neutrality, this stance explicitly emphasises withholding assent because evidence or logical justification is currently unavailable. Essentially synonymous with the absence of belief, it can carry a shade of choice. A non-believer in some theory simply never commits to that theory (for example, someone who never adopts any view on alien life). Unlike explicit disbelief, a non-belief is more like saying, “I don’t stake any claim here.” It’s still a cognitive attitude – a recognised lack of acceptance – and in practice, it often behaves like suspension or the weak end of uncertainty. Example: Mystrikism’s non-theism regarding deities. Mystriks do not actively reject gods but rather refrain from believing due to a lack of reliable, objective evidence, maintaining openness and humility toward future discoveries.
-
Uncertainty - Unlike suspension of judgment, uncertainty may not arise from an intentional evaluation of evidence, but from a more passive or unsettled internal state: A state of doubt or low confidence in a belief. Uncertainty often appears as a “maybe” or a probability rather than a flat yes/no. You might say “I’m uncertain”, when you acknowledge that the evidence is weak or conflicting. Cognitive scientists define uncertainty as the realisation that “our beliefs and representations of the world are unable to predict future events accurately”. In other words, uncertainty arises when we recognise that our current model may be incorrect. Neuroscience studies have found that uncertainty engages brain areas, such as the dorsal anterior cingulate (ACC). As uncertainty grows, ACC activity rises, reflecting the accumulating doubt. This shows uncertainty is an active mental posture, not an absence of thought. Example: A layperson feeling uncertain about the multiverse hypothesis due to its highly technical nature and abstract implications, without having weighed the evidence in depth.
-
Suspension of Judgment - This is an active, reflective stance taken when one consciously chooses to wait for better information before forming a belief, thereby withholding any commitment. Here, you consider the proposition but neither accept nor reject it. In practical terms, suspension is saying, “I am undecided.” It’s a deliberate mental posture of neutrality. Classic philosophy calls the suspension of judgment rational when evidence is lacking or balanced. For example, a detective who finds two equally likely suspects and “declares Devin guilty” would be biased. The rational move is not to pick one without cause. In other words, when “the scales of justification are evenly balanced,” the uniquely rational attitude is to suspend belief. Example: Scientists suspend judgment about the safety of a new drug until large-scale clinical trials provide clear, peer-reviewed results.
Each of these positions, even the refusal to decide, is a “belief state” of some sort. Cognitive psychology clearly shows this. Our minds continuously take stances toward the vast number of claims they encounter.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 2 of 15
Cognitive Science: Belief Formation and Updating
Cognitive science teaches that forming and revising beliefs is a fundamental brain process. The brain is often modelled as a rational or boundedly rational updater, combining prior beliefs with new evidence to reach conclusions. Normatively, an ideal reasoner uses Bayesian updating – revising the probability of a hypothesis in proportion to incoming data. One study notes that “rational decision making under uncertainty requires forming beliefs that integrate prior and new information through Bayes’ rule”. In simple terms, we should weigh what we already believe against what new clues suggest, and arrive at an updated belief. When evidence is strong on one side, the brain tends to form a strong belief or disbelief. When evidence is scarce or conflicting, the brain’s posterior probability remains in the middle, manifesting as uncertainty or suspension. Even saying “I don’t know” is the brain assigning low confidence and holding off on a commitment, which is a valid probabilistic stance.
Modern predictive processing theories capture this nicely: the brain is seen as continuously making predictions (hypotheses) about the world and then checking them against sensory data. These predictions are, in effect, belief-like representations of what we expect to happen. The brain also represents how confident it is in those predictions (their precision). As one review explains, the brain combines its prior hypotheses with incoming evidence and then asks itself which is more reliable. If the brain “believes prior predictions are more precise,” it clings to its old model. If it “believes sampled evidence is more precise,” it updates more readily. In plain language, this means our minds allocate a “grade of belief” to ideas: high confidence (strong belief), low confidence (uncertainty), or balanced indecision (suspension of judgment). Crucially, this framework demonstrates that even refusing to update is a decision within the model — the model assigns a low confidence weight to new data, which is equivalent to a mental stance.
Our everyday social cognition reinforces this picture. From childhood, humans employ a theory of mind that treats others' beliefs as real entities. We instinctively assume that other people have beliefs, desires, and intentions that guide their actions. The fact that we talk about, infer, and reason about others’ beliefs shows we consider “belief” a fundamental unit of mind. When a child understands that someone else can have a false belief, it’s because the child already grasps belief as a mental stance. In this way, theory-of-mind research confirms that the concept of belief (and related stances) is built into how our brains model both ourselves and others. Thus, whether a stance is our own or attributed to someone else, it is treated cognitively as a belief state.
Neuroscience: Predictive Brains and Prefrontal Control
Neuroscience finds signatures of these belief stances in the brain. The prefrontal cortex, particularly the dorsolateral region, plays a crucial role in holding and evaluating beliefs under conditions of uncertainty. For example, Huettel et al. showed that as decision problems became more uncertain, activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) increased. In their task, the more ambiguous the cues, the more the DLPFC lit up, suggesting this area is busy when the brain must juggle competing possibilities. It appears the DLPFC helps to maintain and manipulate possible contingencies or beliefs until enough evidence tilts the balance. Conversely, when outcomes became more predictable and clear, DLPFC activity decreased, which was consistent with our tendency to run on autopilot. In short, the prefrontal brain seems to represent the predictability or certainty of our internal model, staying active when we hold uncertain beliefs or suspend judgment.
Other regions track the process of accumulating evidence itself. The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is well known for its role in monitoring conflict and uncertainty. In experiments where uncertainty was varied, ACC activity rose as uncertainty rose. This is thought to reflect evidence accumulation or conflict monitoring: the more undecided the brain is, the more the ACC signals the “need to decide.” In one study, when subjects drew cards from hidden decks, sequences that generated more uncertainty triggered greater activation of the ACC. Researchers interpret this as the ACC helping to push the brain towards a decision (belief or disbelief) once sufficient evidence is gathered. If the ACC and PFC are quiet, the brain stays balanced, essentially suspending judgment.
This neuroscience picture aligns with the predictive-processing model, in which hierarchical brain areas continually compare predictions with incoming inputs. When a significant mismatch (high uncertainty or surprise) occurs, higher cortical areas (like DLPFC) engage more to revise beliefs. When the model is accurate, fewer adjustments are needed. Thus, every stance – including doing nothing – is an active brain state even at the neural level. The neural prediction machinery doesn’t “turn off” when we withhold belief, it simply signals that our best hypothesis is under-informed (low precision) and waits. In cognitive terms, waiting itself is a position, with its own neural signature.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 3 of 15
Epistemology: Evidence, Justification, and the Rational Stance
From a philosophical viewpoint, belief is justified by evidence. Many epistemologists (especially “evidentialists”) hold that “a belief is justified only if it is proportioned to the evidence”. This means you should accept a claim only when the supporting evidence is strong, and conversely, doubt or reject claims when evidence points against them. In practice, this standard naturally includes suspending belief: if there isn’t enough evidence to lean one way, the rational move is to withhold judgment. In other words, refusal to believe often reflects an epistemic recognition of insufficient proof. The classic Clifford dictum, “It is wrong…to believe anything upon insufficient evidence,” captures this sentiment. Thus, epistemology treats “not believing” as a legitimate rational stance – indeed, in evidentialism, any proper belief must be backed by evidence, so the only alternative when evidence is lacking is non-belief or suspension.
Epistemologists also analyse these attitudes in terms of justification. For example, one introduction to epistemology notes that disbelief and suspension can be defined in terms of belief: to disbelieve a proposition (p) is to believe “not-p,” and to suspend judgment is to consider p without making a decision. Importantly, that source explains that suspension is considered “uniquely rational” when the reasons to believe p and reasons to believe “not-p” are equally strong. This is akin to facing two balanced arguments and wisely choosing neither until more information is known. So epistemology affirms that “I don’t know” or “I’m not convinced” are not intellectual evasion but valid outcomes of rational reasoning. They are, in fact, part of the structure of belief: we have beliefs with varying degrees of justification, and sometimes the highest justification is to have no definitive belief at all.
In everyday reasoning, too, we often treat uncertainty and doubt as provisional beliefs. For instance, lawyers assess how strongly to argue for “guilty” versus “not guilty,” but they recognise that some cases genuinely leave both options on the table. The recognised norm is that without a preponderance of evidence, one should not firmly believe the claim – one should suspend judgment. This idea reflects the same principle: belief is a spectrum (from full certainty to complete doubt), not a binary flip.
We see that belief in Mystrikal is the whole landscape of mental attitudes toward a claim. Cognitive science tells us that our brains constantly maintain and update a web of hypotheses, logic and epistemology remind us that, without sufficient evidence, we should err on the side of caution, neuroscience reveals that even inaction is a patterned brain state. So every point on that spectrum – from firm acceptance down through scepticism and into blank neutrality – is still a “stance,” a waypoint in our cognitive map. Refusing to commit is not a lack of mind, but a conscious position on that map, waiting for signals. In short, whether we say “yes,” “no,” or “maybe,” each time we are operating in the realm of belief. This broad, scientific-philosophical perspective reminds us that belief isn’t just a single thing we have or don’t have, it’s the continuous way our minds relate to propositions.
Cognitive science and neuroscience sources define beliefs as foundational mental models and show how the brain updates these beliefs (Bayesian updating, predictive coding ) and manages uncertainty (prefrontal and ACC activity). Philosophical sources describe the doxastic attitudes – belief, disbelief, suspension – and tie them to evidence and justification, supporting the view that even “not taking a stance” is itself a cognitive stance. These interdisciplinary insights confirm that all our attitudes toward truth – assent, dissent, or indecision – are meaningful “belief” states.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 4 of 15
The Scale of Certainty
While everyday language might reserve the word “belief” for full conviction, Mystrikism asserts that all cognitive stances — affirmation, doubt, neutrality, or rejection — are forms of belief in the epistemic sense. Each is a position one takes toward the truth-value of a proposition, and each carries an obligation to be grounded in evidence, or the lack thereof. There is no escape from epistemic responsibility by claiming to “not have a belief.” Even choosing to suspend judgment is an active stance, it implies the proposition has been considered and found wanting in persuasive evidence. In Mystrikal terms, belief is a spectrum of conviction, ranging from full acceptance through agnostic neutrality to outright rejection, and every point on this spectrum must answer to reason.
To clarify this rigorous definition, it helps to view beliefs in terms of degrees of confidence. Mystrikism is compatible with the Bayesian idea that beliefs can be represented as subjective probabilities. Rather than a crude binary of believe vs. disbelieve, a rational mind assigns each claim a credence based on the weight of evidence. A well-supported claim might be regarded with high confidence, a dubious one with only faint support might be weakly held, or provisionally rejected. Crucially, a Mystrik recognises that confidence is provisional and should be updated as new data arrive (as Bayes’ theorem prescribes). In the Mystrikal sense, to believe is to adopt a provisional working model of reality, always open to refinement or abandonment in light of better evidence.
A helpful illustration of this idea comes from evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who proposed a 7-point scale to represent degrees of belief regarding the existence of God. Ranging from 1 (“Strong theist: I know God exists”) to 7 (“Strong atheist: I know there is no God”), the scale includes various degrees of agnosticism in between. Dawkins himself placed his confidence at 6.9, not because he thinks atheism is a belief of certainty, but because he recognises that while the existence of a god is logically possible, the lack of evidence makes the probability vanishingly small. His scale exemplifies the Mystrikal mindset: it doesn’t ask whether you “believe” or “don’t believe,” but how confident you are, and whether your confidence is justified.
This disciplined concept of belief contrasts sharply with how belief is often handled in other frameworks. Before examining those contrasts, we must stress a key point: Mystrikism demands consistency in how we treat all claims. If one demands strong evidence to believe a scientific theory, one must equally demand strong evidence to disbelieve it, or to remain agnostic about it. The same standards of evidence apply across the board, preventing the selective scepticism or blind credulity that undermines intellectual integrity. As Thomas H. Huxley (who coined “agnosticism”) warned, “In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you… and do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.” Mystrikism formalises this ethic: every cognitive stance is a hypothesis about reality, and every hypothesis is only as strong as the evidence backing it.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 5 of 15
Common Misconceptions and Contrasts
Belief in the Mystrikal framework may sound straightforward – believe what is supported by evidence, disbelieve what is contrary to evidence, and suspend judgment when evidence is inconclusive – yet this stance contrasts with several common approaches to belief in society. Let us contrast Mystrikism with a few prevalent paradigms:
1. Religious Belief and Theistic Faith: In many religious traditions, belief is often synonymous with faith: a confident commitment to doctrines or divine claims independent of evidence or even despite counter-evidence. Strong faith is frequently lauded precisely when it is “unqualified” – that is, not contingent on empirical proof. Some theologians and believers embrace fideism, believing faith should supersede or ignore rational inquiry. Fideism holds that certain truths (especially religious truths) can or must be grasped by faith alone, disparaging the role of reason. For example, a fideist might insist that one must “just believe” in a sacred text or creed, treating doubt and demand for evidence as moral failings rather than virtues. Dogma often accompanies such faith: religious communities may promulgate dogmas – principles laid down by authority as incontrovertibly true – and expect adherents to accept them without question. By its nature, dogma “inhibits openness and inquiry”, since questioning a dogmatic belief is considered wrong. Moreover, emotive conviction is often encouraged, believers might say they “feel in their heart” that something is true, elevating subjective emotional experience to the level of evidence.
Mystrikism decisively rejects unqualified faith, fideism, and dogma. From a Mystrikal perspective, believing without evidence is not a virtue but a lapse in epistemic duty. However comforting or meaningful a faith-based belief might be to someone, it does not get special exemption from rational scrutiny. A Mystrik would argue that even religious or spiritual claims must be evaluated with the same critical eye as any other claim about reality. Suppose a proposition (“a deity exists and performs miracles”) lacks credible evidence or violates established natural laws. In that case, the proper Mystrikal stance is to withhold belief or even disbelieve the claim, instead of exalting “blind faith” as a virtue. In short, no belief gets a free pass. As Huxley wrote, “That which agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is… that there are propositions which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence.”. Mystrikism inherits this ethos: exempting a proposition from evidence-based accountability is never acceptable, no matter how sacred or emotionally appealing it may be.
It is worth noting that some religious thinkers embrace evidence to a degree (for example, proponents of natural theology who offer philosophical arguments or cite historical testimonies as evidence for God). Mystrikism’s quarrel is not with belief per se but with belief insulated from challenge. A religious belief that is held provisionally and open to refutation would, in principle, align with the Mystrikal method – but such a stance is rare in matters of faith. More commonly, religious communities encourage believers to have absolute certainty or to treat certain doctrines as unfalsifiable (e.g. “mysteries” beyond human understanding). These attitudes conflict directly with Mystrikism. Mystrikism rejects any stance unwilling to ask, “What evidence would disprove this?”. If the honest answer is “nothing could ever count as evidence against this belief,” then that belief is dogmatic and inadmissible in the Mystrikal framework.
2. Atheistic “Absence of Belief”: Unlike religious conviction, modern atheism often defines itself as not a positive belief but a lack of belief. A popular formulation (promoted by organisations like American Atheists) is: “Atheism is one thing: a lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god… It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.”. In this definition, atheism is positioned as a default or negative stance. Essentially, “I do not hold the belief that God exists,” without necessarily claiming “I believe God does not exist.” Many atheists adopt this as a tactical definition to underscore that they are not making a strong claim (whose burden of proof would be on them) but are merely unconvinced by the theistic claim (placing the burden of proof on the theist). There is also a distinction made between “weak atheism” (lack of belief in deities) and “strong atheism” (positive belief that no deities exist). The former is simply the absence of belief, whereas the latter is an explicit belief in nonexistence.
Mystrikism’s position on this issue is nuanced. On one hand, Mystrikism would agree that not believing a claim (due to insufficient evidence) is often the rational position. Suppose someone posits the existence of X (be it a god, a psychic power, or a medical miracle) and provides no good evidence. In that case, the appropriate response is to withhold belief – effectively, to be an atheist concerning that claim (using “atheist” in the broad sense of “not accepting the claim about a deity”). In that sense, “absence of belief” is entirely consistent with evidential standards: one has surveyed the evidence, found it lacking, and thus does not adopt the belief. Mystrikism emphasises, however, that even this absence of belief must be maintained for evidential reasons, not out of complacency or arbitrariness. An atheist cannot simply declare “I lack belief, end of story” without any rationale, instead, a responsible atheist position is “I lack belief in God because no evidence I’ve encountered is compelling, and perhaps because various observations (such as the success of naturalistic explanations, or the problem of evil) actively count against the God hypothesis.” In other words, Mystrikism treats atheistic non-belief as a stance that should itself be falsifiable and evidence-responsive. A Mystrik atheist would say: “If tomorrow we discovered clear, reproducible, extraordinary evidence for a deity – say, predictive prophecies coming true under controlled conditions or a demonstrable miracle that defies all alternative explanations – I would revise my stance.” By contrast, a dogmatic atheist (who asserts no gods exist, no matter what evidence might emerge) would be just as epistemically vicious as a dogmatic theist. Mystrikism thus critiques not atheism per se, but any inconsistent application of standards. If one demands evidence from theists, one must also be open to evidence. An absence of belief does not exempt one from intellectual duty, it is only justified if evidence for the belief remains absent or unpersuasive. The moment evidence appears, the stance must update.
Furthermore, Mystrikism would point out that “lacking belief” is not a virtue if it stems from willful ignorance or apathy. For example, a person might “lack belief” about a scientific fact (say, climate change or vaccine efficacy) simply because they have never bothered to examine the evidence or because they avoid information that might challenge their indifference. Such a lack of belief is really a form of neglect or denial, not a principled agnosticism. Mystrikism holds withholding judgment to a high standard: one withholds responsibly, which often means one is actively open to learning more and actively looking for evidence to resolve the uncertainty. In summary, Mystrikism aligns with the atheistic idea that belief should be withheld in the absence of evidence. However, it reminds us that the lack of belief is still a stance that can be held responsibly or irresponsibly. The responsible way is to continually test whether the “absence” remains justified as new arguments or data emerge.
3. Agnostic Suspension of Judgment: In the strict sense, agnosticism is the position of suspending judgment on a question, neither believing nor disbelieving. Often, agnosticism is associated with questions deemed unknowable, such as religious mysteries (“Is there an afterlife? I remain agnostic.”) or any proposition where evidence is currently inconclusive. Thomas Huxley defined agnosticism as a method of intellectual honesty: “Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no grounds for professing to believe.”. In other words, if evidence doesn’t warrant a clear yes or no, the agnostic stance is to admit “I don’t know” or “I am not convinced either way.” This core principle is entirely embraced by Mystrikism. Mystrikism generalises agnosticism into a broader epistemic ethos: never believe more strongly than the evidence allows. The disciplined withholding of belief, when appropriate, is seen as a mark of intellectual virtue (not a weakness). As W.K. Clifford famously argued in The Ethics of Belief, “we’re always free to suspend judgment until we have enough evidence”. Sometimes, we must suspend judgment if forming a belief without evidence could lead to harm.
Mystrikism, however, also recognises that agnosticism is not a permanent refuge or a way to dodge inquiry. It is a temporary and provisional state pending more information. There is a subtle but essential difference between earnest agnosticism and indifferent fence-sitting. Earnest agnosticism says: “At present, I cannot in good conscience decide, given the state of evidence. I will refrain from belief, but I remain open and inquiring.” Indifferent fence-sitting says, “Who knows? I don’t care to investigate further, I’ll just never form an opinion.” The former aligns with Mystrikal integrity, the latter does not. Mystrikism rejects any posture that amounts to giving up on the question of truth. If a question matters (intellectually or practically), simply staying agnostic forever out of laziness or fear would be an evasion of responsibility. A Mystrik tries to resolve agnosticism by seeking or awaiting evidence, not by treating ignorance as an end state.
In comparison with both atheism and agnosticism, which are commonly practised, Mystrikism might be described as a consistent evidentialism. It shares atheism’s insistence that no claim should be believed without evidence, and it shares agnosticism’s willingness to say “I don’t know” when evidence is lacking. However, it further insists that these positions be held to the same standard of rational consistency. Belief, non-belief, and suspended belief are all part of one continuum of doxastic attitudes, all governed by evidentiary propriety.
Mystrikism opposes two extremes: the credulity that accepts claims without proof (or refuses to question inherited dogmas) and the irrational scepticism that refuses to believe anything even when proof is abundant. The Mystrikal ideal is to proportion belief to evidence, neither more nor less. This requires rejecting religious fideism and dogma, but also requires that sceptics apply their scepticism evenly and honestly. One must not believe or disbelieve on a whim or out of emotional inclination. Whether one says “Yes,” “No,” or “I’ll wait,” it must always be for good reason.
Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 6 of 15
The Role of Evidence and Falsifiability
Under Mystrikism, evidence is the ultimate arbiter of belief. All intellectual positions – positive belief, negation, or neutrality – must bow to the court of empirical and rational evidence. Several key philosophical and scientific principles underlie this stance, reinforcing why evidence and falsifiability are non-negotiable requirements for any claim we entertain.
Falsifiability as a Criterion: Mystrikism adopts the spirit of Karl Popper’s insight that for a hypothesis to be meaningful and credible, it must be testable – it must expose itself to possible refutation by observable facts. “Falsifiability (or refutability) is a deductive standard for evaluating scientific theories and hypotheses,” introduced by Popper as a solution to distinguish science from non-science. In practice, a claim is falsifiable if we can imagine a definite empirical test that would prove the claim wrong if it indeed were wrong. For example, the claim “All swans are white” is falsifiable: finding a single black swan would refute it. By contrast, a claim like “This invisible dragon in my garage cannot be detected by any means” is unfalsifiable – no test could ever reveal the dragon’s absence, since any failure to detect it can be explained away. Popper argued that falsifiability makes a theory predictive and useful, if a proposition cannot be tested or contradicted even in principle, it doesn’t contribute to knowledge. Mystrikism applies this principle broadly: we should be wary of any belief cushioned against all possible rebuttal, as is familiar with pseudosciences and dogmas that invent ad hoc excuses to survive forever. A Mystrik will always ask, “What evidence would make me change my mind?” If the answer is “nothing,” then one is not really engaging in a rational belief at all, but clinging to an article of faith or an unfalsifiable dogma.
Falsifiability is closely tied to consistency and intellectual honesty. It is easy to claim belief in something vague or conveniently shielded from testing (for instance, “a cosmic force influences my destiny but in undetectable ways”). But such claims cheat the standards of evidence – they are designed to be irrefutable and thus can never be confirmed or disconfirmed. Mystrikism calls out such beliefs as illegitimate. They may serve emotional comfort or cultural tradition, but do not belong in a truth-seeking enterprise. This is why Mystrikism rejects dogmatic religious tenets, unfalsifiable conspiracy theories, and pseudoscientific assertions that evade testing. These fail the falsifiability test and thus fail the basic evidentiary requirement for belief. A genuine truth-claim invites scrutiny, a bogus one avoids it. Mystrikism demands we focus on the former and discard the latter.
Evidentiary Standards and the Sagan Standard: In line with the above, Mystrikism emphasises that the strength of evidence required should be commensurate with the claim. Carl Sagan famously popularised the motto, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”. If someone claims something mundane (“I had toast for breakfast”), modest evidence, such as their word or trivial verification, suffices. But suppose someone claims something extraordinary (“I was abducted by aliens last night” or “Praying cured my cancer instantaneously”). In that case, the evidence needed to accept that claim rationally must be correspondingly robust – multiple independent corroborations, rigorous documentation, and so on. This principle, the Sagan standard, is fundamental to scientific scepticism. Mystrikism fully endorses it. Beliefs are not all equal, a hypothesis that contradicts existing knowledge or carries a high degree of implausibility must meet a high evidentiary standard before it can be accepted. This protects us from being gullible and ensures that our worldview remains consistent with the best available data. It also places the burden of proof where it belongs: on the claimant. If I propose a radically new or unlikely idea, I am responsible for furnishing convincing evidence, others are not obligated to believe me until I do so. This stance prevents the reversal of burden (whereby someone might say, “Well, you can’t prove me wrong, so you should believe me”). In Mystrikism, lack of disproof is not proof – only positive evidence counts as a reason to believe.
Bayesian Reasoning and Consistent Updating: Evidence is often a matter of degree, not just a yes/no filter. Therefore, Mystrikism encourages a Bayesian mindset: treat belief as a continuously graded confidence that updates with each new piece of evidence. Bayesian inference provides a formal model: one starts with a prior estimate of a claim’s likelihood, then incorporates new evidence to obtain a posterior estimate. In plain terms, we come to any question with some background plausibility in mind (based on prior knowledge), and as we encounter new facts, we should adjust how strongly we lean for or against the claim. This prevents both stubbornness and overreaction. A single study or one anecdote should slightly shift our belief, not wholly flip it (unless it’s robust evidence). Conversely, a mountain of evidence accumulated over time should make us very confident in a conclusion. Bayesian thinking captures the provisional nature of belief: every belief is one update away from being stronger or weaker. No belief is held “forever”, it is held until further notice, pending additional evidence.
For example, imagine a hypothesis: “This new drug is effective against disease X.” A Mystrik might start with a neutral or slightly positive prior (since some drugs work, some don’t). As clinical trial data come in, they update: a well-designed trial shows positive results, increasing confidence, another trial shows no effect, tempering that confidence, a large meta-analysis shows a small benefit, adjusting the belief to a more moderate position. This process is fallible (flawed studies might mislead us if we’re not careful), but the truth emerges over time with sufficient data. What’s important is the commitment to update impartially. Mystrikism demands intellectual honesty in the face of new evidence, even when it contradicts our prior beliefs or desires. It is often psychologically challenging to change one’s mind, especially about deeply held convictions, but the Bayesian ethic treats such change as a sign of strength, not weakness. A Mystrik thus cultivates the habit of saying, “Given the evidence I have now, I believe X. If tomorrow the evidence shifts, I will gladly shift my belief to Y.” This is how knowledge progresses and error is corrected.
Consistency in Standards: Mystrikism also emphasises the importance of using consistent standards of evidence across all domains of belief. It is intellectually dishonest to be highly sceptical in one area (say, requiring massive proof for a scientific claim one dislikes) but lax in another (perhaps accepting anecdotal evidence for a folk remedy because one personally favours it). Such double standards are common: for instance, a person might dismiss news reports with the phrase “don’t believe everything you read,” yet uncritically swallow a rumour on social media that aligns with their politics. Mystrikism admonishes us to check our biases and apply the same critical lens to all claims. If hearsay is not acceptable to prove one kind of claim, it shouldn’t be sufficient for another. If we demand peer-reviewed studies to accept a new medication’s efficacy, we should likewise demand strong evidence for the effectiveness of a traditional herb or a miracle cure. Consistency is an epistemic virtue, it guards against self-deception and sectarian thinking. In practice, this means setting general criteria for what constitutes good evidence (e.g., reproducibility, logical coherence, plausibility concerning well-established knowledge) and then not granting any hypothesis a pass on those criteria. Whether the claim is worldly or otherworldly, popular or fringe, comforting or scary, Mystrikism says: evaluate it by the same rigorous yardstick. The outcome of such fair-minded evaluation will naturally be that well-supported ideas are believed, poorly supported ones are not, regardless of their origin or emotional appeal.
To sum up, the Mystrikal framework is evidence-minded through and through. It inherits the best principles from the philosophy of science and epistemology: falsifiability ensures claims put their money where their mouth is, evidential proportionality (Sagan’s standard) ensures our level of belief is apt to the claim, Bayesian updating ensures we remain flexible and responsive to new information, and consistency ensures we do not play favorites with what we choose to believe. Through these principles, Mystrikism endeavours to maintain a worldview that is not only internally coherent but also externally congruent with reality – a worldview that, as much as humanly possible, is a mirror of the way things truly are, continually polished by the evidence.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 7 of 15
Applied Epistemology: Real-World Examples
Abstract principles become clearer when applied to concrete examples. In this section, we will examine how the Mystrikal position on belief operates in various real-world contexts, ranging from medicine to the supernatural, conspiracies, and pseudoscience. These examples will illustrate how belief, disbelief, and withheld belief are assigned in practice, always tethered to evidence and subject to revision.
Medical Claims and Health Practices: Modern medicine is founded on evidence-based practice, which aligns well with Mystrikism. Before a new drug or treatment is adopted, it is tested in controlled trials to gather evidence of safety and efficacy. Consider, for example, the case of homeopathy – a system of alternative medicine invented in the 18th century. Homeopathy involves tremendously diluted substances and claims “like cures like,” but its principles defy fundamental chemistry and physics. To a Mystrik (and indeed to the vast majority of scientists), the a priori plausibility of homeopathy is essentially zero, the idea that water “remembers” substances no longer present is extraordinary and demands extraordinary evidence. Over two centuries, homeopathy has been subjected to numerous studies. What is the result? When examining the totality of high-quality evidence, homeopathic remedies appear to perform no better than a placebo. Any single small study that seemed optimistic can be attributed to chance or bias, and when all trials are aggregated, the purported effect vanishes. The Mystrikal response is clear: one should disbelieve the claim that “homeopathy cures diseases,” because robust evidence falsifies it. This is not a dogmatic or emotional rejection, it is a conclusion drawn from rigorous inquiry.
Furthermore, Mystrikism would point out the risk of believing in treatments without evidence: relying on an ineffective remedy for a serious illness can delay or prevent one from seeking real treatment, with potentially grave consequences. Thus, believing in homeopathy on faith isn’t just an epistemic mistake – it can be a moral one, endangering lives. A Mystrikal approach in medicine is to embrace treatments shown to work and reject or remain sceptical of those that have failed to prove themselves. It’s an approach already institutionalised in scientific medicine, which strives to “strive for evidence” in contrast to alternative therapies, often satisfied with anecdote.
To be fair, Mystrikism does not assume current medical knowledge is perfect – a stance is always provisional. If tomorrow credible evidence emerged that some homeopathic preparation does have a specific effect (perhaps through a hitherto unknown mechanism), the Mystrik would update their beliefs accordingly. The key is that the onus is on the evidence to lead the belief, not the belief to leap ahead of evidence. Until such evidence is produced, the only justified stance is disbelief or at least extreme doubt regarding homeopathy’s efficacy. The same logic applies to any medical claim, including new diets, supplements, and surgical techniques. Belief in a health claim should be proportional to the quality of evidence. Unfortunately, the real world is full of health fads and miracle cures that seduce many without solid evidence. Mystrikism serves as a safeguard: it tells us that wanting something to be true (or having many testimonials) is not enough – we must demand rigorous tests, and only then believe.
Supernatural and Paranormal Claims: Humans have long believed in phenomena like ghosts, telepathy, astrology, prophetic visions, and other supernatural or paranormal claims. These beliefs usually arise from personal experiences or cultural traditions rather than rigorous evidence. A Mystrikal perspective encourages us to treat these claims like any other: ask, what is the evidence, and is the claim falsifiable? Take ghosts and hauntings as an example. Many people report strange sightings or experiences, interpreting them as signs of ghosts. However, when these claims are investigated scientifically, natural explanations (such as drafts of wind, settling house noises, psychological suggestion, etc.) are nearly always found, and no experiment has ever unequivocally detected a ghost under controlled conditions. The hypothesis “ghosts exist and cause physical effects” is, in principle, falsifiable – one could imagine capturing a ghost or recording clear, repeatable ghostly interactions – but despite countless attempts (by ghost hunters, researchers, etc.), the evidence hasn’t materialised. The Mystrikal stance is therefore to withhold belief in ghosts. One doesn’t have to claim certainty that no ghosts exist anywhere. Still, one is justified in saying: given the lack of reliable evidence despite many opportunities, I am highly sceptical and do not believe in ghosts. Should compelling evidence arise (say, a robust, peer-reviewed study demonstrating some paranormal phenomenon that can’t be otherwise explained), the position would change. Until then, believing in ghosts would violate the evidentiary standard.
A similar analysis applies to claims of psychic powers or extrasensory perception (ESP). Such claims have been tested in experiments (telepathy tests, remote viewing trials, etc.) for many decades. Occasionally, a study would claim minor effects, but more often than not, these fail to replicate. The famous James Randi even offered a million-dollar prize for anyone who could demonstrate a paranormal ability under agreed-upon test conditions – nobody ever succeeded. Mystrikism would say: extraordinary claim, but extraordinarily weak (or non-existent) evidence – so the rational position is disbelief. The mere possibility or desire for something to be true (like “I’d like to have psychic powers” or “It would be comforting if my deceased loved ones were really communicating with me”) is not a justification to believe it true. Emotive conviction must not override empirical evidence. This is where Mystrikism diverges strongly from how many people approach the paranormal, often, belief in such things is tied to personal meaning or hope, making it tempting to lower the evidentiary bar. Mystrikism calls for intellectual honesty: if a comforting idea is not supported by facts, embracing it is a form of self-deception. It might feel good in the short term, but it’s a departure from the truth.
Pseudoscience and Conspiracy Theories: The world today sees an abundance of fringe beliefs that mimic the form of factual claims but lack the substance of evidence and logic. Consider the flat Earth conspiracy. Despite the Earth’s shape having been established by science (and indeed observed from space) for centuries, a community of believers insists that the Earth is a flat disc. How do they maintain this belief? They do so by cherry-picking perceived “flaws” in mainstream science and concocting elaborate conspiracy narratives, while ignoring the massive, well-established body of evidence that contradicts their view. Flat Earth models fail to explain basic phenomena that a spherical Earth explains simply (such as time zones, the way ships disappear hull-first over the horizon, the differing star constellations visible from north vs. south, etc.). To sustain belief in a flat Earth, one must also believe that essentially all scientists, pilots, satellite engineers, and government space agencies are collectively lying or mistaken – an extremely implausible scenario. The Mystrikal verdict on flat-Earth belief is unequivocal: it is an unjustified belief firmly falsified by evidence, and clung to only through the rejection of evidence and reason. It serves as a textbook case of dogma and emotive conviction over reality. A Mystrik would say to a flat-Earth proponent: What possible evidence could convince you the Earth is round? If the answer is “none, all evidence is faked,” then the discussion has left the realm of rationality. The flat-Earth believer has adopted an unfalsifiable stance – every conceivable counter-evidence (photos from space, circumnavigation, satellite GPS, gravity) is dismissed as trickery or illusion. This is precisely the kind of epistemic closure Mystrikism warns against. It is a mirror image of religious dogma, just applied to a different subject. By contrast, the evidence for a spherical Earth is so abundant and interconnected that our confidence in it is extraordinarily high. A Mystrik accepts this consensus not out of deference to authority, but because anyone who cares to look can examine the proofs – from Eratosthenes’ measurement of Earth’s circumference in ancient Greece to modern astronaut photographs. The belief that “Earth is approximately spherical” is among the best-supported beliefs we have (and importantly, it is still in principle falsifiable: if reality were somehow different, we could discover that by observation – it’s just that all observations confirm rotundity). Thus, the difference between a rational belief and a pseudoscientific belief often lies in whether the belief-holder is willing to let evidence arbitrate. Mystrikism stands firmly on the side of evidence.
Beyond flat Earth, other pseudosciences like astrology, UFO conspiracy theories, climate change denial, and so on can be analysed similarly. In each case, one finds that proponents start with a desired belief and work backward to cherry-pick supporting anecdotes, while dismissing or avoiding systematic evidence. Astrology, for example, fails in controlled tests to predict personality or fate better than chance, and its mechanism is physically implausible, thus, Mystrikism would reject the notion that star positions govern our lives. Climate change denial often involves rejecting the overwhelming statistical data in favour of a few anomalous cold days or fringe theories – a clear case where withholding belief in the scientific consensus is irrational, because the evidence is one-sided. (This highlights that scepticism can be misapplied, one can be unjustifiably agnostic by demanding an impossible standard of proof for something that already has sufficient evidence, a tactic often used to stall acceptance of inconvenient truths.) Mystrikism guards against that by tying scepticism itself to evidence: you should only be sceptical of a claim if there is a real evidential reason to doubt it, not merely because you dislike its implications.
In all these examples, the Mystrikal approach remains consistent: belief is proportionate to evidence, disbelief occurs when claims have been falsified or lack support, and suspension of judgment is only maintained as long as necessary. And crucially, always remain open to new evidence. The doctor who “disbelieves” in an unproven remedy will change their mind if good trials later show it works. The sceptic who withholds belief in aliens visiting Earth will believe readily if one day a flying saucer lands on the White House lawn and is broadcast live worldwide (an extraordinary claim demonstrated with exceptional evidence). There is no pride or identity tied up in which things one believes or not – the allegiance is to the process of inquiry itself. This leads naturally to the final topic: the ethical and personal virtues that Mystrikism encourages in believers (and non-believers alike).
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 8 of 15
Intellectual Integrity and Epistemic Virtue
Belief, as conceived in Mystrikism, is not merely a cold cognitive calculation, it is also a matter of character and integrity. To govern one’s beliefs by evidence and reason is an intellectual discipline that reflects particular virtues – honesty, humility, courage, and a commitment to truth. In this concluding section, we examine why adhering to the evidentiary standards outlined above is not just a logical choice but a moral one, and how it cultivates what philosophers call epistemic virtues – the character traits of a good knower.
A capsized ship exemplifies the perilous consequences of holding beliefs against evidence. In W.K. Clifford’s famous parable, a shipowner convinces himself that his old ship is seaworthy, against evidence of needed repairs, because he wants to avoid the cost of fixing it. He sends it to sea full of passengers, and it sinks, drowning them all. Clifford uses this story to argue that it is morally wrong to believe something on insufficient evidence. The shipowner’s wishful belief wasn’t just an isolated mental mistake, it had devastating real-world consequences. Clifford’s dictum is stark: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”. Why such strong language? Because he argues, our beliefs are not private – they guide our actions, influence others, and collectively shape society. When we allow ourselves to form beliefs irresponsibly, we contribute to a pollution of the “epistemic commons” (the shared well of knowledge and rational practice that society relies on). Just as dumping toxins into a river harms everyone who drinks from it, spreading or acting on unfounded beliefs harms the intellectual and often physical well-being of others. Thus, Clifford frames evidential responsibility as an ethical imperative, not just a personal choice. Mystrikism echoes this view strongly. Intellectual integrity – scrupulous honesty in assessing evidence and acknowledging what one does or doesn’t know – is held up as a paramount virtue.
What does intellectual integrity entail in daily life? It means, first and foremost, not pretending to know what one doesn’t know. It means resisting the temptation to indulge in comfortable falsehoods or group-sanctioned dogmas. It requires the humility to say “I might be wrong” and the courage to say “I require justification for that claim, even if it’s unpopular to ask for it.” These attitudes align with classic epistemic virtues identified by philosophers: open-mindedness, intellectual courage, intellectual humility, and epistemic responsibility. Let’s briefly consider each:
-
Open-mindedness: A readiness to consider new ideas and evidence, even if they challenge your current beliefs. In Mystrikism, open-mindedness does not mean believing everything a little bit – it means always giving a fair hearing to evidence. An open-minded Mystrik neither accepts claims blindly nor dismisses them without examination. They “hold their beliefs lightly,” ready to update or abandon them if warranted. This virtue guards against the rigidity of dogmatism and the echo-chamber effect, where one only listens to information that confirms pre-existing views.
-
Intellectual Courage: The willingness to follow evidence and reason wherever they lead, even if the conclusions are uncomfortable or come at a social cost. It takes courage to question a cherished belief, whether it’s a religious doctrine you were raised with or a political stance your peers all share. It also takes courage to admit uncertainty or error. A Mystrik values truth over ego, if the evidence says “you are wrong,” an intellectually courageous person will accept that, rather than clinging to a false sense of being right. This virtue was exemplified by many great scientists and thinkers who, when confronted with data contradicting their hypothesis, chose to revise or scrap their theory rather than distort the data. It is the opposite of intellectual cowardice, where one might refuse to even look at evidence that might upset one’s worldview.
-
Intellectual Humility: This is the recognition of the limits of one’s knowledge and an absence of arrogance about the truth. Humility reminds us that anyone can be mistaken and that our current beliefs, however well-supported, might need revision. Mystrikism’s emphasis on provisional belief is institutionalised humility. By never regarding any belief as beyond question, we maintain a stance that is modest about what we claim to know. Humility also involves listening to others and acknowledging when someone else knows more or has a valid point. It’s an antidote to the arrogance that often underlies dogmatic or evidence-ignoring behaviour (for instance, the Dunning-Kruger effect, where people with little knowledge in a domain overestimate their understanding).
-
Epistemic Responsibility: This is the discipline to do one’s due diligence in belief formation. It means seeking out evidence, checking facts, and not lazily accepting or rejecting claims. A responsible believer doesn’t say, “I have no time to investigate, but I’ll believe it anyway.” As Clifford quipped, if you have no time to gather evidence, then you should have no time to form a belief. Suspending judgment is better than jumping to conclusions out of impatience. Epistemic responsibility also means not spreading claims that you haven’t verified. In the age of instant sharing, this virtue is perhaps more crucial than ever: how often do we see people forwarding rumours or dubious news without checking? Mystrikism would consider that a breach of intellectual duty. Each of us is a gatekeeper for what we accept and propagate, responsibility entails filtering that through critical thought.
Cultivating these virtues leads to what we can call epistemic virtue or simply intellectual virtue. The payoff is not just personal “rightness” but a healthier collective discourse. When individuals consistently demand evidence and apply rational standards, charlatans find it harder to peddle misinformation, and group delusions are more likely to be punctured before they cause harm. Consider how these virtues could improve public debates: an open-minded yet rigorous approach would reduce partisan polarization (as each side would charitably evaluate the other’s evidence and be willing to concede points), intellectual humility would tone down the overconfidence that often turns discussions into shouting matches, epistemic responsibility would curtail the spread of fake news and baseless conspiracy theories that thrive on unchecked repetition.
Another aspect of intellectual integrity is consistency, not in the sense of refusing to change (we have covered the necessity of changing when warranted), but in the sense of applying your criteria universally. It is intellectually inconsistent, for instance, to be highly critical of opponents’ claims while uncritically accepting claims that favour your side. Mystrikism teaches vigilance against such double standards: be as sceptical of your own beliefs as you are of others’. In practice, one might deliberately seek out strong counterarguments to one’s favoured views, to test their mettle. This practice not only solidifies true beliefs (by surviving attempted refutation) but also weeds out weakly grounded ones. It embodies a kind of intellectual honesty that says: “I care about finding the truth, not about being proven right.” That mindset is at the heart of ethical inquiry.
Finally, let us note that these epistemic virtues align with ethical clarity. Acting on false beliefs can cause real harm – whether it’s a parent refusing a proven vaccine due to conspiracy beliefs, or an investor sinking money into a scam, or a society persecuting a group because of a baseless rumour. By contrast, grounding our actions in well-vetted beliefs leads to better outcomes. Ethically, one has to live with the consequences of one’s convictions. Mystrikism, therefore, views the cultivation of correct (or at least justified) belief as not just an intellectual achievement but a moral one. This doesn’t mean one must be a scientist or have absolute proof for everything – often, we must act on imperfect information. But it does mean one should care about whether one’s beliefs are true, and take reasonable steps to ensure they are, before acting on them. This caring is an ethical stance: it shows respect for reality, for others, and the potential impact of one’s actions. In an age where misinformation can spread faster than ever, such intellectual integrity is a public virtue we desperately need.
To quote Huxley once more, “It is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.” Mystrikism not only agrees but generalises this principle to all degrees of belief, not just certainty. And it declares that adhering to this principle is a form of virtue – the hallmark of an inquiring, honest mind.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 9 of 15
Historical Perspectives: From Agnosticism to the “New Atheism”
Thomas Huxley and Agnosticism: No Claim Without Evidence
In the 19th century, Thomas Henry Huxley – a biologist known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” – grew frustrated with the clash between staunch atheists and staunch theists of his time. Both sides, in his view, were overstepping what the evidence could support - in 1869, Huxley coined the term “agnosticism” to describe his epistemological stance. Far from meaning “apathetic” or “undecided” in a wishy-washy sense, Huxley’s agnosticism was a principled position: it held that one should not claim certainty or belief in something for which one lacks sufficient evidence or rational grounds. As Huxley put it, “Agnosticism is of the essence of science… It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.”. This was a rebuke to both religious dogmatism and atheistic dogmatism. Huxley was targeting the tendency of some atheists in his day to positively assert “There is no God” without admitting it was an article of faith rather than proof. He felt it was more honest to say “I don’t know” or “I have no reason to believe that.” Thus, Huxley himself refused to don the label atheist (which in Victorian times implied a confident denial of God’s existence, often associated with radical politics). He preferred agnostic, emphasising an absence of knowledge. He did lack belief in God, but he based that on the sense that neither God’s existence nor non-existence had been demonstrably proven. In Mystrikal terms, Huxley took the stance of suspending judgment – a form of non-belief grounded in epistemic humility. His famous maxim that one should not claim as true what one lacks evidence for became a foundational principle for scientific scepticism. This principle resonates strongly with Mystrikism: it’s essentially a call for provisional beliefs guided by evidence. Agnosticism, as Huxley defined it, wasn’t about sitting on the fence for its own sake, it was about intellectual honesty and saying, “I refuse to pretend to know what I don’t know.”
Importantly, Huxley’s approach did not mean that all possibilities are equally likely or that one must 50/50 suspend judgment forever. In practice, he lived as if there were no personal God, since all the evidence of nature suggested natural laws rather than divine intervention. He was, by all accounts, an “agnostic atheist” in modern terms – lacking belief in God, but stopping short of asserting God’s non-existence outright. The legacy of Huxley’s agnosticism is the idea that the burden of proof lies on anyone making a knowledge claim. If the theist says “God exists,” the agnostic will ask “How do you know? Show me evidence.” Likewise, if an atheist were to dogmatically say, “There is absolutely no God,” Huxley would challenge that person: “On what basis do you claim to know that? You have no empirical proof of a universal negative.” In other words, he’d demand that even disbelief be modest in its confidence. Agnosticism, then, can be seen as an early articulation of the notion that beliefs (or disbeliefs) require justification, and if justification is lacking, one should refrain from certainty. Mystrikism builds on this by not only acknowledging the suspension of belief as a valid stance, but by asking: what should we do when evidence remains absent for a very long time? At what point can the Huxleyan agnostic justifiably slide toward saying, “I tentatively believe there is no X, because I really should have seen something by now if X were real”? We’ll return to that question.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 10 of 15
Bertrand Russell and the Celestial Teapot: Burden of Proof
Moving into the 20th century, one of the clearest illustrations of the burden-of-proof principle came from the British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Russell was a self-described agnostic in the Huxleyan sense, though he often said that for practical purposes he was an atheist (especially about the Christian God). In 1952, Russell penned a famous analogy that has since become legendary: Russell’s Teapot. He asked us to imagine someone claiming that a china teapot is orbiting the Sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. Such a teapot, he said, would be far too small to be seen by our telescopes, its existence, therefore, cannot be disproved. Should we then believe in the teapot? Clearly not. Russell pointed out the absurdity of saying, “Well, you can’t prove me wrong about the teapot, so you ought to accept that it’s real.” In his own words: “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china tea pot revolving about the Sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.”.
Russell’s point was that the inability to disprove a claim is not a valid reason to believe it. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim (the one asserting the existence of the teapot), not on others to disprove it. He further noted that if the belief in this hypothetical teapot were deeply ingrained in culture, taught in holy books and Sunday schools, then “hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity”. This was a direct swipe at religion: culturally, religious claims often get special treatment, where sceptics are asked, “Well, can you prove God doesn’t exist?” as though that uncertainty justifies belief. Russell was pointing out that this is backward. We don’t usually accept unfalsifiable or unsupported claims just because they can’t be disproven. Imagine if someone seriously told you a tiny invisible dragon lives in their garage. You would rightly demand evidence, you wouldn’t feel obligated to disprove the dragon’s existence to justify your doubt.
Russell’s Teapot has since been a rallying analogy for atheists. It encapsulates why many atheists choose simply to “lack belief” rather than claim specific knowledge of God’s non-existence. They argue: theist is the one asserting a big existence claim (God), so the theist must present evidence, I, as a sceptic, am just saying I see no good evidence and therefore I don’t buy the claim. This aligns with what Russell and Huxley both championed: the idea that extraordinary or unfalsifiable claims should be met with scepticism, not a reversed burden of “prove it’s not true.” In practice, Russell did lean toward the belief that there is no such God – he famously said that God’s existence, while not disprovable, was about as unlikely as the teapot or as a mythical Olympian god, so there’s “no reason to consider any of them” plausible. But he framed his stance carefully as “I cannot prove no God… but nor can we disprove all sorts of fanciful hypotheses, and we rightly give them no credence without evidence.” This is effectively an argument for defaulting to disbelief (or non-belief) when evidence is absent – precisely the position many atheists take today.
Mystrikism would agree with Russell’s fundamental logic about the burden of proof. It fully acknowledges that it’s the responsibility of the person asserting a positive existence claim to provide evidence. However, Mystriks extend the discussion by examining what a rational person should do after a prolonged lack of evidence. Russell’s teapot is a deliberately trivial example, in reality, humanity doesn’t spend centuries debating invisible teapots. But we have spent millennia examining claims of gods. What if a claim is of enormous significance (like a god that created the universe or governs morality), and yet, after extensive searching, we find no reliable evidence for it? At what point do we move from mere non-belief (“I don’t see evidence, so I withhold belief”) to an evidence-based belief in absence (“All signs point to there being no such thing”)? Russell’s analogy implies that as long as evidence is lacking, scepticism is warranted. Mystrikism takes that a step further: if enough time and effort have been spent looking for evidence with nothing to show for it, scepticism can deepen into a provisional conviction of non-existence. The teapot analogy also illustrates something else that Mystriks note: claims can be constructed to be unfalsifiable (like a teapot too small to detect, or a God defined to be beyond all observation). An unfalsifiable claim, by definition, will never be disproved – but that isn’t a virtue, it’s a bug. It means such claims can linger forever without evidence. Mystriks argue that we are justified in rejecting such claims provisionally on the grounds of parsimony and track record, rather than considering ourselves stuck in limbo about them indefinitely.
Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 11 of 15
Antony Flew and the “Presumption of Atheism”
Fast-forward to the latter part of the 20th century. In 1972, philosopher Antony Flew gave a famous lecture (later an essay) titled “The Presumption of Atheism.” Flew’s argument was built on the burden-of-proof principle and attempted to reframe the debate in a way advantageous to atheists. He suggested that we should define atheism, by default, not as the assertion “God does not exist,” but as the absence of belief in God. By his definition, anyone who isn’t a theist is an “atheist” in the sense of being without a belief in God (the original Greek a-theos meaning “without god”). This includes not just strong atheists but also agnostics and all non-theists. Flew argued that debate should start with a presumption of atheism analogous to the legal presumption of innocence: the “accused” here is the proposition “God exists,” which should be considered unproven until the prosecution (the theist) presents a compelling case. In other words, the default position is that we do not believe in God, and theists carry the whole burden to convince us otherwise. If they fail, atheism (in the minimal sense of lack of belief) stands victorious by default.
Flew’s approach did two things. First, it popularised the definition of atheism as “lacking belief in God” rather than “believing no God exists,” a shift in usage that many in the general public and especially the burgeoning community of “New Atheists” adopted. Second, it made explicit the idea that atheism requires no justification of its own beyond the failure of theism’s arguments. It’s essentially an application of Huxley and Russell’s ideas. Since theists haven’t met the burden of proof, we are warranted in remaining atheists (i.e. not believing in God) without having to prove God’s non-existence. Flew compared it to the courtroom: you don’t have to prove the defendant didn’t commit the crime, you just show the prosecution didn’t prove that he did, and thus you presume innocence (or in this case, presume atheism – that there’s no reason to believe).
This “presumption of atheism” was quite influential. It underlies the common modern claim by atheists online that “Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, we’re not claiming anything, so we have no burden of proof.” Indeed, Flew helped cement that exact framing. The motive was clear: it put atheists on firmer ground in debate. Instead of having to argue for a strong claim (no gods), atheists could demand theists make their case, while the atheist merely refrains from assent.
Not everyone was persuaded by Flew’s reframing. Some philosophers (notably Alvin Plantinga, later) argued that theists might be rationally warranted in belief in God without evidence (they introduced ideas like properly fundamental beliefs, etc.), thus challenging the notion that atheism automatically holds the high ground. However, regardless of those counterarguments, in popular discourse, Flew’s legacy endures. Most atheists today, when pressed, will describe atheism in the negative sense (lack of belief) and agnosticism as a separate axis (concerning knowledge). Flew himself later in life changed his mind and became a deist of sorts (believing in some kind of Aristotelian God on philosophical grounds), which is an ironic footnote. But that doesn’t negate the impact of his earlier stance on shaping the conversation.
Mystrikism has an interesting relationship to Flew’s ideas. On the one hand, Mystriks agree that everyone starts “innocent” (atheistic) in the absence of evidence – a newborn has no belief in gods, after all, and it’s reasonable to withhold belief until some evidence appears. They also agree that theists bear the burden of proof for their claims. However, Mystriks depart from Flew by asserting that even the “presumption of atheism” is still a belief position that ought to be owned and examined. In other words, yes, treat atheism as the default – but do not pretend that defaults aren’t beliefs. They are, they’re just initially unproven beliefs (like “I currently believe no gods exist or that the concept is idle, because I have zero evidence for any”). As soon as you defend the “presumption of atheism” by saying “there’s no evidence for God, hence I don’t believe,” you have provided a rationale – a good one at that – for your stance. Mystrikism applauds that: it wants every stance to be evidence-responsive. What it rejects is any suggestion that atheism (or agnosticism, etc.) gets a special pass from critical scrutiny just because it’s called a “lack” or a “default.” Flew’s tactic was rhetorically useful, but Mystriks would say every epistemic stance deserves an epistemic justification. If your only justification is “the other side failed to prove their case,” that’s fine – it is a kind of justification. But be explicit: “I provisionally believe there is no good reason to accept God exists”. That is your belief. Now, is that belief holding up well? If decades and centuries pass with no evidence for God, that belief (that “there’s no reason to think God is real”) grows stronger and more justified. If some evidence suddenly emerged, that belief would need to be revised. The Mystrik position thus takes Flew’s presumption idea and then says: we have indeed had a very long presumption of atheism in play, and the theists have not only failed to produce evidence, but the persistent absence of evidence has itself become evidence of absence. Therefore, one can move from a mere presumption to a provisional conclusion that “God does not exist (with very high probability).” In other words, the atheist can, after a time, justifiably become a strong atheist, not out of arbitrary dogma but because the continued presumption went unchallenged by any facts, tipping the scale toward a positive disbelief. We will soon look at how Mystriks articulate that transition using the concept of Rovrrtelf evidence.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 12 of 15
Sam Harris and the Rejection of the “Atheist” Label
In the 21st century, the conversation took another turn with the rise of the so-called “New Atheists” – figures like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. They were outspoken critics of religion, but interestingly, at least one of them – Sam Harris – argued that even calling ourselves “atheists” is problematic. Harris’s view, expressed in talks and essays, is that atheism isn’t a philosophy or a worldview – it’s literally just the absence of a particular belief. In a better world, we wouldn’t need a special name for that absence. He points out that we don’t label people as “non-astrologers” if they don’t believe in astrology, or “non-racists” as a distinct identity group if they simply don’t hold racist views. By creating a banner called “atheism,” he worries that non-believers allow themselves to be portrayed as if they have a weird ideology, when in fact they’re just using reason and common sense. Harris writes: “Atheism is not a philosophy, it is not even a view of the world, it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious” – namely, the “obvious” lack of evidence for any god. He also famously said, “‘Atheist’ is a term we do not need, in the same way we don’t need a word for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive”. His provocative proposal was that people who don’t believe in gods should, as much as possible, stop calling themselves atheists and just be people who value evidence and reason. Then, whenever someone introduces a specific religious claim, they tackle it on its own merits (or lack thereof) without wearing a big red “A” that invites prejudice. Harris even quipped that using the label “atheist” allows the religious to dismiss critics as just another interest group or “a cranky sub-culture” meeting in hotel ballrooms, rather than taking their arguments seriously on universal rational grounds.
Harris’s stance is both strategic and linguistic. Philosophically, it aligns with the notion that atheism is not a positive claim – it’s “non-belief” pure and simple. He wants to emphasise that he’s not presenting a new dogma called atheism, he’s simply unconvinced by religion and thinks everyone should be likewise unconvinced until evidence shows up. His approach is kind of an extreme application of Flew’s idea – so much so that he’d prefer to dispense with the word atheism entirely and just say “I don’t believe your claims, and I don’t need a special title for that.” In practice, not all atheists agreed with dumping the label (many have found community and identity in it), but Harris’s point speaks to how strongly some atheists feel that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief and should carry zero burden of proof or baggage.
From the Mystrikal perspective, Sam Harris is correct that not believing in something isn’t a substantive worldview – atheism in itself doesn’t tell you what you do believe, only what you don’t. However, Mystrikism would counter that refusing a label doesn’t actually free you from having a stance. Whether Harris calls himself “atheist” or not, he absolutely holds the stance that no religion he’s encountered has provided evidence of a god, and thus he lives as if there is no god. He might phrase it as “I simply reject their claims,” but in effect, Harris has a high confidence (if not absolute certainty) that those claims are false. Mystriks would say: own that confidence as a provisional belief. Call it “common sense” if you like – indeed, it is common sense not to believe in things for which no evidence exists – but it is still a conclusion you’ve reached and are acting on. Mystrikism has no issue with shedding unhelpful labels, but it cautions against the idea that one can sidestep epistemic responsibility by the trick of nomenclature. In other words, even if we stopped saying “atheism” and just said “we believe in science and don’t accept unsupported claims,” the fact remains that regarding the proposition “God exists,” we have taken a position (we consider it very likely false). And that position should be defended with the best arguments and evidence (or lack of evidence) available, rather than being treated as needing no defence at all. Mystriks see merit in Harris’s analogy – nobody calls themselves a “non-astrologer” – but they also note: those of us who reject astrology do, in fact, believe that the claims of astrology are false or unfounded. We don’t usually bother to label ourselves for not believing in it, but if challenged, we would justify our rejection (e.g. by pointing out astrology’s failures under scientific tests). Likewise, not believing in God doesn’t require a manifesto, but if someone asks “why not?” we ought to have an answer. And that answer will inevitably be along the lines of: “Because I have seen no reliable evidence, and perhaps even some evidence to the contrary.”
In summary, the historical arc from Huxley to Harris shows an increasing assertiveness on the part of nontheists in defining their position. Huxley emphasised not claiming what you can’t support (epistemic humility), Russell emphasised shifting the burden of proof back to claimants of unfalsifiable ideas, Flew reframed atheism as the default no-claim position, and Harris pushed the concept of atheism as nothing at all – just reason – needing no badge. Each of these influenced the modern atheist identity: most self-described atheists today will say something like, “I don’t claim to know there’s no God (that would be Huxley’s influence), I just haven’t seen any evidence and find God as unlikely as any baseless claim (Russell’s influence), so I simply lack belief (Flew’s influence) – in fact, I don’t even like being called an atheist because it’s not a creed (Harris’s influence).”
Mystrikism steps into this landscape, agreeing with a great deal of the logic but making a crucial tweak: it asserts that all these stances are actually beliefs by another name, and that rather than dodging that fact, one should confront it and justify one’s stance provisionally. In the end, the debate over “is atheism a belief?” might seem purely semantic, but it has practical implications for how we discuss and justify our worldviews. The Mystrikal answer is “Yes – atheism is a belief (broadly defined), and that’s okay!”. What matters is whether it’s a justified belief, held in the right way (tentatively, open to evidence). To see how one might justify a stance that no gods exist (or that it’s rational to act as if none exist), Mystriks point to the principle: persistent absence of evidence, when evidence should be expected, is indeed evidence of absence. Let’s explore that principle, as it forms the backbone of the Mystrikal argument that atheism (even as a positive disbelief) can be well-founded.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 13 of 15
Absence of Evidence as Provisional Evidence of Absence
There’s an old saying often invoked in debates: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In other words, just because you haven’t found evidence for something doesn’t mean you’ve proven it doesn’t exist. This is generally true and serves as a warning against drawing hasty conclusions from ignorance. However, Mystriks argue that this saying, while valid in many situations, has important qualifications. When a claim is such that evidence should exist and be discoverable if the claim were valid, then failing to find any evidence after diligent effort does become evidence (albeit provisional evidence) that the claim is false. In simpler terms: if something is there, and you look long and hard and still don’t see it, you have good provisional reason to suspect it’s actually not there. The context and expectation of evidence are key.
The Mystrikal doctrine encapsulates this with the concept of R O V R R T E L F - Rovrrtelf evidence – an acronym for Reliable, Objective, Verified, Reproducible, Relevant, Trustworthy, Empirical or Logical, and Falsifiable evidence. This mouthful essentially means the gold standard of evidence obtained through the scientific method and rigorous inquiry. If a claim is valid, especially one about something that influences the world, we expect Rovrrtelf-quality evidence to emerge in favour of it eventually. If years, decades, or centuries pass and no such evidence appears (despite diligent searching), then the persistent absence of evidence is meaningful. It’s not absolute proof of non-existence (few things can be proven non-existent with 100% certainty), but it tilts the scales heavily.
Mystriks give illustrative examples. Imagine you’re in a windowless room and someone says, “There’s a tiger in this room.” You find that hard to believe, so you thoroughly search the room – check every corner, shine a flashlight – and you see nothing: no stripes lurking, no breathing, no sounds, nothing disturbed. At some point, you are rationally justified in concluding, “There is no tiger here.” The absence of any tiger evidence in an environment where a tiger would leave evidence (footprints, noise, a visible body!) is strong evidence of absence. It’s not logically impossible that a tiger could be perfectly camouflaged or a ghost tiger, or you’re hallucinating an empty room – but those are extremely far-fetched. In everyday and scientific reasoning, we routinely and reasonably conclude things don’t exist when extensive searching finds zero signs of them in contexts where signs are expected. As another example, for centuries, people believed in phlogiston (a substance in objects released during burning). However, careful experiments by Lavoisier found no evidence for it. Instead, they revealed oxygen’s role. The absence of evidence for phlogiston, coupled with new explanations, led scientists to conclude that phlogiston isn’t real. The same happened with the planet Vulcan (a hypothesised planet once thought to cause Mercury’s orbital wobbles) – astronomers looked hard for Vulcan and never found it, and then Einstein’s theory explained Mercury without it. The failed searches were evidence that Vulcan did not exist. In short, when a thorough investigation undercuts the should-be-there evidence for a hypothesis, that hypothesis becomes untenable.
The Mystrik position is that the God hypothesis (especially the God of major religions who interacts with the world, answers prayers, performs miracles, or otherwise has detectable effects) falls into this category. If such a God existed, Mystriks argue, there ought to be some reliable, objective, and relevant evidence – something substantial – for its existence. Humans have been invoking gods for millennia, and for at least the last few centuries, many have been actively searching for empirical or logical proof of God. Yet, as one Mystrikism puts it, “the concept of god(s)… [is] regarded as provisionally unreal or invalid by the Union of Mystriks due to the complete lack of Rovrrtelf evidence, despite millennia of investigation, including the time since the Enlightenment of more intense scrutiny.” All the prayers, rituals, and inquiries have yielded no measurable, verifiable trace of the divine. Scientific explanations have steadily filled the gaps that gods once occupied (such as thunder, disease, and the origin of species), leaving fewer “god of the gaps” refuges. If a deity influenced the world, we should have seen unambiguous anomalies or interventions by now that could only be attributed to a divine source. We have seen none that stand up to scrutiny. God’s proposed effects (when tested) either don’t manifest or have natural explanations.
Now, if someone defines God in a completely unfalsifiable way (e.g. an utterly undetectable deity who does everything in secret or purely in a non-physical realm), then indeed we can’t ever find evidence or counter-evidence – that becomes like Russell’s teapot or a cosmic invisible dragon: an assertion immune to verification. For such a definition, the lack of evidence is unsurprising (the claim made it so by definition). Mystriks would respond that such a notion of God, while unfalsifiable, is effectively meaningless to our reality – a god that by design can never be evidenced is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist at all. In Carl Sagan’s parable of the invisible dragon in the garage, every test for the dragon (infrared sensors, powder on the floor, etc.) is met with special pleading – “oh, it’s invisible, it’s heatless, it floats” – making the dragon unfalsifiable. Sagan’s conclusion: the claim might as well be nonsense, and it certainly provides no rational ground for belief. Mystriks take a similar view: a completely undetectable God is beyond the realm of evidence and thus beyond the realm of any justified belief (one way or the other). One should suspend belief in such an unfalsifiable concept and file it under “no reason to entertain.” However, when it comes to gods who supposedly perform actions (miracles, revelations, creation events, etc.), a lack of evidence does count against their existence.
The often-misunderstood nuance in “absence of evidence is (or isn’t) evidence of absence” is proportionality and context. Mystrikism emphasises proportional reasoning: when evidence should logically exist if a claim were valid, its absence becomes strongly indicative of its absence. For instance, if someone claims “there is an elephant in my pocket,” the absence of any visible bulge, weight, or trunk noise is absolutely evidence that this claim is false, because an elephant could not possibly be there without evidence. Scale that to bigger questions: if someone claims a loving God answers prayers, but careful studies show no difference in outcomes, that absence of an effect is evidence (albeit statistical) against that claim. If someone claims that a just God would not allow certain evils, but we observe those evils occurring unmitigated, that can be taken as evidence against the concept of a just God. Over time, one accumulates so much failed evidence that non-belief graduates to disbelief.
Mystriks are careful to phrase conclusions as conditional and provisional, not absolute. They don’t say “We have proved no gods exist” in the mathematical sense, they say “Given the exhaustive inquiry and complete lack of Rovrrtelf evidence for any gods, it is reasonable to accept provisional non-existence.” They stress that this conclusion is “always subject to future discoveries”. In other words, if tomorrow the sky split open and a deity presented evidence of itself that met high standards, the Mystrikal atheist would revise their stance. This willingness to update is crucial – it’s what distinguishes evidence-based belief from dogmatic belief. A Mystrik will say “There is no good evidence for unicorns or leprechauns, and after centuries of looking we’ve found none, so I provisionally believe those don’t exist” – yet they’ll also say “if you somehow show me a live unicorn that passes all tests, I’ll change my mind.” The same goes for God. This is essentially the scientific attitude: always open to new data but not holding one’s breath when a hypothesis has been on life support for a long time with nothing to show.
One Mystrikal text gives the example of unicorns: maybe they could exist in some remote forest, but after centuries of exploration yielding nothing, we are justified in thinking unicorns are purely mythical. “Maybe unicorns are not merely hiding, their persistent absence after centuries of investigation strongly suggests they do not exist,” as that text says. The conclusion isn’t taken as absolute proof, but as a practical working truth. Likewise, after millennia of recorded history with no agreed-upon manifestation of the divine, and especially after the last few hundred years of scientific advances explaining what once was attributed to gods, Mystriks feel justified in saying “God’s persistent absence in the face of where evidence should be (if such a being existed) is a qualified evidence of God’s absence.”
It’s worth noting that even some theologians and apologists acknowledge that if God wanted to, He could provide more unmistakable evidence – the fact that He hasn’t is part of what they call the “problem of divine hiddenness.” Mystriks would simply say: the most straightforward explanation for divine hiddenness is that there is no divine being there to begin with. It’s not a proof, but it’s a far more parsimonious explanation than positing an all-powerful being who intentionally leaves no trace. This echoes the line by Percy Shelley, “God is a hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist.” If no proof comes, the hypothesis withers.
In summary, Mystrikism gives atheists a way to turn “lack of evidence” into a positive argument. It says, 'Look at the track record.' Notice how, every time we intensely sought evidence for the divine, we found natural explanations or no results. Look at how claims that required God (like “the universe needs a creator”) have not been bolstered by any empirical discoveries of God, and how, instead, science has shown natural processes (big bang, evolution, etc.) that fill those gaps. Given this comprehensive absence of evidence, it is rational to conclude – provisionally – that there is no God. This flips the script on theists who accuse atheists of having an equal “faith” in no-god. Mystriks respond: it’s not faith, it’s a conclusion drawn from the evidence – or rather, from the glaring lack of evidence where there ought to be some. It’s precisely how we conclude anything isn’t real. For example, if someone said there’s an adult African elephant in their house and you saw absolutely nothing when you walked in, you don’t say, “I lack belief in the elephant, but I wouldn’t call that a belief.” You’d probably say, “I believe you’re mistaken (i.e. there is no elephant here).” That belief is based on the evidence of your senses. Atheism, in the Mystrik view, is the same: at some point it graduates from mere suspension of belief to a justified belief in God’s absence, given the cumulative negative evidence.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 14 of 15
Embracing Epistemic Responsibility: No Dodging the Burden
Having walked through these perspectives, we arrive at the crux of the Mystrikal stance: trying to dodge epistemic responsibility by redefining atheism as “not a belief” is ultimately futile. It may be well-intentioned – often done to avoid unfair attacks or shift the debate to theism’s lack of evidence – but in the end, it’s just a semantic manoeuvre. Mystrikism encourages both theists and atheists to own their beliefs. Everyone has the “burden” (really the privilege) of providing reasons for what they think is true. Whether your position is “God exists,” or “God doesn’t exist,” or “I’m not convinced either way,” you should be ready to explain why you take that stance. There is no shame in admitting that atheism is a belief under a broad definition, as long as you clarify that it is a provisional belief grounded in evidence (or the lack thereof) rather than an article of blind faith.
Stepping up to that responsibility can strengthen the atheist’s position. It transforms the conversation from “Atheism isn’t a claim, so I have nothing to defend” (which can go in circles) to “Atheism is my current belief, and here’s my case for why it’s the most reasonable stance: centuries of no evidence, strong explanations from science for what we used to attribute to gods, logical issues with the concept of God, etc.” Instead of “no burden,” the atheist accepts a lighter burden: not to prove with certainty that God isn’t there (an impossible task, just as proving the teapot isn’t there is impossible), but to show that all available evidence points away from God’s existence and none points toward it – making non-belief (or disbelief) the rational conclusion. This is analogous to a court not proving innocence with certainty, but showing enough evidence of reasonable doubt that we conclude “not guilty.” The Mystrik atheist says “not proven” and, beyond that, “given the utter lack of proof where there ought to be some, I find the defendant (God) effectively not present in reality.”
By framing all stances as beliefs, Mystrikism also fosters a more even-handed dialogue. It reminds theists that atheists are not just contrarians refusing to play the game – atheists have a worldview too, one that can be discussed in the same terms of evidence and reason. It likewise reminds atheists that theists (at least thoughtful ones) aren’t simply crazy – they have reasons they accept (even if we find those reasons weak). Therefore, the discussion should focus on the quality of evidence and argument, rather than dismissing the opposing side as automatically “irrational.” Everyone in the debate is trying to make sense of reality and holds some beliefs while suspending others. The question becomes: whose stance best fits the facts?
Mystrikism’s insistence on provisionality also guards against the atheist falling into the trap of overconfidence. It’s tempting for some atheists, especially after lengthy debates, to move from “I don’t believe” to “I know there is no God, period.” While emotionally understandable, that mirrors the certitude of dogmatists. The Mystrikal approach would counsel holding atheism confidently if that’s where the evidence leads, but always keeping a door open, however small, for new information. That mindset not only is epistemically virtuous, it also undercuts a common theistic critique: that atheists are just as dogmatic or closed-minded as the fundamentalists they criticise. A Mystrik can genuinely say: “Show me good evidence, and I will change my mind. I want to believe true things. So far, the ‘God’ proposition has utterly failed by those standards, so I provisionally assert its falsehood. But I remain open to being surprised.”
In practice, what does this look like? Consider a real-world analogy: the question of extraterrestrial intelligence. We have no solid evidence that aliens exist. One person might take the stance, “I lack belief in aliens, I’m not convinced.” Another might take it further: “I believe we are alone in the galaxy, until proven otherwise.” Both are stances on the same spectrum. The broader belief here is about the proposition “aliens exist.” Mystrikism would say that both people have a belief position (one is non-belief, one is disbelief) and both should be based on evidence (perhaps the Fermi paradox, the lack of signals in SETI, etc., in this case). Neither should claim absolute knowledge (“there definitely are no aliens!”) because new data (say, a radio signal from another star) can upend things. But neither should shy away from stating what they believe is most likely true, given the evidence, and defending that position. Likewise, atheists shouldn’t shy from saying, “Given everything I know, I think all gods are human inventions and don’t exist in reality.” That’s a belief. It doesn’t make atheism a religion (despite theists’ barbs – atheism has no rituals, no doctrine of salvation, etc.), but it does mean atheism is a truth-claim about reality. And truth-claims are exactly what rational people discuss and debate using evidence and logic.
In closing, the enduring argument about whether atheism is a belief often dissipates once we clarify terms. By a narrow definition (belief = positive claim held with certainty), atheism-as-lack-of-belief isn’t a “belief.” But by a broader and arguably more philosophically mature definition, any settled stance on a proposition is a belief – be it affirmation, denial, or deliberate non-commitment. Mystrikism adopts this broader view to encourage intellectual honesty and rigour. It reminds us that what matters is not what we call our stance (belief, non-belief, etc.) but how we justify it. Theists must explain why they believe X exists, atheists must justify why they do not think X exists (and especially if they go further to believe X does not exist). When we all accept that burden, the conversation shifts to where it should be: evidence, arguments, probability, explanatory power. And on those grounds, the Mystrikal atheist is confident that the scales tip heavily in favour of disbelief in gods. After centuries of empty data where there ought to be data, the rational attitude – the one that best aligns with a scientific, evidence-based view of reality – is to conclude that gods are human figments provisionally. As one source from the Union of Mystriks succinctly put it, “distinguishing what is currently real from what is imagined” is achieved by looking at the evidence. Concerning gods, all signs point to the latter category.
Atheism, defined broadly, is a belief – a cognitive stance on an age-old proposition. But it is not a belief taken on faith, it’s a belief taken on the recognition that those who assert gods have provided no good evidence. Rather than hide from the term belief, non-theists can embrace it in this qualified sense, proudly stating that “I believe there is no compelling reason to accept any god claims, and indeed I believe no gods exist, given the overwhelming lack of evidence and the explanatory success of naturalism – but I hold all such beliefs provisionally, pending new evidence.” Such a position is intellectually honest and responsible. It carries a light burden of proof. Light, because one is essentially pointing to a void where mountains of evidence should be, and meets that burden with ease by highlighting the world’s deafening silence on the divine. In the spirit of Mystrikism, the goal is to hold all our beliefs to the same standard, whether they are affirmations or denials. In the final calculation, the virtue is not in avoiding the word belief, but in ensuring that every belief we hold (including atheism) is proportional to the evidence, open to revision, and unafraid of scrutiny. That is a standard both theists and atheists should aspire to – and when they do, the conversation moves from rhetoric to reality, where the best-supported ideas will prevail.
Belief
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 15 of 15
Concluding Thoughts
Belief, from the Mystrikal perspective, is far from the casual notion of “just having an opinion” or “faith in something unseen.” It is a disciplined cognitive commitment, always provisional and consistently answerable to reason and evidence. Belief, disbelief, and withholding of belief are simply different positions on a continuum of judgment, and Mystrikism holds that we are accountable for our stance, regardless of where we fall on that continuum. Each position must be taken conscientiously: supported by sufficient evidence if we affirm, by sufficient counter-evidence if we deny, or by a transparent lack of evidence if we remain undecided. In this way, Mystrikism creates a unified standard for all doxastic attitudes, eliminating the loopholes that some worldviews create for favoured beliefs or convenient ignorances.
We have contrasted this framework with religious faith, which requires unconditional belief. Mystrikism refuses to grant any claim exemption from critical scrutiny, no matter how sacred. We have looked at atheistic lack-of-belief and agnostic “I don’t know,” noting that Mystrikism agrees one should not believe without evidence, but also insists that one should articulate why the evidence is deemed lacking and remain open to future illumination. We have seen why fideism, dogma, and emotional conviction are incompatible with Mystrikal belief: they attempt to substitute something else (tradition, authority, desire) for evidence, and in doing so, they undermine the very project of truth-seeking. Mystrikism is, at its core, a commitment to reality as determined by the best methods available, logical reasoning and empirical observation – never bending reality to fit our wishes, but bending our beliefs to align with reality.
In exploring the role of evidence and falsifiability, we affirmed that Mystrikism aligns with the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. A belief that cannot be tested or potentially disproved is not a meaningful claim about the world, it is at best speculative and at worst a shield for falsehood. We highlighted Bayesian reasoning as a model for how a rational mind updates its beliefs, underscoring the fluid nature of belief in Mystrikism: today’s conclusions may be revised tomorrow, and that is a strength, not a weakness. Consistency, coherence, and a demand for evidence make the Mystrikal approach a reliably self-correcting method, over time, this approach weeds out errors and zeroes in on the truth, much as the scientific method has done over centuries.
The real-world examples demonstrated that these are not ivory-tower ideals but practical guides for navigating claims in medicine, paranormal anecdotes, and the quagmire of modern misinformation. From the failure of homeopathy in clinical trials to the inability of flat Earth theories to account for basic observations, we saw how Mystrikism would have us respond: by proportioning belief to what the total evidence indicates, and not being swayed by popularity, tradition, or wishful thinking. And importantly, to revisit those issues if new evidence emerges, never dogmatically finalising a stance beyond revision.
Underlying all of this is a moral theme: the pursuit of truth is not only an intellectual exercise but a reflection of one’s character. Mystrikism invites us to cultivate intellectual virtues – to care about whether our beliefs are justified, to care about consistency and honesty in our thinking, and to respect the difference between knowing and not knowing. It treats belief formation as an ethical responsibility to oneself and others. In a world where false beliefs can and do lead to tangible harm (be it through medical quackery, sectarian violence, or public policy disasters), adopting a Mystrikal stance is more than just a personal philosophy, it is a contribution to the common good. It is, in essence, practising the ethics of belief: never to believe recklessly, and never to shrug off the question of truth as unimportant.
In conclusion, belief in the Mystrikal sense is an active, careful, and principled engagement with reality. It rejects the comfortable refuge of unfounded certainties and instead finds comfort in the clarity of rational consistency. It demands the same rigour of a disbelief as of a belief, erasing any false superiority of “absence of belief” as an automatic default. Everything is on the table for examination, and only those claims that earn their keep through evidence get a seat in the mind. This perspective fosters a mindset that is both humble, for it acknowledges the provisional nature of all our knowledge, and empowered, for it relies on the most reliable tools we have for understanding the universe. Mystrikism’s commitment to rationalism and naturalism means that it sees no value in wishful thinking or mystical shortcuts, it finds awe and meaning in the real world revealed by science and reason. And its commitment to ethical clarity means it is forthright about what is known, what is conjecture, and what is unknown, so that our choices can be aligned with reality and our beliefs can truly guide us rather than mislead us.
Agnosticism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 10
Agnosticism is not a single, monolithic stance but a family of positions characterised by the suspension of belief about gods. Broadly, agnostics claim that we lack (or cannot have) knowledge about the existence of a deity, but this general idea takes many forms. Some agnostics simply acknowledge uncertainty, others actively profess ignorance, and some even lean toward belief or unbelief without claiming proof. Below, we survey both well-known and lesser-known agnostic positions, each with its definition, origins, key figures, epistemology, attitude toward god, relationship to theism and atheism, and common criticisms.
Classic (Huxley's) Agnosticism
-
Definition: In its classical form, agnosticism holds that the existence or non-existence of god is unknown and possibly unknowable. Thomas H. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" in 1869 as an expression of evidentialist caution: one should not claim belief (or disbelief) without adequate evidence. Huxley defined an agnostic as someone who "has entertained the proposition that there is a god, but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false". In other words, they suspend judgment, insisting that without empirical proof, we cannot claim knowledge about god.
-
Historical Context: Huxley's agnosticism arose in the 19th century amid scientific advances (like Darwin's evolution) and religious debates. It was a reaction against both dogmatic atheism and dogmatic theism. In Huxley's view, unbelief just because there is no evidence (what he called "agnostic-atheism") was rational, but so was refraining from positive assertion. This attitude echoes older scepticism: as far back as the ancient Greeks, Sophists and sceptics like Pyrrho questioned dogmatic claims. Kant's critique of metaphysics (god as a noumenon beyond experience) also resonates with agnostic themes.
-
Representative Thinkers: Huxley himself is the archetype. Other 19th-century agnostics included biologists and philosophers influenced by science (e.g. T. H. Huxley's admirers). In the 20th–21st centuries, intellectuals like Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris have expressed agnostic elements (e.g. publicly admitting they cannot know god's existence, even while calling themselves atheists). Theologians such as Paul Tillich and Martin Buber also suggested that god is "beyond" traditional categories, a view akin to agnosticism. Huxley's approach influenced evidentialist atheists such as William L. Rowe and J. L. Mackie, who demanded empirical support for religious claims.
-
Epistemological Stance: Classic agnosticism is evidentialist: belief should follow evidence. If evidence for god is lacking or inconclusive, one must withhold assent. It is a negative epistemic claim: we do not know, and we acknowledge that fact. Huxley and followers treated agnosticism as a principle of inquiry, akin to intellectual humility. It holds that knowledge requires justification; since proofs of god's existence have never been convincing (and arguable, even logically impossible), the rational stance is "I do not claim either way". In modern terms, it often aligns with a fallibilist or probabilistic view: without positive evidence, belief is unjustified.
-
God-Concept: Classic agnostics typically remain agnostic about any concept of god – personal, impersonal, transcendent or pantheistic. They neither accept a specific deity nor outright reject all concepts of god. Some lean to generic conceptions (e.g. "some ultimate reality might exist"), but generally they remain undecided. The focus is not on denying god, but on affirming the lack of positive knowledge. As one philosopher put it, an agnostic in this sense "neither asserts nor denies that [god] exists".
-
Relation to Theism/Atheism: Classic agnosticism is often seen as the middle ground between theism and atheism. It is distinct from positive theism (belief in god) and positive atheism (belief that god does not exist). By definition, an agnostic neither affirms theism nor affirms atheism as knowledge. However, psychologically, many agnostics lean toward atheism (lack of belief in god) without denying god's possibility or lean toward theism (hoping for god) without evidence. This gave rise to hybrid terms, such as agnostic atheism and agnostic theism (below). In practice, historians note that "the line between agnosticism and atheism was often blurred”, some atheists proudly labelled themselves agnostic to emphasise humility. Conversely, some theologians (especially in apophatic traditions) described their faith as agnostic in the sense of embracing an "unknown god".
-
Critiques: Critics have variously attacked classic agnosticism as either empty (just "fence-sitting") or inconsistent. Theists sometimes argue that agnostics secretly lack faith or hope. Atheists often retort that agnosticism is just "atheism with a fig leaf”, after all, most agnostics do not pray and live indistinguishably from atheists. Philosophers like William James have objected that sincere agnosticism is psychologically challenging, people tend to believe or doubt in proportion to their assessment of evidence. Some claim agnosticism undercuts any moral stance: if we are agnostic, on what grounds do we reject harmful gods or empty claims? Others argue that agnosticism fails as a permanent stance: if one truly never commits, then even basic ethical or existential decisions become ambiguous. In short, classic agnosticism is praised for its humility (making no claims too bold) but criticised for seeming indecisive or for implying faith by omission when it favours non-belief due to a lack of evidence.
Agnosticism
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 2 of 10
Strong (Hard) vs. Weak (Soft) Agnosticism
Within agnosticism, two flavours are often distinguished. Strong agnosticism asserts that no one can ever know whether god exists – knowledge is, in principle, impossible. Weak agnosticism merely states that we currently do not know; god's existence is unproven, but it could conceivably be known (e.g., through future evidence or revelation). As one overview explains, strong agnostics "state that everyone is always obliged" to suspend belief (they see evidence for/against god as inherently inconclusive). Weak agnostics hold that suspension of judgment is rational for now, given neutral or ambiguous evidence, but admit that some people in some situations could be justified in taking a side. (In other words, if someone truly had compelling personal evidence of the divine, a weak agnostic could accept it, whereas a strong agnostic would remain unconvinced no matter what.)
-
Historical Context: The strong/weak distinction is relatively modern and philosophical (20th–21st century). It formalises Huxley's insight into different degrees of doubt. Some draw parallels to Kant's "transcendental agnosticism" (god is unknowable a priori). It has been discussed by philosophers, such as Graham Oppy and others, who explore whether suspension is universal or situational. In practice, most lay agnostics are weak; few claim absolute unknowability.
-
Representative Thinkers: Weak agnosticism is common among scientists and educated secularists: they admit, "I do not know, and I do not see evidence, but if I did, I would accept it." Many public intellectuals (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould with his "nonoverlapping magisteria" or Jane Friedman on suspended judgment) hold this stance. Strong agnosticism is rarer, perhaps implied by thinkers such as Arthur Schopenhauer or David Hume, who highlighted the inherent limitations of human reason regarding the divine. Some contemporary sceptics echo it: "We can never know god, ever."
-
Epistemological Stance: Both are sceptical but differ in confidence. Strong agnostics treat the question of god as a metaphysical speculation with no verifiable evidence, akin to asserting that "it is inherently unknowable whether X is true." Weak agnostics follow normal scientific thinking: we simply lack evidence so far, so we withhold belief temporarily. Critically, weak agnosticism allows that evidence could tip the balance, whereas strong agnosticism views any evidence as necessarily inadequate (as if god concepts are insulated from proof or disproof).
-
God-Concept: Strong agnostics typically say that any concept of god (personal, impersonal, transcendent, etc.) lies beyond human comprehension. Even if "something ultimate" exists, we cannot claim to grasp it. Weak agnostics stay agnostic about god by default but would accept a particular conception if compelling proof emerged. For example, a weak agnostic might say, "I currently see no proof of an interventionist personal god, but if tomorrow a rock started speaking prophecies, I would reconsider."
-
Relation to Theism/Atheism: Both are forms of non-commitment. A strong agnostic is the quintessential "neither/nor" – rejection of both theism and atheism as a known truth. A weak agnostic is practically closer to atheism (or at least "non-theism") in everyday life but differs in principle: they acknowledge theism as a possible reality. Some philosophers even refer to strong agnosticism as "strict agnosticism" and weak agnosticism as "soft agnosticism." Importantly, a weak agnostic might psychologically be an atheist (no current belief) or a theist (faith without proof); a strong agnostic typically feels more like an atheist-sceptic (since no evidence can ever count).
-
Critiques: Strong agnosticism is often criticised as overly stringent. Critics ask: if we say nothing is ever knowable, then how can we justify any beliefs at all? It can slide into radical scepticism, where even mundane knowledge is called into doubt. Additionally, some argue that it begs the question by stipulating that a god-proof argument is impossible without demonstrating why it is impossible.
-
Weak agnosticism is accused of being indecisive. Theists argue that it is merely a covertly unbelieving stance presented in polite terms. Atheists complain it is just indecision ("wagering" that god might exist, as if betting). Philosophers sometimes note that if weak agnosticism allows theists and atheists to both exist, it begs why bother with the label. More generally, both views can be seen as intermediate, and some critics argue that the real question is binary (existence vs. non-existence), so suspension is a cop-out. Others embrace these nuances as an honest acknowledgment of uncertainty.
Agnosticism
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 3 of 10
Apathetic (or Pragmatic) Agnosticism (Apatheism)
-
Definition: Apathetic agnosticism – often called "apatheism" – is the stance that the existence or non-existence of god is irrelevant or uninteresting. An apatheist says, in effect, "I neither know nor care if god exists." It treats theological questions as practically meaningless in one's life. Rather than focusing on knowledge, it focuses on attitude: apatheists feel it makes no real difference whether gods exist, so they ignore the issue. The term "apatheism" (coined in the late 20th century) literally fuses apathy with theism.
-
Historical Context: Apatheism is essentially a modern phenomenon of secular societies. It arose from the sociological observation that many people live as if religious questions do not matter – for example, Denis Diderot in the 18th century quipped that not mixing up hemlock and parsley is important, but whether god exists "is not at all so". The concept was formalised by thinkers like Stuart Johnson in the 1970s and gained attention from popular secular writers (e.g. Jonathan Rauch's essay "Let It Be"). It is often discussed in the media or on blogs rather than in classical philosophy journals, reflecting a practical layperson's orientation.
-
Representative Thinkers/Examples: Few philosophers systematically champion apatheism, but some libertarian and secular writers do. Trevor Hedberg, for instance, said apatheism is "uncharted territory in the philosophy of religion," highlighting its novelty. A public example: many self-described "nones" (religiously unaffiliated) in surveys say, "I do not believe in god, but it is not important to me." Cynical comedians or cultural satirists sometimes voice apatheism (“Hey, do whatever, I am not interested in cosmic questions”). The "spiritual but not religious" movement sometimes overlaps here; as such, individuals often seek meaning without the commitment of a specific creed. However, apatheism is essentially a secular posture by definition (as it means a lack of interest in gods specifically).
-
Epistemological Stance: Apathetic agnosticism is not so much about epistemology as about motivation. It usually involves a practical dismissal of religious debate. One might say the apatheist adopts agnostic claims (we cannot know) for convenience: whether gods exist is a theoretical question without practical effect, so it is not worth pursuing. It often goes hand in hand with a modest epistemic standard ("Why bother to investigate without interest?"). In effect, apatheism is characterised by agnosticism in ignorance and a lack of interest in seeking evidence. Some apatheists still rely on the absence of evidence to say "probably no gods," but many simply treat the god question as unsolvable gossip.
-
God-Concept: Apatheists generally do not care about any god concept. If asked, an apatheist might accept the existence of a god merely as a theoretical proposition, but even that is taken with a shrug. Some might comfortably allow the possibility of a deist or pantheist "something" but consider it irrelevant. An apatheist could even be a churchgoer culturally yet see the doctrine as symbolic rather than factual. The key is indifference: god might exist in some form (like a generic "life force"), but who cares if there is no practical consequence?
-
Relation to Theism/Atheism: By definition, apatheism is orthogonal to theism and atheism. It neither strictly affirms nor denies. In one sense, it is non-theistic (a theist cares deeply about god, an apatheist does not), but it also differs from atheism because atheists actively deny deities. Some describe it as a separate category: just as some on the left-right spectrum mix libertarian/authoritarian attitudes, apatheism mixes in the theism-atheism axis. An individual could be an apatheist theist (who believes in god but does not care about it), an apatheist atheist (who does not believe and does not care), or anything in between. Thus, apatheism is often viewed as a meta-position: it shapes one's relationship to religion but does not express one's beliefs. In practice, most apatheists lean toward atheism (since interest is often triggered by lack of belief), yet their public claim is usually "none of my business."
-
Critiques: Apatheism's main critique is that it sidesteps the debate entirely – some theists claim that "caring is the only rational attitude if god is real; you would not be so casual about, say, climate change if it were proven dangerous." Others say apatheists hide subtle beliefs: perhaps deep down, they assume atheism if it is easier to ignore questions. Philosophers note that apatheism is really an attitude, not an argument, one could ask, "Why be indifferent?" Critics also point out that apatheism can easily slip into practical atheism (acting as if god does not exist) or indifferentism. Finally, if gods did intervene (contra the apatheist's assumption), an apatheist would be unprepared. Nonetheless, apatheists respond that without evidence of any divine concern, indifference is a live option, it simply shifts the burden: prove to me why I should care, not why I should believe.
Agnosticism
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 4 of 10
Agnostic Theism (Theistic Agnosticism)
-
Definition: Agnostic theists believe in god or some divine reality but acknowledge that human knowledge of god is uncertain or inherently limited. In other words, one has faith without claim to specific knowledge or rational proof. Philosophically, agnostic theism is often defined as "the belief in the existence of one or more gods, accompanied by an admission that we cannot know for sure". This stance essentially splits theism into two parts: belief in god on one hand and knowledge claims on the other. An agnostic theist says: "I believe, but I do not claim to know."
-
Historical/Intellectual Context: This position is steeped in ancient tradition. Many religious traditions have strands of apophatic theology, also known as "negative theology" (common in Eastern Orthodoxy, Sufism, and certain forms of Christian mysticism), where god's essence is considered ineffable. In Hellenistic times, Cicero and others argued for the unknowability of the divine, though still believing in it. In the 19th and 20th centuries, as science eroded traditional proofs, some believers adopted an explicitly agnostic tone. For example, Oxford dons like Leslie Weatherhead or theologian Karl Barth stressed faith over rational assurance; they might be termed agnostic theists. More recently, writers like J.L. Schellenberg discuss forms of "sceptical religion", which are akin to agnostic theism (though Schellenberg himself leans atheist in the end). In popular usage, someone might say, "I have faith, but I would never insist I know god exists."
-
Representative Thinkers: Fideists such as Søren Kierkegaard (17th c. Danish philosopher) claimed that faith transcends reason, if anything is true about god, it is beyond rational proof. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" concept is akin to agnostic theism in spirit. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (6th–7th c.) wrote that god is so beyond comprehension that our words only tell us what god is not (apophaticism). Modern examples are less prominent in academic philosophy, but some mainstream believers hold agnostic theist views. For instance, Professor Paul Moser (contemporary philosopher) has defended a theism that admits uncertainty. Many ordinary religious people (including some scientists like Francis Collins) essentially practice agnostic theism: trust or worship god but concede that "faith is a gift, not evidence."
-
Epistemological Stance: Agnostic theists value faith or spiritual experience over empirical proof. They may adopt a fideist epistemology, where divine truths are known through revelation, intuition, or inward conviction rather than through sensory data. They acknowledge that philosophical arguments for god are inconclusive. Some might say human reason cannot reach god, so belief is held despite, or partly because of, that mystery. Epistemically, they often emphasise negative knowledge: "We cannot know what god is, only what god is not" (so-called "negative theology"). This contrasts with evidentialist agnostics: an agnostic theist believes in god non-materially, so evidence is not the primary standard.
-
God-Concept: In agnostic theism, god is usually seen as real and active but ultimately mysterious. Often, god is personal or relational (since the person is a believer) but also transcendent, beyond complete comprehension. For example, an agnostic theist might pray to Jesus or Allah yet say, "We will not understand god's ways fully." This kind of agnosticism often comes with metaphysical humility: attributes like god's will, purpose, or even existence might be affirmed, but details (like the afterlife or divine plan) are seen as mysterious.
-
Relation to Theism/Atheism: Agnostic theism is a form of theism (it believes in god) but is epistemically agnostic about knowledge claims. Theism, as traditionally defined, is the belief in god or gods; agnostic theists also fit this definition. Compared to atheism, they are at the opposite end: where an agnostic atheist disbelieves, an agnostic theist believes (while both express uncertainty). Some scholars point out that an agnostic theist is essentially a believer who openly accepts doubt. In practice, agnostic theists often function indistinguishably from believers in religious communities, except they might openly say, "I do not know. I just have faith."
-
Critiques: Critics (especially secular ones) argue that agnostic theism is merely faith over reason – "belief without evidence." It might be accused of irrationalism: choosing to believe without support. Some philosophers argue that it is self-defeating: if one truly believes that god exists, why not claim knowledge or seek more evidence? Theistic apologists often counter that religious truths are of a different kind (mystical or experiential) and not subject to the same epistemic rules. Others say agnostic theism can become vacuous: "Any vague thing could count as god, so what are you really committed to?" Nonetheless, defenders reply that humility about human limits is virtuous and that many religious people naturally hold this mix of belief and doubt.
Agnosticism
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 5 of 10
Agnostic Atheism
-
Definition: Agnostic atheists do not believe in god (atheism) but also do not claim to know for sure that god is absent (agnosticism). In other words, they lack theistic belief while acknowledging that absolute knowledge is unavailable. Formally, agnostic atheism is defined as "a combination of atheism and agnosticism: the view that one does not believe in any gods but also does not claim certainty on the matter". It is sometimes phrased as "non-belief + epistemic humility."
-
Historical Context: This term became noted in the 20th century. One early articulation is Robert Flint's 1887-88 lecture (published in 1903), where he reasoned that if one investigates and finds no evidence of god, one might become an atheist by default – and yet still admit that one cannot know the metaphysical truth. In casual talk, figures like Ingersoll and Huxley often blurred lines; Huxley himself said, "I am agnostic, I do not pretend to know", but he lived like an atheist. In modern debates, many prominent "New Atheists" (Dawkins, Harris, etc.) identify more as agnostic atheists (they assert god's improbability but usually acknowledge they cannot prove a negative). For instance, Sam Harris has argued that labelling yourself as an atheist as "believing there is no god" is semantically pointless. He prefers "atheist by lack of evidence", which is essentially agnostic atheism.
-
Representative Thinkers: Many contemporary atheists fall into this category. Philosopher A.C. Grayling often describes himself as an agnostic but argues strongly against religion. Ingersoll (19th c. orator) declared, "An agnostic is an atheist who does not have enough evidence." Anthony Flew (before he became a deist late in life) famously said that being an atheist is simply the default "no-belief" position until evidence appears - this is agnostic atheism. The SEP notes that "some atheists proudly call themselves 'agnostic atheists'". It is also the usual stance of philosophers who point out that they cannot prove that god does not exist but find it reasonable not to believe.
-
Epistemological Stance: An agnostic atheist's epistemology is sceptical and evidence-based, leaning toward disbelief. They treat belief in god like any empirical hypothesis: no evidence = no belief. Crucially, though, they acknowledge that logically, one cannot absolutely disprove every conception of deity, so there remains a sliver of uncertainty. Many agnostic atheists adopt a probabilistic or Bayesian stance: we assign a low probability to god, given the evidence. They will often reverse the burden of proof, arguing that theists must justify their belief with evidence, while non-belief requires no proof. This stance follows thinkers like Bertrand Russell, who said that belief requires evidence, and without it, non-belief is the default rational position.
-
God-Concept: Generally, agnostic atheists reject specific conceptions of god (especially anthropomorphic, interventionist gods). They typically see "god" as an unsupported hypothesis. Often, they highlight the "god of the gaps" problem: if god is just an explanation for what science has not yet explained, then god becomes progressively less likely. Some agnostic atheists also entertain multiple definitions of god, for instance, they might disbelieve in a personal creator god but be agnostic about abstract notions like "the universe itself as divinity." The SEP points out that refined atheists consider which god concept is at issue (e.g. classical omnibenevolent god vs. deist clockmaker vs. pantheistic god) and might be agnostic about some and atheist about others.
-
Relation to Theism/Atheism: This is a form of atheism insofar as it lacks theistic belief but with an agnostic twist regarding knowledge. Metaphysically, agnostic atheists assert "there are no gods," but they treat that as a provisional conclusion. Theism is essentially rejected (they are atheists), but unlike "strong atheism," they do not claim absolute proof. In public debate, they emphasise that calling oneself atheistic often implies a belief claim ("I assert no god"), whereas they prefer to say "I have not been persuaded". Thus, agnostic atheism is considered a more modest form of atheism; it overlaps strongly with what philosophers call negative atheism (non-belief). The SEP notes that "most self-described atheists today will say, 'I do not claim to know there is no god… I just lack belief until I see evidence'".
-
Critiques: Critics from the theist side sometimes label agnostic atheists as mere fence-sitters, arguing that one should just reject god outright for the sake of moral clarity. Some theists say it is a semantic trick: if you effectively act as an atheist (no prayer, life unaffected by gods), why pretend otherwise? Meanwhile, more staunch atheists sometimes criticise agnostic atheists for giving unnecessary "wiggle room" to religion. For example, Sam Harris (an outspoken atheist) has argued that pretending not to claim a position can be a hollow game. Another critique is internal: philosophers debate whether "atheism is a belief" at all. Mystrikism (below) even argues that we should admit atheism is a kind of belief that merits justification. In short, the central tension is that agnostic atheism attempts to strike a balance between rational humility and the practical conclusion of non-belief – and some find that balance unstable.
Agnosticism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 6 of 10
Ignosticism and Theological Noncognitivism
-
Definition: Ignosticism (sometimes called igtheism) is the view that the question "Does god exist?" is itself meaningless or ill-defined. Ignostics hold that the word "god" has no clear, coherent definition, so debating god's existence is pointless without first specifying what "god" means. In practice, an ignostic might say "Before you even ask if god exists, you must clarify what you mean by god." The related position of theological noncognitivism similarly claims that theological terms, such as "god" or "omnibenevolence," are cognitively meaningless. Hence, statements about god are not true or false propositions in any literal sense.
-
Historical Context: Ignosticism is a relatively modern concept, emerging in late 20th-century atheistic debates. The term was coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine in 1964 (as a joke during a Jewish assembly), but it has been taken up by atheists who emphasise logical rigour. In effect, ignosticism inherits the epistemic caution of agnosticism but pushes it to a semantic extreme: not only do we not know, but the question might not even be legitimate. It ties in with philosophical theories of language and meaning (e.g. verificationism): if "god" cannot be empirically defined, then "god exists" is not a meaningful claim.
-
Representative Thinkers: There are not many academic philosophers known as ignostics. It is more a position on atheist message boards and blogs (and in some atheist organisations). Paul Kurtz, a New York atheist, noted that "ignosticism is consistent with both atheism and agnosticism" in practice. Anthony Flew and Michael Martin have written about noncognitivism, arguing that specific theistic claims are not falsifiable or coherent. In theology, this idea has a parallel in Negative Theology, but there, it is employed by believers to describe god's nature, not by sceptics about whether god exists at all.
-
Epistemological/Conceptual Stance: Ignosticism is more about meaning than knowledge. Its epistemology is essentially refusal: the atheist or agnostic who is also ignostic will not even entertain empirical arguments for god until the concept is clarified. It resembles Kierkegaardian fideism in rejecting rational proofs, but it goes further by dismissing the very framework of evidence if the idea is empty. Epistemically, it requires a definition of god (often a rigorous, testable one) before proceeding. This ironically makes ignosticism an extreme form of agnosticism: "I am agnostic even about how to approach theism."
-
God-Concept: Ignostics typically point out that "god" can mean many things (personal being, ground of being, moral force, etc.) and that the statement "god exists" is too vague. They might demand, for example, a definition of god that either predicts observable consequences or a consistent concept. Many examples of alleged definitions, such as "god is love," "god is the universe," and "god is the sum of laws”, are criticised by ignostics as non-explanatory or unfalsifiable. Unless a coherent, empirical concept of god is provided, ignostics will say, "There is nothing to agree or disagree about."
-
Relation to Theism/Atheism: Ignosticism is often considered an unorthodox form of atheism. Since it denies the meaningfulness of theistic claims, it practically undermines theism. However, by the same token, it undermines classical atheism (if god-talk is meaningless, saying "god does not exist" is also meaningless). In one sense, an ignostic might be called a super-agnostic: they do not even commit to the atheist side because even "atheist" presupposes a coherent god-concept. As the Wikipedia entry notes, the ignostic position is seen as "compatible with both weak atheism and agnosticism". Some atheists describe themselves as ignostic to highlight that they will not debate theism on terms they find nonsensical.
-
Critiques: Ignosticism is criticised by atheists and theists alike. Theists often argue that it is a semantic sidestep: every discourse requires primitive terms; insisting on perfect definitions is nitpicking. Many say that meaningfulness stems from usage: words like "god" may not refer to empirical objects, but they still share a common meaning in theology. Philosophers of religion suggest that if ignostics want a definition, theologians have provided many (though debatable) definitions of god, so the ignostic must accept or challenge those. Others argue that ignosticism fails because it can be applied to anything undefined: if "causation" or "beauty" are not defined precisely, does that render them meaningless? On the other hand, some apologists accept a form of noncognitivism (arguing that common conceptions of god are inherently contradictory, e.g. omnipotence paradoxes). Nevertheless, most deny that "god" is meaningless, they say that even mysterious concepts can be meaningful metaphorically or existentially. Overall, the limitation of ignosticism is that it often avoids substantive debate, requiring the other side to do the conceptual work. If adequate definitions are given, ignostics can either move to standard agnosticism or atheism, or they can continue to deny coherence (infinite regress). Thus, critics argue that ignosticism can become a stalemate: neither side engages without meeting the ignostic's impossible standards.
Agnosticism
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 7 of 10
Apophatic (Negative) Agnosticism
-
Definition: Sometimes referred to as negative theology when employed by believers, apophatic agnosticism posits that god (if any) is inherently beyond human cognition. It is the idea that the divine nature is so ineffable that all positive claims about it are speculative; we can only say what god is not. This differs slightly from ignosticism: apophatic agnostics do not deny that the concept of god is meaningful, but rather that complete knowledge of god is beyond us.
-
Historical and Intellectual Context: This tradition dates back to millennia. Early Church Fathers (e.g. Pseudo-Dionysius, 5th-6th c.) pioneered the apophatic approach: god is a "hidden god," unknowable except via negative descriptions. Similar strands can be found in Islam (Al-Ghazali), Hinduism (Neti-neti - "not this, not that"), and mysticism in general. In the 19th century, Edward T. Pusey and others in the Cambridge Platonists echoed it. In modern philosophy, apophatic themes occur when theologians emphasise mystery (e.g. Nicholas of Cusa's "coincidence of opposites"). When apophaticism is combined with doubt, it becomes a kind of agnosticism: believers trust in god's existence but admit it is a mystery beyond concepts (this overlaps with "agnostic theism" above).
-
Representative Thinkers: The classic example is Pseudo-Dionysius, who explicitly wrote that god is unknowable except by what god is not ("god is not a body, not changeable, etc."). In the West, Meister Eckhart and Gregory of Nyssa made similar points. Among moderns, Michael Polanyi (scientist-philosopher) discussed "personal knowledge" and tacit knowing, implying mystical insight rather than logical proof. One modern Christian theology, known as "apophatic theology," carries this concept, often overlapping with agnosticism. On the atheist side, philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said god is a "nothingness" beyond reality (though he was an atheist, he used similar language). Notable is that the Stanford entry points out that in Huxley's time, some apophatic Christians even called themselves agnostic, claiming we can only worship an "unknown god".
-
Epistemological Stance: Apophatic agnosticism endorses a form of epistemic humility or mystery. It states that reason and evidence cannot fully grasp god; at best, we can apprehend the divine through indirect means (e.g., moral intuition, mystical experience, analogy). It is usually anti-speculative: any dogmatic claim about god's nature is seen as overstepping. This stance sometimes allows apophatic thinkers to accept a basic metaphysical claim ("something ultimate exists") while denying that we can describe it. In practice, apophatic agnostics might skip all the traditional arguments (cosmological, teleological, etc.) and instead focus on what we cannot say about ultimate reality.
-
God-Concept: God, in this view, certainly exists as the ultimate reality or ground of being but is inscrutable. All attributes ("omniscient", "love", etc.) are metaphorical or pointing beyond themselves. For example, when we say "god is good," an apophatic agnostic might interpret it as "god is not evil." Because of this, some apophatic agnostics almost treat god as a placeholder term for the mysteries of existence. They might be comfortable praying or meditating in the name of god but stop short of intellectualising the nature of god.
-
Relation to Theism/Atheism: Apophatic agnosticism is essentially a form of mystical theism with strong caution: it affirms some transcendent reality (making it theistic in a broad sense) but denies that any definable description of that reality (theism) is entirely knowable. It is not atheistic because it does not rule out the existence of a god; instead, it suspends the usual theistic beliefs (such as specific revelations or doctrines) out of humility. One could think of apophatic agnosticism as "agnostic theism" in extreme form – believing but mostly silent on details. It also contrasts with many atheisms that focus on rational critiques: an apophatic agnostic might say the debate itself misses the point of divine reality.
-
Critiques: Apophatic agnosticism is sometimes criticised (by atheists) as a cop-out or evasion: if you say "we cannot know," then one might as well become an atheist or embrace a different metaphysics. In religious circles, it can be seen as a dangerous step toward agnosticism or indifference. Philosophically, critics ask: if god is defined by not being knowable, is this any different from saying, "I do not know anything"? Some philosophers (like Analytic Thomists) argue that most apophatic assertions are incompatible with basic logic. However, apophatic proponents claim they are simply avoiding category mistakes: Of course, god might be reality itself, but we should not try to pin down an ultimate answer.
Agnosticism
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 8 of 10
Sceptical Agnosticism and Other Modern Variations
In recent philosophy of religion, new nuanced types of agnosticism have been proposed.
-
Sceptical agnosticism (Jonbäck, 2022) explicitly embraces doubt about theism in response to modern challenges (like the problem of evil and science). This form of agnosticism not only suspends belief but also insists that both theists and atheists should remain open to evidence and criticism. Sceptical agnostics might engage with arguments from evil or hiddenness, arguing that the best response is to doubt both sides equally. (This broad scepticism is reminiscent of classical Pyrrhonism but applied to religious belief: even if someone claims evidence, the agnostic remains unsure.)
-
Religious agnosticism is another emerging term (Gary Gutting, 2013) for people who do not commit to doctrines but are nonetheless drawn to religious communities or practices. A religious agnostic might go to church, pray, or cherish spiritual experiences, all while admitting that they do not know if any deity exists. This is more of a social or practical stance, the person is unsure in theory but practices in the tradition for personal or communal reasons. While Gutting's paper highlights this in America, the idea resonates with other cultures (e.g., a Buddhist who values moral teachings but is agnostic about gods).
-
Ietsism (Somethingism) is a European neologism (from Dutch "iets" = "something") for the view that "something exists beyond the visible, but I do not know what". Ietsists often reject organised religion yet feel intuitively that "there is something out there." This term gained popularity in the Netherlands in the 1990s. Philosophically, ietsism is akin to a very unspecific agnosticism: one affirms an indefinite transcendent reality or "spiritual force" but denies any clear definition. It has been described as a form of "agnostic deism": a vague belief in something ultimate, without a commitment to it being a personal god or any particular theology. Ietsism has no famous canonical thinkers (it is more a demographic label, surveys found many Dutch respondents fit this profile). However, it illustrates a casual agnostic trend in late modernity: yes to mystery, no to dogma.
-
Ultimism (New Agnosticism) is a term from philosopher John Schellenberg (inspired by Huxley's idea) for focusing on the notion of "the ultimate" instead of a theistic personal god. Schellenberg defines "Ultimism" as the view that something ultimate – a source of all value and reality, exists, yet all traditional theistic language is metaphorical. He argues for a "sceptical religion" grounded in doubt about details but a commitment to the idea of an indeterminate Ultimate. This is a form of agnosticism because it suspends beliefs about god's nature, insisting we must "re-imagine" religion beyond old doctrines. In practice, Ultimism resembles a mix of agnostic theism and pantheism: one says, "Call it what you will, god, Ground of Being, Ultimate Value – it is all unknown, but we act as if it is there."
-
Cosmic Insignificance ("Cosmicism") is a fringe notion related to apatheism: the idea that even if a god exists, it is indifferent to humanity (Lovecraft's fiction popularised a kind of cosmic indifferentism). In an agnostic context, one might say, "god might exist but does not care, so it is irrelevant to us." Technically, this is more a version of apathetic agnosticism or a negative view of god's nature.
-
Connected Framework: Recent work in the philosophy of agnosticism suggests all these stances share a "minimal agnostic attitude”, namely, suspending judgment without evidence. In other words, whether one is a "sceptical agnostic," an ietsist, or a religious agnostic, the common core is intellectual humility about the gods-question. What differs is the emphasis, e.g. rhetoric (something's nostalgia, Schellenberg's ultimate reality) or practical lifestyle (church attendance with doubt). Recognising this commonality helps us see, for example, that the difference between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism may be more about what one chooses to do with the question of meaning and morality than about epistemic logic.
-
Critiques/Issues: These modern variants can blur lines. Some argue that "sceptical religion" or Ultimism is just rebranding old liberal theology in a new language, critics worry it is vague. Others say ietsism or religious agnosticism sounds like just being "spiritual but not religious." The challenge is that by broadening agnosticism this way, one could merge many very different views. Defenders counter that acknowledging nuance and context is precisely the point: agnosticism occupies a rich borderland between belief and unbelief.
Agnosticism
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 9 of 10
Mystrikism: A Case Study in Agnostic Ethos
Having surveyed the spectrum of agnosticism, we now turn to Mystrikism – our rational, evidence-based philosophical ethos, and ask: Which variety of agnosticism do we align with? Mystrikism defines itself as non-theistic and agnostic, stating that belief in gods lacks scientific support; therefore, our agnosticism naturally leads us to non-theism. In practice, Mystriks provisionally disbelieve in gods, citing the absence of evidence. However, they reject the label "atheism" as too negative and too final, preferring "non-theist" or simply evidence-driven inquiry. This combination of evidence-based atheism with epistemic humility aligns Mystrikism with agnostic atheism. We treat god's existence as a hypothesis that so far has failed scientific scrutiny, and so we withhold belief, while still calling this stance "agnostic" rather than dogmatically atheist.
Alignment with Agnostic Atheism
Mystrikism shares the core epistemology of agnostic atheism. It demands high-quality evidence, as outlined by our Rovrrtelf criteria, for any claim, supernatural or otherwise. After exhaustive searching, no such evidence has appeared, so acting as if gods do not exist is rationally justified. We apply the same standard to other popular superstitions, such as leprechauns, angels, and astrology: no evidence, so conditionally, no belief.
This standard becomes especially important when the claim is as sweeping as the god proposition. Its universal scope, paradigm-shifting nature, and profound life-changing implications demand our strictest adherence to scientific principles. This isn’t just a procedural preference, it’s a fundamental imperative, rooted in recognising that supernatural claims profoundly affect our understanding of the universe, our place within it, and reality itself. Thus, our agnosticism, paired with naturalism, inevitably leads us to non-theism: because we don’t know, we provisionally don’t believe.
From this standpoint, confirming something’s existence requires scientific-quality evidence rigorously tested through our Integrated Principles of Science (IPS), especially the scientific method. This process validates existence claims by subjecting them to empirical scrutiny. When dealing with negative claims, however, the approach is inverted. Instead of seeking confirming evidence, we examine its sustained absence. That may involve failing to find supporting data, failing to reproduce results via the IPS, or identifying the claim as unfalsifiable, or a combination of all three.
Proving a negative, even conditionally, becomes particularly challenging when the claim is broad in scope, such as the existence of supernatural beings. These require slow, deep, and methodical investigation. Yet, when decades, centuries, or even millennia of highly motivated, exhaustive inquiry reveal no Rovrrtelf evidence, that enduring silence becomes both significant and meaningful. For a Mystrik, this consistent absence justifies a provisional conclusion of non-existence, always held lightly and open to revision should substantiated evidence ever appear.
This reasoning aligns precisely with evidentialist or agnostic atheism, where the utter lack of expected evidence functions as “qualified evidence of absence.” Mystriks echo philosophers like Richard Carrier and Michael Shermer, who argue that science’s persistent silence on deities increasingly weighs against their existence. Still, Mystrikism emphasises that our stance is always tentative and open to change. We remain alert to new data. In this way, our position blends weak agnosticism’s “maybe” with the practical posture of an atheist default.
By calling ourselves agnostic non-theists rather than pure atheists, Mystriks spotlight an important point in secular discourse: even atheism, or non-belief more broadly, is a cognitive stance, a kind of belief in its own right. We argue that atheism deserves the same critical scrutiny as any other claim, rejecting the idea that non-belief is exempt from challenge. We believe one must justify a provisional lack of belief with a demonstrable absence of evidence, not simply assume it. This mirrors modern agnostic thinking. Neuroscientist Sam Harris, for instance, says he sees no evidence for a god and therefore withholds belief, but carefully frames this as an inference, not a metaphysical certainty.
Elements from Other Agnostic Positions.
While predominantly agnostic atheist, Mystrikism also borrows elements from other related views:
-
Sceptical Cynicism: Like sceptical agnostics, Mystriks scrutinise both theistic and atheistic arguments. Strong atheism (unequivocal denial) is "outwardly assertive" and too definitive. Instead, it advocates for a humble scientific scepticism, always testing claims against evidence. This mirrors the spirit of Huxley's original agnosticism and contemporary atheist-sceptics: doubt all extraordinary claims, including atheistic ones.
-
Rational Apatheism: Mystrikism resembles apatheism in its practical irreverence toward gods. Our manifesto clearly states that "the god proposition lacks scientific verification, not due to a failure of inquiry but simply because no evidence has yet been found", a statement of indifference informed by inquiry. We do not say this out of a love for religion but somewhat out of a desire not to waste effort on unsupported claims. In effect, Mystriks live life as if gods do not matter, similar to apatheists. The key difference is that we care about why they take that stance (demanding justification), whereas an apatheist might not even bother.
-
Empirical Ignosticism: Mystrikism implicitly assumes something like ignosticism's demand for clarity. We urge that the "god postulation" must be a falsifiable hypothesis before meaningful debate can occur. We reject vague conceptions (just calling something god outside the realm of testable claims is not a hypothesis at all). This technical point echoes ignostic concerns: if "god" is not defined well enough to test, then "belief" in god is null. However, Mystriks goes further, saying that even if we interpret "god" generously (as an ultimate creator), the burden remains on theists to supply evidence.
-
Pragmatic Agnostic Theism (anti): Interestingly, Mystrikism explicitly distinguishes itself from agnostic theism. It emphasises non-belief and downplays any role of faith. In that sense, it avoids agnostic theistic elements. However, it shares a moral humility with agnostic theism. Both standpoints admit human limitations. We say, "Human imperfection is instructive," demonstrating an agnostic humility that extends from knowledge to behaviour.
-
Worldview and Metaphysics: Metaphysically, Mystrikism is naturalistic. Due to the inability to make accurate and reliable predictions, Mystriks explicitly reject supernatural explanations. This places it firmly in line with naturalistic agnosticism – the stance that only the natural world is knowable, a view common in secular philosophy. In contrast, a theistic or panentheistic agnosticism (like Schellenberg's Ultimism) would allow a transcendent ground of being. Mystrikism admits "naturally profound secrets of existence" and "natural awe," but these are framed in science yet to be discovered, not in terms of any supernatural principle. So, our metaphysics is agnostic only about how much science can explain, not about the existence of a spiritual realm.
Agnosticism
A Mystrikal Point of View
Part 10 of 10
Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics of Mystrikism.
-
Epistemology: Mystrikism's epistemology is resolutely evidentialist and scientific. Beliefs are held only when justified by rigorous standards (we employ an acronym Rovrrtelf to capture this!). We explicitly state that they expect empirical evidence if something (like a god) exists. Our view is essentially that the absence of predicted evidence is itself evidence of absence. This is a textbook of scientific agnosticism (or atheism) in the Huxley-Dawkins tradition. We differ from some classical agnostics by being more assertive. Unlike a pure Huxleyan, who might say, "I just do not know," a Mystrik is comfortable saying, "god is extremely improbable given the total lack of evidence." Still, we temper that with the term "provisional": we would revise if Rovrrtelf data emerged. Overall, our epistemology sits at the intersection of agnosticism and atheism – for us, theism has not met the epistemic bar. Our foundations rest firmly on Karl Popper’s principles of verificationism and falsificationism. According to verificationism, a claim is only meaningful if it can be empirically verified through rigorous scientific methods, provided the claim asserts any effect on physical reality. Supernatural claims fail this criterion and remain speculative. Similarly, falsificationism holds that meaningful scientific claims must be inherently disprovable through conceivable observations or experiments. The superstitious propositions of religion, immune by definition from such empirical tests due to claims of omnipotence or omnipresence, are therefore scientifically meaningless, unproven, unjustified and invalid, relegated to the realm of speculative fantasy. Scientists often label these unfalsifiable assertions as "not even wrong," emphasising their failure to meet minimal scientific standards. Consequently, these conclusions naturally reinforce our stance of non-theism. Despite millennia of theological claims, the god proposition remains neither scientifically verified nor falsifiable.
-
Ethics: Mystrikism carries a strong humanistic ethic. Our manifesto contains principles such as justice, cooperation, and maximising well-being. This is characteristic of secular, agnostic philosophies (humanists, secular Buddhists, some freethinkers) who derive values from reason and empathy rather than divine command. We strive to apply "measurable ethics" and a commitment to "truth with kindness." There is no hint of moral agnosticism (such as "we cannot know what is right without god"). Instead, we assume we can discern good consequences via the methods of science and act accordingly. This aligns with many agnostics who treat ethical values as human constructs (agnostic moral realism). The stance is one of responsible non-theism. Even without religious authority, one has a moral framework, echoing the apatheist philosopher Adam Kunz's idea that apatheism can be combined with ethical commitments.
-
Metaphysics/Worldview: Mystrikism's metaphysics is naturalistic physicalism: the only "mystery" is unsolved scientific puzzles and the unexplored universe. We invoke awe at the "complexity and sublimity" of nature, but always within a natural worldview. Unlike religious agnosticism, we do not seek meaning in any transcendental source. Our use of the term "spirituality" is explicitly redefined to mean a rational awe and connection to the universe, not anything supernatural. In this, we are akin to secular humanists or Einstein's perspective ("god is the order of the cosmos," metaphorically speaking, of course). Mystrikism fits with "epistemological naturalism", the view that science is the ultimate arbiter of reality.
Mystrikism's Alignment and Unique Blend.
Mystrikism is best described as a naturalistic, evidentialist, agnostic, non-religious, non-theistic stance (sometimes referred to as weak atheism). We stress the same key commitments as classic agnostic atheism: belief requires evidence; absent evidence, conditionally withholding belief is rational. The key difference is that we fully embrace the default disbelief as a working position, whereas classical agnosticism might refrain from even that step. Mystrikism's logic is: "We do not know, so we, provisionally, do not believe".
Elements from other agnostic viewpoints are present but secondary. The humility and recognition of uncertainty echo Huxley and Kantian agnosticism. The refusal to dogmatise matches sceptical agnosticism. Our pragmatism, not worrying about god if there is no evidence, has an apatheist flavour. Moreover, our celebration of mystery in nature gently nods (in secular terms) to the awe experienced by religious agnostics. However, we largely recast them through science: nature's mysteries replace supernatural ones.
In summary, Mystrikism functions like an agnostic atheist system with customised branding. It does not introduce a fundamentally new category of agnosticism. Instead, it exemplifies one end of the spectrum we discussed (strong, evidence-oriented non-belief) while presenting it as a lifestyle and philosophy. Our insistence on epistemic rigour and ethical flourishing is characteristic of many modern secular agnostics, and the Union reflects precisely the attitude of "I live as a non-believer, but I admit I do not know for sure" (in an academic, evidence-based identity).
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 0 of 22
A Critical Examination
Mystrikism is rooted firmly in rational inquiry, evidence, and a provisional understanding of truth in a world where belief in gods, supernatural entities, and paranormal forces remains widespread. This perspective isn’t about rejecting belief for the sake of disbelief. Instead, it’s about embracing a methodology that minimises human error, challenges assumptions, and commits to intellectual honesty.
The Best Approximate Truth - Belief as Provisional, Not Absolute
At the heart of Mystrikism is a commitment to the concept of the “best approximate truth”. This principle means that any belief we hold is provisional, contingent on the evidence available at the time. This adaptability encourages intellectual humility, recognising that compelling explanations, while potentially useful, are open to revision as new evidence or perspectives arise. Thus, any concept, whether natural or supernatural, is considered “true” only insofar as it withstands the rigorous criteria of empirical science. Without satisfying the robust demands of scientific scrutiny, supernatural claims remain, at best, speculative hypotheses.
Trust in Evidence, Not Faith
In Mystrikism, trust is earned, not freely given. This approach places the scientific method at the core of evaluation, valuing it as the “gold standard” for examining claims due to its mechanisms for addressing human fallibility. Faith, by contrast, requires accepting assertions without the rigour of evidence or scrutiny. Mystriks view faith as insufficient, especially in matters as consequential as the existence of gods or other supernatural concepts. By choosing earned trust over blindfolded faith, Mystriks emphasise the necessity for claims to meet the high bar of reproducible, peer-reviewed evidence.
Absence of Evidence as Provisional Evidence of Absence
Some argue that a lack of evidence for supernatural entities is not sufficient reason to disbelieve in them. However, Mystrikism holds that persistent absence of evidence, especially when the methods of science have thoroughly investigated a claim, serves as provisional evidence of absence. Historically, scientific inquiry has explained many phenomena previously attributed to supernatural forces (e.g., disease or lightning). However, despite extensive investigations, the failure to produce verifiable evidence for supernatural assertions suggests that these claims very likely lack a basis in reality. While Mystriks remain open to new evidence, they find it intellectually honest to provisionally withhold belief in concepts that have repeatedly failed scrutiny.
Integrated Methods of Science
Mystrikism’s approach to truth goes beyond the scientific method alone, embracing a comprehensive framework called the integrated principles of science. This framework combines the scientific method with critical thinking, analytical philosophy, and blended modes of reasoning (deductive, inductive, and abductive). Each element is crucial, collectively enabling a nuanced, layered approach to assessing claims and refining knowledge. This integrated method helps ensure that Mystriks avoid cognitive biases and evaluates claims through a robust lens of scrutiny and logic, acknowledging that our understanding is always incomplete and evolving.
Key Benchmarks for Scientific Acceptance and Qualitative Evaluation of Studies
In discerning whether to provisionally accept a claim as the best approximation of truth, Mystriks adhere to specific benchmarks for scientific acceptance. These include falsifiability, peer review, predictive power, reproducibility and an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community. Additionally, Mystriks apply a qualitative framework for evaluation to assess the credibility and rigour of studies, considering factors like study design, sample size, control of confounding variables, statistical validity, and replicability. By applying these standards, Mystriks ensure their beliefs are grounded in the highest quality of evidence available.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Personal Experiences
It helps to explore why others hold certain beliefs to understand why Mystriks embrace conditional scepticism. Personal experiences are a common basis for belief, however, without empirical support, they fall short of the rigorous standards Mystriks apply to claims about reality.
-
Direct Encounters: Many claim personal experiences of deities or supernatural beings, visions, voices, or sensations that feel undeniably real. Yet, Mystrikism recognises the susceptibility of human perception and memory to error, bias, and suggestion. Similar experiences, as psychology suggests, can often result from cultural conditioning, mental illness, neurological events, or emotional states. Since these experiences lack external verification, they are unreliable as evidence of truth.
-
Miraculous Events: Believers may cite healings, near-death experiences, or “answers to prayers” as proof of divine intervention. While such events can be impactful, Mystrikism emphasises that many of these “miracles” are better understood through natural explanations, such as placebo effects or physiological factors that remain partially or not yet understood at all. In science, claims require repeatable, measurable effects, something that “miraculous” one-off events cannot satisfy.
-
Spiritual Visions or Dreams: Vivid dreams or visions are often interpreted as divine messages. However, such experiences, influenced by subconscious processes, anxieties, or cultural factors, lack the reliability necessary to serve as any foundation for truth. The scientific method, emphasising external validation and falsifiability, offers a more reliable framework for distinguishing reality from subjective experience.
-
Synchronicity or “Meaningful Coincidences”: Many believers interpret coincidences as signs from a higher power. However, Mystrikism attributes this inclination to cognitive biases, where the mind, moulded by evolution, seeks patterns even in random events, a phenomenon known as pareidolia. Recognising this bias helps us avoid the assumption of intentionality without evidence.
-
Unexplained Phenomena or Paranormal Activity: Claims of paranormal experiences, such as ghost sightings, are frequently cited as proof of a supernatural realm. Mystrikism counters that environmental factors or psychological effects can explain many paranormal claims. Without repeatable, verifiable evidence, these claims do not meet the epistemological standards demanded by Mystrikism.
Openness to Inquiry, Commitment to Evidence
Mystrikism champions intellectual flexibility, allowing for speculation, discussion, and exploration of yet-unproven ideas. However, this openness does not equate to belief. Mystriks refrain from declaring any untested idea as even approximately true without meeting specific scientific benchmarks. The phrase “I do not know” is a cherished expression within Mystrikism, representing strength rather than limitation and underscoring a commitment to integrity over assumption. This perspective enables Mystriks to embrace the unknown through an empirically grounded framework.
The Scientific Method as the Honest Path
The scientific method holds a unique place in Mystrikism, not because it is flawless, but because it is the most honest approach to understanding reality. Flawlessly flawed, so to speak. Unlike faith-based methods, the scientific method accounts for human fallibility, demands evidence, and enables and demands self-correction. For Mystriks, this honesty transcends the comfort that untested beliefs may provide, offering a profound form of “spirituality” grounded in awe and respect for the unknown and the revealed. The world is rendered all the more wondrous by its openness to exploration without the need for supernatural explanations.
Non-Theism as a Commitment to Honest Inquiry
Mystriks’ conditional non-theism is not a rejection of wonder or mystery but a commitment to a disciplined, honest pursuit of truth. This path may not supply all the answers all at once, but it provides a reliable compass guided by humanity’s best-developed methods for understanding the world as it is.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Claims in Historical and Cultural Traditions
Ancient traditions and inherited beliefs provide a powerful sense of identity and continuity. Yet, Mystrikism examines these cultural narratives critically, recognising their societal significance without taking them as factual proof of the supernatural.
-
Religious Texts and Scriptures: Many believers consider holy texts, like the Bible, Quran, or Vedas, as evidence of divine truth, arguing that their wisdom and longevity attest to a supernatural origin. While these texts hold significant cultural value, Mystrikism emphasises that ancient documents are often reflections of their time, containing a confusing mixture of wisdom and misconceptions shaped by historical contexts. Without empirical, testable claims within these texts, their authority cannot be assumed to stem from a divine source, let alone a rational one. Also, not unlike mythology itself, religious texts do not undergo the rigorous scientific process necessary to distinguish observed phenomena from symbolic or cultural storytelling.
-
Miracle Stories from History: Believers often cite historical miracle stories, like the parting of the Red Sea or saints performing miraculous healings, as evidence of the supernatural. While compelling to some, these accounts are rarely documented in ways that allow for independent verification. Mystrikism requires that any claim to truth must meet the benchmarks of reproducibility and peer review. Miracles, by their nature exceptional and supposedly unrepeatable, fail to meet these standards, and their preservation across generations is more indicative of human storytelling than empirical truth.
-
Mythology and Cultural Legends: The prevalence of gods, spirits, and supernatural beings across cultures is sometimes presented as proof of a universal truth. However, Mystrikism views mythology only as a rich source of human symbolism, reflecting societal norms, values, and psychological archetypes rather than empirical evidence of the supernatural. Recognising mythology as a cultural artifact allows Mystriks to appreciate its historical value without assigning it evidentiary weight. Just as naturalistic explanations have replaced supernatural ones throughout history, Mystrikism maintains that these cultural legends reflect human interpretation rather than verifiable truth.
-
Anecdotal Evidence Across Generations: The endurance of belief in the supernatural across generations is sometimes used to argue for its validity. Mystrikism, however, recognises that shared beliefs are not inherently true. Cognitive biases, cultural reinforcement, and social pressures often sustain certain ideas regardless of their factual basis. As history has shown, long-held beliefs, from geocentrism to the divine right of kings, have been disproven through scientific investigation. Thus, for Mystriks, the longevity of a belief does not equate to truth but instead underscores the importance of applying rigorous standards to all claims, regardless of their cultural pervasiveness and longevity.
Honouring Tradition, Upholding Truth
For Mystriks, the allure of tradition or historical anecdotes is insufficient to justify belief. While Mystrikism respects the historical and cultural importance of religious and mythological traditions, it views these as human constructs rather than sources of empirical truth. This philosophy maintains that beliefs about the universe, gods, or supernatural forces should be grounded not in tradition or popularity but in verifiable evidence. By upholding these standards, Mystriks foster a worldview that celebrates curiosity, respects history and remains steadfast in its commitment to honesty and the pursuit of truth.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 22
A Critical Examination of: The Argument from Design or Creation
The universe’s complexity and elegance may seem to imply a designer, leading some to believe in a creator. Mystrikism, however, approaches this suggestion with rational scrutiny, considering how natural processes alone could yield such intricacy without invoking supernatural intervention.
-
Complexity and Order of the Universe: Believers often argue that the intricate complexity and order of the universe suggest a designer, reasoning that it is “too perfect” to arise by chance. Mystrikism, however, notes that complexity does not inherently imply design; natural processes can produce intricate patterns without intentional guidance. For instance, evolutionary biology and physics provide natural explanations for order and complexity in the universe. The scientific method teaches us to look for testable and falsifiable explanations rather than assuming design as a default. Invoking a designer where natural explanations suffice is known as the “god of the gaps” fallacy, filling unknowns with divine assumptions rather than relying on empirical investigation.
-
Fine-Tuning of Physical Constants: Some believers argue that the universe’s physical constants (like the speed of light or gravitational constant) are so precisely calibrated that any slight variation would render life impossible, suggesting purposeful design. While this “fine-tuning” is intriguing, Mystrikism maintains that the appeal to design is premature without understanding the natural mechanisms that might explain these constants. Multiverse theories and other scientific hypotheses suggest that our universe might be one of many, each with different constants. Such theories remain speculative but are grounded in empirical investigation, providing a naturalistic approach without the assumption of a designer. Mystriks, therefore, prefer explanations open to testing and revision rather than settling on a supernatural conclusion.
-
Biological Complexity and Irreducible Complexity: Believers sometimes claim that specific biological structures, like the eye or bacterial flagellum, are “irreducibly complex” and could not have evolved naturally, suggesting an intelligent designer. Mystrikism counters that evolutionary biology has provided natural explanations for the emergence of complex biological systems through gradual adaptations over time. Structures once thought “irreducible” have been shown to develop from simpler forms, illustrating how natural processes like natural selection can lead to complexity without invoking supernatural explanations. The scientific method’s demand for reproducibility and independent confirmation makes evolution a more robust explanation, as extensive fossil records, genetic evidence, and experimental observations support it.
-
Existence of Consciousness: The emergence of human consciousness, our ability for self-reflection, abstract thought, and moral reasoning, is often cited by believers as something beyond physical explanation. While consciousness remains a profound mystery, Mystrikism views it as a scientific frontier rather than evidence of a supernatural designer. Advances in neuroscience and cognitive science suggest that consciousness arises from complex neural networks and biochemical interactions. The scientific method encourages us to explore these explanations, understanding that gaps in current knowledge do not necessitate a supernatural cause. Continuing to investigate expands our understanding of consciousness without defaulting to non-empirical explanations.
Upholding Inquiry Over Assumptions
While the universe’s complexity, biological intricacy, and human consciousness are awe-inspiring, Mystrikism maintains that these phenomena do not inherently imply a designer. Instead, they invite deeper exploration through science. Mystriks value intellectual honesty, acknowledging the unknown without defaulting to assumptions that lack empirical support. In this way, Mystrikism celebrates complexity as an invitation to inquiry rather than an argument for supernatural design.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 4 of 22
A Critical Examination of: The Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God
Throughout history, philosophical debates have sought to rationalise belief in a deity. Mystrikism respects these as intellectual exercises but does not view abstract reasoning alone as sufficient to affirm the existence of divine entities.
-
Ontological Argument: The ontological argument suggests that because we can conceive of a “perfect” being, such a being must exist in reality. This reasoning posits that an existing God is greater than a non-existing one, implying that the greatest possible being must exist. Mystrikism finds this argument unconvincing because it relies on abstract definitions rather than empirical evidence. Just because we can imagine something as "great" doesn’t mean it has to exist. Concepts, no matter how logically framed, do not necessitate physical reality. The scientific method emphasises testable and observable phenomena. Thus, the mere conceivability of an idea, however profound, does not equate to evidence for its existence.
-
Cosmological Argument (First Cause): The cosmological argument claims that because everything has a cause, there must be an initial, uncaused “First Cause” that sets everything in motion, often identified as God. While the question of origins is a profound mystery, Mystrikism maintains that invoking an uncaused supernatural cause does not resolve this mystery but merely shifts it. This argument has been used so often that the obvious and rational response has become cliché: "If everything requires a first cause, who caused God?" It has been suggested that our perception of reality as having distinct beginnings, ends and causes may be a projection of our finite consciousness. In nature, however, we see no such rigid boundaries, only continuous cycles or helical progressions, spiralling forward yet rooted in what came before. Through this lens, the notion of a "First Cause" might reflect human mental frameworks more than reality itself. Thus, Mystrikism prefers empirical approaches, which remain open to testing and refinement, over the assumption of a supernatural First Cause, which halts inquiry rather than advancing it.
-
Moral Argument: The moral argument posits that objective moral values, like the belief that “murder is wrong,” require a moral lawgiver, which believers identify as God, nature, or the universe. Mystrikism counters that objective moral principles can arise naturally through social evolution, empathy, and collective human reasoning. Moral philosophy and psychology suggest that humans can develop robust ethical frameworks grounded in well-being and social cohesion without invoking a magical entity. This perspective aligns with Mystrikism’s values, seeing morality as a product of evolved social structures rather than a divine mandate.
-
Teleological Argument (Purpose and Meaning): The teleological argument suggests that a higher power must have instilled this need because most of us seek purpose and meaning. Mystriks recognise that humans naturally seek validity due to cognitive evolution, where purpose and direction enhance survival and social connection. This instinct for meaning does not inherently suggest a supernatural source. Instead, Mystrikism sees meaning as something we construct individually and socially, rooted in the realities of personal experience. By accepting a naturalistic foundation, Mystriks find purpose and inspiration in the search for truth itself without requiring a purpose-giving omnipotent being.
Philosophy as Exploration, Not Proof
While philosophical arguments offer interesting perspectives on existence, causation, and morality, Mystrikism views them as speculative rather than evidentiary. The scientific method remains the most honest path for exploring reality, as it requires claims to withstand empirical scrutiny. In this way, Mystrikism celebrates philosophical exploration but does not accept it as proof, upholding a worldview that values rigorous inquiry as the foundation of understanding.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 5 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Psychological and Emotional Experiences as Reasons for Belief
Powerful emotions and psychological shifts can inspire a feeling of connection to something greater. Mystrikism sees these as natural human responses, appreciating their impact while understanding them through scientific explanations rather than supernatural attribution.
-
Feeling of Comfort or Guidance: Believers often describe a sense of comfort, love, or guidance, especially during distress, which they interpret as evidence of a divine presence. While these experiences are meaningful and can bring immense personal solace, Mystrikism recognises they are likely psychological responses shaped by human needs and cultural context. Psychological research suggests that humans are inclined to seek patterns and agency, particularly in stressful situations. For Mystriks, the comforting nature of an experience is not proof of a divine origin but rather a testament to the mind’s adaptive capabilities in dealing with life’s challenges.
-
Sense of Purpose or Meaning: The belief in a higher power often provides individuals with a sense of purpose or meaning, filling what some refer to as an “existential gap.” However, Mystrikism maintains that meaning and purpose can be naturally cultivated through self-reflection, relationships, and personal growth without invoking the supernatural. Though deeply psychological, existential fulfilment does not inherently suggest an external divine source. Mystriks find purpose in exploring reality and pursuing knowledge, viewing meaning as something we construct rather than something requiring a supernatural foundation.
-
Fear of Death or Afterlife Concerns: For some, belief in the supernatural helps address fears of death and the unknowns of an afterlife. Mystrikism acknowledges that these fears are natural, arising from the human desire for continuity and the discomfort of mortality. However, accepting an idea solely because it alleviates fear does not constitute evidence of its truth. Mystriks hold that comforting beliefs should not replace evidence-based conclusions, choosing instead to face existential questions with intellectual honesty and a commitment to the naturalistic understanding of life and death.
-
Transformative Personal Change: Believers often recount experiences of personal transformation, such as overcoming addiction or finding a new purpose, which they attribute to divine intervention. While these changes are powerful and significant, Mystrikism views them as evidence of human resilience and the capacity for personal growth rather than supernatural influence. Psychological and therapeutic frameworks demonstrate that transformative changes can occur through mental discipline, social support, and self-reflection. For Mystriks, attributing these changes to a deity diminishes the power of human agency and the mind’s innate potential for adaptation.
-
Sense of the “Numinous” or “Holy”: People frequently report feelings of awe, reverence, or transcendence, especially in nature, art, or love, interpreting these as glimpses into a divine reality. Mystrikism, however, understands these experiences as natural responses to beauty, complexity, or emotional depth rather than evidence of a supernatural presence. Studies in psychology and neuroscience suggest that such feelings of awe can be explained by the brain’s responses to extraordinary stimuli, offering a naturalistic explanation for the sense of the “numinous.” Mystriks celebrate these feelings as profound human experiences without assuming they indicate a divine source.
Emotional Depth Without Divine Assumptions
While psychological and emotional experiences provide insight into human needs and consciousness, Mystrikism maintains that they do not constitute evidence of a divine presence. For Mystriks, such experiences are celebrated as part of the human condition and viewed through a naturalistic lens, which honours both emotional depth and intellectual integrity. In this way, Mystrikism respects the value of these experiences without conflating them with truth claims unsupported by empirical evidence.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 6 of 22
A Critical Examination of: The Social and Communal Influences as Reasons for Belief
Social dynamics often play a significant role in shaping beliefs, with family, culture, and community contributing to the persistence of supernatural and religious ideas. Here, we assess these influences from a Mystrik perspective, explaining why they are insufficient to meet the empirical standards for belief within Mystrikism.
-
Family and Cultural Expectations: For many, belief in the supernatural is strongly influenced by family and cultural upbringing. Growing up in a religious or supernatural-believing environment often reinforces these beliefs as part of one’s identity, making them feel ingrained or “real.” Mystrikism, however, recognises that cultural consensus does not equate to factual truth. History demonstrates that widely accepted beliefs, such as geocentrism or folk superstitions, are often revised or debunked through scientific inquiry. For Mystriks, a belief’s prevalence within a family or culture does not substitute for evidence of its truth.
-
Community and Belonging: Religious or spiritual groups frequently provide a profound sense of community and shared purpose, which some interpret as a sign of divine connection. Mystrikism values the importance of community and belonging but understands that social bonds are human constructs and do not serve as evidence of supernatural forces. Studies in psychology and sociology suggest that the feelings of unity and purpose experienced within a group are natural, emerging from shared goals and rituals rather than external divine influence. For Mystriks, the value of community does not rely on supernatural assumptions but rather on mutual human support and connection.
-
Influence of Religious Leaders or Mentors: Charismatic leaders and respected mentors often shape beliefs through their convictions or interpretations of spiritual experiences. Many believers view these individuals as trustworthy intermediaries, assuming their wisdom or experiences reflect divine truth. However, Mystrikism advocates for scepticism, as no person, regardless of status, is beyond the limitations of human bias or error. The scientific method rejects appeals to authority as evidence, emphasising that claims must stand independently of the individual making them. For Mystriks, the trustworthiness of a belief must be grounded in reproducible evidence, not in the charisma or influence of a leader.
-
Collective Rituals and Shared Experiences: Participating in communal rituals, such as prayer, meditation, or worship, can create a powerful sense of unity and shared experience, leading some to interpret these feelings as proof of a supernatural presence. Mystrikism views these experiences as expressions of shared human psychology rather than evidence of the divine. Neuroscience and psychology explain that group rituals often trigger feelings of connection and heightened emotion, which can be profound without necessitating a supernatural explanation. For Mystriks, these moments are cherished as part of the human experience but do not meet the criteria of verifiable truth.
Community as a Human, Not Supernatural Bond
While social and communal influences can strengthen beliefs, Mystrikism acknowledges these as reflections of human psychology and cultural practice rather than evidence of the supernatural. For Mystriks, the bonds formed within families and communities are celebrated as meaningful aspects of the human experience, valued without invoking divine assumptions. In this way, Mystrikism encourages connection and belonging grounded in shared humanity and evidence-based understanding.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 7 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Claims of Miracles, Healings, and Mystical Experiences
Believers often cite miraculous healings, mystical states, or near-death experiences as evidence of divine or supernatural forces. Here, we evaluate these phenomena from a Mystrik perspective and explain why they do not meet the empirical criteria for belief in Mystrikism.
-
Faith Healing or Unexplained Recoveries: Faith healing and spontaneous medical recoveries are frequently interpreted as signs of divine intervention. Mystrikism, however, notes that personal testimonies of healing, while impactful, do not provide the repeatable and controlled evidence necessary to confirm supernatural influence. Many “miraculous” recovery cases can be attributed to factors like the placebo effect, misdiagnosis, or the body’s healing processes. For Mystriks, an isolated recovery does not satisfy the empirical rigour required to validate a claim of divine action.
-
Saints and Religious Figures with Healing Powers: Believers sometimes cite saints or revered figures said to possess supernatural healing powers. Mystrikism recognises that such claims often stem from anecdotal accounts or cultural beliefs rather than verifiable, controlled evidence. Historical reports of healing through prayer or touch reflect the cultural context and psychological suggestibility of the time. Without reproducible evidence, Mystriks regard these claims as unsubstantiated, seeing them as examples of how personal belief and reverence can influence perception.
-
Protected or Blessed Objects: Certain objects, such as relics, amulets, or holy water, are believed to offer protection, bring good luck, or even heal illness. While some people report benefits from such items, Mystrikism interprets these experiences as the result of psychological effects like the placebo effect or confirmation bias. Studies in psychology indicate that belief in an object’s power can influence perception, but this influence is subjective and does not imply an objective supernatural effect. Mystriks require empirical validation beyond belief or anecdotes to accept such claims.
-
Resistant or Incorruptible Bodies: In certain traditions, the bodies of saints or holy figures are claimed to remain incorrupt or decay at a slower rate, which some interpret as evidence of divine favour. Mystrikism considers that natural factors, such as environmental conditions or embalming practices, often account for slowed decomposition. These cases illustrate how natural processes can be mistaken for supernatural phenomena, underscoring the need for scientific examination rather than assumption. Without controlled investigation, claims of incorruptibility do not meet the standards required for empirical truth.
In summary, while claims of faith healing, miraculous relics, and incorruptible bodies are meaningful to believers, Mystrikism holds that, without controlled, repeatable evidence, they do not meet the empirical standards for validating the supernatural. Mystrikism values rigorous investigation over anecdotes, appreciating the profound while remaining committed to natural explanations and empirical integrity.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 8 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Mystical or Altered States of Consciousness
Many people interpret altered states of consciousness, reached through meditation, psychedelics, religious ecstasy, or near-death experiences, as evidence of a meta-reality or supernatural dimension. Here, we evaluate these experiences from a Mystrikal perspective, explaining why they do not satisfy the empirical criteria required for belief within Mystrikism.
-
Meditation or Deep Prayer Experiences: Some individuals report accessing a “higher” reality or profound spiritual connection through meditation or deep prayer. Mystrikism acknowledges that these experiences can be meaningful and psychologically transformative. However, neuroscience explains that meditation can alter brain activity, producing sensations of unity, peace, or transcendence as natural psychological responses to focused attention and introspection. For Mystriks, while such experiences are valuable, they are not evidence of an external supernatural reality unless verified by reproducible, empirical means.
-
Psychedelic or Entheogenic Experiences: Psychedelic substances like psilocybin or ayahuasca are known to induce the perceptions of powerful mystical experiences, leading some to believe they reveal hidden spiritual dimensions. Mystrikism, however, interprets these experiences as altered perceptions resulting from chemical changes in the brain and nervous system. Scientific research shows that psychedelics affect neural networks, often generating intense feelings of interconnectedness or heightened awareness. These effects are significant, yet they are easily explainable within the neurobiology framework and do not inherently suggest a supernatural reality.
-
Ecstatic States (Speaking in Tongues, Possession): Practices like speaking in tongues, ecstatic dance, or states of possession can produce intense mental states, often leading participants to interpret these experiences as divine or supernatural encounters. Mystrikism views these altered states as cultural and psychological phenomena rather than proof of external forces. Anthropology and psychology provide rational insights into how cultural expectations, suggestibility, and altered consciousness contribute to these experiences. For Mystriks, these phenomena reflect human psychology and social influences rather than divine intervention.
-
Near-Death Experiences (NDEs): Many who experience near-death situations report vivid encounters with otherworldly realms, which some interpret as glimpses into a realm beyond physical life. While NDEs can be life-altering, Mystrikism explains them through physiological responses that occur when the brain is under extreme stress. Scientific studies suggest that factors such as oxygen deprivation, neurochemical surges, and memory recall contribute to the sensations and visions often reported in NDEs. For Mystriks, these natural explanations provide a more reliable understanding of NDEs without the need to assume a supernatural afterlife.
Celebrating Altered States Within a Naturalistic Framework
While mystical and altered states of consciousness provide profound personal meaning, Mystrikism understands them as reflections of human psychology and brain function rather than as gateways to the supernatural. By embracing natural explanations, Mystriks find that these experiences enrich our understanding of consciousness within the framework of the natural world, promoting a worldview that respects both the extraordinary and the ordinary aspects of human experience.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 9 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Scientific and Pseudo-Scientific Explanations
Some draw on pseudoscientific ideas or misinterpret scientific theories to support supernatural claims. Mystrikism values authentic science, discerning between unsupported conjecture and rigorously verified knowledge to stay aligned with evidence-based understanding.
-
Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: Believers sometimes argue that concepts from the ongoing investigation into the hypothesis of quantum mechanics, such as entanglement and the observer effect, suggest a potential link between consciousness and the supernatural. Mystrikism acknowledges the fascinating nature of the enquiries into quantum phenomena but notes that they do not imply a supernatural dimension. While quantum mechanics challenges classical views of reality, physicists do not see these still-unverified principles as evidence of a divine or mystical consciousness. The observer effect, for instance, is about measurement, not human awareness. Mystriks rely on scientific consensus, which currently interprets the postulation of quantum mechanics through naturalistic, mathematical models, avoiding unwarranted leaps to the supernatural.
-
Unexplained Phenomena in Parapsychology: Certain believers cite studies in parapsychology, such as ESP, telepathy, or remote viewing, as scientific proof of supernatural abilities. Mystrikism maintains that for these phenomena to be considered valid, they must consistently withstand controlled, repeatable experiments. To date, parapsychology still needs to meet these standards; studies often suffer from methodological issues, small sample sizes, and lack of reproducibility. Notably, the James Randi Educational Foundation offered a "One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge" from 1964 until its retirement in 2015, challenging anyone to demonstrate paranormal abilities under scientific conditions. Despite thousands of attempts, no one was able to claim the prize. Other challenges have been presented by organisations like the Australian Skeptics, who continue to offer $100,000 AUD for proof of paranormal phenomena, and the Belgian SKEPP, which offers €1 million for similar evidence. All these lucrative offers remain unclaimed, reinforcing that supernatural abilities lack reliable empirical support. For Mystriks, such claims remain entirely speculative rather than scientifically verified.
-
Energy Fields and Chakras: Some believers claim that energy fields, auras, or chakras are part of a “spiritual anatomy” that science has yet to understand, interpreting them as evidence of divine or hidden energy. Mystrikism recognises that while energy and fields are valid scientific concepts, there is currently no empirical basis for “spiritual” energy fields or anatomical chakras in a supernatural sense. Research in biology and physics does not support the existence of these energies within the framework of measurable phenomena. For Mystriks, claims of hidden energies are unfounded unless they can be demonstrated under controlled scientific conditions. To date, they have not.
-
The “God Particle” and the Universe’s Origin: Some believers reference the Higgs boson, often called the “God particle,” as a scientific mystery that points to a divine beginning. Mystrikism, however, notes that the Higgs boson is a particle essential to explaining how other particles acquire mass, as per the Standard Model of particle physics. The nickname “God particle” is more of a media invention than a scientific assertion. While the origin of the universe remains an area of active scientific inquiry, Mystrikism advocates for a commitment to natural explanations, embracing the unknown as an opportunity for further exploration rather than assuming divine intervention.
Distinguishing Science from Speculation
While some scientific hypotheses may inspire wonder and excitement, if they have yet to survive all the rigours of the integrated principles of science, Mystrikism cautions against viewing them as verified evidence of the supernatural. By grounding interpretations in verified evidence and scientific consensus, Mystriks uphold a worldview that honours the integrity of science. This commitment enables Mystriks to appreciate the beauty of scientific inquiry without overstepping into unverified, speculative conclusions.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 10 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Existential and Moral Arguments
The quest for meaning and moral purpose often leads people toward belief in a higher power. Mystrikism, however, finds that a sense of purpose and ethical values can be cultivated naturally, rooted in our own lives and actions without supernatural underpinnings.
-
Human Need for Meaning and Purpose: Many argue that humans’ intrinsic need for meaning and purpose suggests a higher power that implanted this drive. Mystrikism, however, understands this need as a natural result of cognitive evolution, where purpose and goal-seeking behaviours enhance survival, social cohesion, and emotional well-being. Psychology and anthropology suggest that humans are wired to seek purpose as a way of coping with life’s challenges, not as proof of a divine origin. Mystriks embrace the idea that meaning is self-constructed and do not interpret existential longing as evidence of the supernatural.
-
Sense of Objective Morality: The belief in objective morality, the notion that specific actions are universally “right” or “wrong”, is often used to argue for a divine moral lawgiver. Mystrikism counters that objective moral principles can arise from evolved social structures, empathy, and shared human experiences. Studies in moral psychology and philosophy show that humans have a capacity for ethical reasoning that does not depend on the supernatural. For Mystriks, morality is grounded in naturalistic understandings of well-being, harm, and social reciprocity, with no need for the moral authority of an immoral all-powerful invention.
-
Desire for Justice and Balance: Belief in a supernatural force, some contend, is needed to fulfil humanity's deep desire for justice, particularly when acts of wrongdoing often seem to escape notice or consequence. Mystriks view this as a psychological response to injustice rather than evidence of a divine justice system. Humans have evolved social norms and systems of accountability to maintain order and fairness, and while these are imperfect, they offer a naturalistic framework for justice. Mystriks find that the desire for cosmic justice does not provide grounds for belief in a supernatural force but instead reflects human aspirations for a fair society.
-
Fear of Meaningless Existence: The idea of a higher power, for some, brings solace in the face of an indifferent universe that might otherwise feel devoid of meaning or care. Mystrikism acknowledges this existential void as a common human experience yet holds that a need for comfort does not constitute evidence of a supernatural reality. Rather than leaning on beliefs that ease existential anxiety, Mystriks embrace a worldview where meaning and purpose are crafted through personal and social endeavours and a fearless pursuit of the unknown. This approach values intellectual integrity over existential consolation, choosing a reality-based framework for understanding life’s significance.
-
Concept of the “Soul” or Essence: Many people believe in an intangible essence, often referred to as a “soul” or "spirit", which they feel cannot be fully explained by biology alone. The Union of Mystriks recognises that the sense of self, consciousness, and identity are complex experiences but ascribes them to "emergent" cognitive processes rather than a divine essence. Neuroscience and psychology increasingly illuminate how consciousness and self-perception arise from brain and nervous system function, offering natural explanations for phenomena historically ascribed to the soul. For Mystriks, belief in a soul requires empirical support and is not assumed based on subjective experience alone.
Embracing Existential Depth Without Supernatural Assumptions
While existential and moral questions provide valuable insight into human nature, Mystrikism views them as reflections of our psychological and social evolution rather than evidence of the supernatural. By grounding these aspects of life in naturalistic explanations, Mystriks maintain a worldview that celebrates human complexity without resorting to unverified assumptions. This commitment to evidence-based understanding allows Mystriks to explore life’s profound questions with curiosity and integrity.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 11 of 22
A Critical Examination of: The Mysteries of Consciousness and Free Will
The nature of consciousness and free will raises deep, unresolved questions. Mystrikism embraces these mysteries as frontiers for science, favoring open inquiry and study rather than positing supernatural explanations for these complex phenomena.
-
The “Hard Problem” of Consciousness: The “hard problem” of consciousness, the fact that subjective experience exists, is frequently cited as evidence that there is more to reality than physical matter. Mystrikism acknowledges that consciousness is one of the most profound mysteries in science, yet it does not assume that supernatural explanations are warranted. Neuroscience and cognitive science advances are slowly uncovering how subjective experiences correlate with brain activity. While the ultimate nature of consciousness remains unresolved, Mystriks value empirical exploration over metaphysical assumptions, recognising that gaps in current knowledge do not imply the need for supernatural explanations.
-
Intuition and “Inner Knowing”: Some individuals interpret strong intuitive feelings or sudden insights as messages from a higher power, seeing this “inner knowing” as a connection to the divine. Mystrikism, however, understands intuition as a cognitive process shaped by experience, subconscious pattern recognition, and personal biases. Psychological research indicates intuition often reflects accumulated knowledge and heuristic thinking rather than supernatural guidance. For Mystriks, intuition is a valuable cognitive tool of last resort in decision-making, yet it does not serve as evidence of a divine or supernatural source.
-
Free Will vs. Determinism: Believers sometimes argue that free will suggests a supernatural component to human nature, reasoning that if we can make genuine choices, there must be something beyond biological determinism. Mystrikism approaches this debate through naturalistic perspectives, acknowledging that while free will is philosophically complex and convoluted, it does not inherently require a supernatural explanation. Emerging research in neuroscience and psychology explores how our sense of agency and decision-making can coexist with natural laws. For Mystriks, the question of free will is an open one but not evidence of a supernatural dimension.
-
Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs): Some people claim to have had out-of-body experiences (OBEs), where they feel detached from their physical selves, viewing the world from an external perspective. These experiences are often interpreted as proof of a non-physical consciousness. Mystrikism, however, considers OBEs as experiences that psychological and neurological factors, such as altered states of consciousness, sleep disturbances, mental illness or brain activity disruptions, can explain. Research shows that OBEs can be triggered in controlled conditions, suggesting that these experiences are tied to brain function rather than evidence of a non-material "soul".
Accepting Mystery Without Presupposing Supernatural Causes
While consciousness and free will raise fascinating questions, the Union of Mystriks views these as areas for investigation and discussion rather than evidence of the supernatural. By approaching these mysteries with a commitment to naturalistic explanations, Mystriks maintain a worldview that respects both the limitations and potential of human knowledge. They encourage exploration while resisting unverified claims. This approach upholds intellectual honesty, allowing Mystriks to appreciate life’s mysteries within the framework of the natural world.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 12 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Evolutionary and Biological Explanations (Misinterpretations of Science)
Some interpret evolutionary marvels as evidence of divine guidance. Mystrikism views evolution as a natural process, It marvels at its outcomes without attributing them to a supernatural architect, grounding its understanding in well-supported biological principles.
-
The “God Gene”: This hypothesis suggests that humans may have a genetic predisposition toward spiritual beliefs, which some interpret as evidence of an inherent connection to the supernatural. Mystrikism, however, views this unverified hypothesis through the lens of evolutionary psychology, understanding such predispositions as adaptations that may enhance social cohesion, cultural identity, or survival. Notably, this hypothesis has not met the rigorous benchmarks for scientific acceptance outlined by Mystrikism. The research behind the ‘God gene’ hypothesis is based primarily on limited studies with small sample sizes. The findings have not been consistently replicated or widely accepted in the scientific community. It lacks the extensive reproducibility and peer-reviewed validation necessary to be considered a robust scientific theory. While the “God gene” hypothesis may explain why religious belief is widespread, it does not imply that these tendencies reflect an actual divine reality. For Mystriks, genetic predispositions are natural and do not serve as proof of supernatural connections.
-
Teleology in Evolution (Misunderstanding Purpose): Some believers interpret evolution as having a purposeful direction, arguing that the complexity and diversity of life imply a divine design. Mystriks recognise this as a common misinterpretation of evolutionary theory. Evolution, as understood by science, is a process driven by random mutations and natural selection, amongst many other factors, without an inherent purpose or goal. The idea of a directed, purposeful evolution contradicts the core principles of evolutionary biology. Mystrikism sees natural selection not as a tool of a divine creator but as an observable mechanism through which species adapt to their environments over time.
-
Emotions and “Love as Divine”: Certain emotions, like love, are sometimes interpreted as evidence of a divine presence, particularly when these emotions inspire self-sacrifice or compassion. Mystrikism values the profound role of emotions in human life but understands them as biological and psychological phenomena. Studies in neuroscience and psychology reveal how emotions arise from brain activity, hormones, and evolutionary adaptations that promote social bonds and cooperation. While love and compassion are deeply meaningful, they do not provide evidence of a supernatural source within the naturalistic framework that Mystriks uphold.
Embracing Evolutionary Insight Without Assuming Divine Influence
Mystrikism interprets evolutionary predispositions and emotions as natural rather than paranormal. By grounding these phenomena in empirical evidence, Mystriks maintain a worldview that celebrates the complexity of life within the bounds of the natural world. They honour intellectual honesty over unfounded spiritual assumptions. This commitment allows Mystriks to explore life’s richness through the lens of evidence-based understanding.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 13 of 22
A Critical Examination of: The Arguments from Complexity and Information Theory
The intricacies of genetic code and cosmic structures lead some to believe in a higher intelligence behind them. Mystrikism values these as wonders of natural complexity, seeing no need for a divine designer to explain the marvels found within nature’s own patterns.
-
Argument from Information (DNA as a “Code”): Some argue that the complex information in DNA, which resembles a code or language, implies an intelligent origin, a “coder.” Mystrikism acknowledges the sophisticated structure of DNA but understands it as a product of natural processes rather than intentional design. While DNA operates through chemical interactions that look like code, this does not mean it requires a conscious programmer. Studies in evolutionary biology and molecular genetics explain how DNA evolved through natural selection and random mutation, shaping complex organisms without implying a supernatural programmer.
-
Irreducible Complexity and Biological Systems: Believers sometimes argue that certain biological structures, such as the eye or immune system, are “irreducibly complex,” meaning they couldn’t have evolved incrementally and must have been designed. Mystrikism sees this argument as a misunderstanding of evolutionary processes. Scientific research has shown that even complex structures can evolve through tiny gradual modifications, where each step provides a functional advantage. The notion of irreducible complexity has been widely refuted by evidence of transitional forms and incremental adaptations in nature, which provide natural explanations for structures once thought “too complex” to evolve.
-
The Anthropic Principle: The anthropic principle suggests that the universe’s conditions seem finely tuned for human life, which some interpret as evidence of intentional design. Mystrikism acknowledges that while the universe’s physical constants are precise, this doesn’t imply purpose or design focused on humanity or even life in general. The appearance of “fine-tuning” reflects our own bias, as life forms can only exist in a universe where conditions allow it to begin and survive. Just as a rain puddle fits the shape of a pothole perfectly without intentional design, life emerges where conditions allow it, giving the illusion of custom tailoring. The vastness of the cosmos means that many planets exist, each with different conditions, and some would inevitably have the ideal parameters for life. This perspective encourages a sense of humility; rather than assuming the universe was crafted with us in mind, it invites us to remain open to discovering natural laws that could explain these constants without requiring supernatural causes. For Mystriks, this approach sees "fine-tuning" as an intriguing mystery for further exploration, not proof of intentional design.
Recognising Complexity Without Assuming Design
While biological and cosmic complexities inspire awe, Mystrikism interprets them within a natural framework, seeing these phenomena as products of natural laws rather than as indicators of divine design. By grounding interpretations in empirical evidence, Mystriks maintain a worldview that appreciates complexity without conflating it with assumptions. This commitment to evidence-based understanding allows Mystriks to explore life’s richness through the lens of scientific inquiry and rational thought.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 14 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Apocalyptic or Prophetic Beliefs
Predictions of apocalypse and prophecy have captivated people for ages, lending a dramatic edge to belief. Mystrikism approaches these claims as human cultural expressions, examining them with a rational perspective rather than assuming supernatural foresight.
-
Prophecies in Religious Texts: Many believers argue that fulfilled prophecies in religious texts serve as proof of divine inspiration, asserting that accurate predictions would be impossible without a supernatural source. Mystrikism views these prophecies with caution, recognising that many so-called “fulfillments” are either vague at best, open to broad interpretation, or, more often than not, written after the fact. Also, history and textual analysis studies usually reveal that many prophetic claims are structured in ways that make them adaptable to multiple interpretations, ironically reducing their predictive power. For Mystriks, the accuracy of a prophecy must be evaluated under controlled, testable conditions to be considered evidence of the supernatural. To date, no prophecy has successfully met these standards.
-
End-Times Beliefs: Some interpret current world events, such as natural disasters, political upheaval, and social changes, as signs fulfilling apocalyptic prophecies, suggesting a divine order to global events. Mystrikism recognises that attributing meaning to random or cyclical events is a common psychological tendency, often resulting from cognitive biases that seek patterns in chaos. Apocalyptic beliefs have resurfaced repeatedly throughout history, frequently rooted in specific social contexts, only to shamelessly re-emerge intact with each new crisis. Mystriks view these interpretations as reflecting human psychology rather than evidence of impending intervention from superstition.
-
Personal Prophecies and Psychic Predictions: In addition to religious prophecies, some point to personal psychic predictions that appear to come true as proof of a supernatural dimension. Mystrikism remains sceptical, recognising that these predictions often rely on vague language, confirmation bias, and selective memory. Professional cold readers use techniques like making broad, generalised statements that seem personal but could apply to almost anyone. Observing reactions and refining statements accordingly creates the illusion of insight. Psychological research shows that people tend to remember the “hits” and forget the “misses,” especially when interpreting personal predictions. For Mystriks, psychic predictions lack the reproducibility and controlled conditions required for honest validation and, therefore, do not constitute evidence of a supernatural reality.
Recognising the Limits of Predictive Claims
While prophetic and apocalyptic beliefs have long captured human imagination, Mystrikism interprets them as products of human psychology and culture rather than as indicators of supernatural forces. By grounding interpretations in empirical inquiry, Mystriks maintain a worldview that respects both the mysteries of the future and the limitations of human knowledge. This commitment to evidence-based understanding allows Mystriks to explore life with intellectual integrity, embracing inquiry over unverified claims of prophecy.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 15 of 22
A Critical Examination of: The Argument of Supernatural as the Source of Beauty and Art
Beauty and artistic expression are often viewed as windows to the divine. Mystrikism appreciates the depth of human creativity as a natural phenomenon, attributing art and beauty to human perception and emotion rather than to external supernatural forces.
-
Aesthetic Argument for God: Some argue that beauty, whether in art, music, nature, or human connection, suggests an underlying spiritual or divine dimension beyond practical purpose. Mystrikism, however, views beauty as a profoundly subjective experience influenced by cultural, psychological, and evolutionary factors. Studies in evolutionary psychology and aesthetics suggest that humans are drawn to beauty because it often signals health, harmony, or beneficial traits. For Mystriks, beauty enriches life and elicits awe but does not require a supernatural explanation. It can be fully appreciated as an "emergent" aspect of human perception and experience.
-
Art and Inspiration: Many artists and musicians describe their creative inspiration as something external or supernatural, interpreting their impulses as hints of a transcendent realm. Mystrikism respects the profound nature of creativity but understands it as a product of the mind’s complex neural networks and subconscious processes. Psychological research indicates that inspiration often feels external due to the brain’s ability to generate novel ideas and connections that feel surprising or foreign to the conscious mind. Mystriks value creativity as a natural marvel rather than evidence of an external supernatural force.
-
Nature’s Beauty and Majesty: For many, the magnificence of nature, from mountains and oceans to galaxies, is seen as too grand to be accidental, suggesting a divine artist. Mystrikism acknowledges that natural beauty evokes awe and wonder but interprets these reactions as evolutionary and psychological responses. The human tendency to find meaning and intentionality in patterns often leads to attributing natural beauty to a creator. Mystriks view nature’s grandeur as a testament to the processes of physics, chemistry, and biology rather than as evidence of supernatural design.
Embracing Beauty Without Attributing It to the Supernatural
While beauty, art, and the majesty of nature are essential parts of human life, Mystrikism interprets them within a naturalistic framework. This perspective honours the richness of aesthetic experience without presupposing a supernatural origin. By grounding interpretations in empirical understanding, Mystriks maintain a worldview that appreciates beauty as an integral part of the natural world, celebrating it without invoking unverified spiritual explanations.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 16 of 22
A Critical Examination of: The Universality of Religious Belief and Myth
Religions across cultures share similar archetypes and mythic elements, which can suggest universal truths. Mystrikism interprets this commonality as an outcome of shared human psychology and social influences, without implying divine intervention.
-
Cross-Cultural Similarities in Religious Beliefs: The fact that nearly every culture throughout history has developed belief systems involving gods, spirits, or supernatural forces is sometimes interpreted as evidence of a mystical realm. Mystrikism views this universality as a reflection of shared human psychology, not necessarily an indicator of an actual supernatural world. Evolutionary psychology suggests that belief in supernatural agents may have conferred survival advantages, such as promoting social cohesion or offering comfort in uncertainty. For Mystriks, the widespread nature of religious belief points to common cognitive patterns rather than proof of divine reality.
-
Shared Myths and Archetypes: Many believers highlight the recurrence of certain myths and archetypes, such as flood myths, hero figures, or saviour archetypes, across various cultures as evidence of a shared spiritual truth. Carl Jung’s theory of the “collective unconscious,” which posits universal archetypes within the human psyche, is sometimes cited to support this idea. Mystrikism, however, sees these shared narratives as a testament to the universality of human experience and psychology, not evidence of a supernatural origin. Myths and archetypes often address fundamental human concerns, such as morality, survival, and meaning, which naturally recur across cultures without needing a divine source.
-
“God-Shaped Hole” in Human Psychology: Some argue that humans possess an innate psychological inclination toward belief in a higher power or supernatural reality, suggesting that this “God-shaped hole” is evidence enough for a god. Mystriks acknowledge this predisposition as a common aspect of human cognition, likely shaped by evolutionary and cultural factors. Psychological research indicates that humans tend toward pattern-seeking, agency detection, and existential inquiry, traits that make religious beliefs appealing but do not imply an objective supernatural reality. For Mystriks, this inclination reflects human nature rather than proof of divine design.
Appreciating Cultural Universals Without Assuming Supernatural Origins
While cross-cultural religious beliefs, shared myths, and spiritual inclinations are integral to human experience, Mystrikism interprets them as natural reflections of human psychology rather than evidence of the supernatural. By grounding interpretations in empirical understanding, Mystriks maintain a worldview that honours human culture’s diversity and universality without resorting to unverified spiritual assumptions. This commitment to evidence-based insight allows Mystriks to explore life’s rich tapestry with intellectual integrity, celebrating human creativity and shared experience without invoking the supernatural.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 17 of 22
A Critical Examination of: The Arguments from Non-Human Intelligence
The intelligence of animals or the possibility of extraterrestrial life often stirs beliefs in the supernatural. Mystrikism considers these possibilities scientifically, intrigued by non-human intelligence while refraining from assigning it a supernatural origin.
-
Extraterrestrial Life as Divine or Supernatural: Some speculate that advanced extraterrestrial beings could explain supernatural experiences or religious beliefs, viewing UFO sightings, ancient astronaut theories, or historical religious encounters as interactions with extraterrestrial intelligence. Mystrikism acknowledges the intrigue of extraterrestrial life but maintains that speculation about alien influence on human beliefs or experiences lacks empirical foundation. Claims of alien encounters often rely on anecdotal evidence and highly subjective interpretation. Mystriks encourage a scientific approach to the search for extraterrestrial life, grounded in astrophysics and astrobiology, without assuming that unknown phenomena reflect a supernatural, extraterrestrial or god-like intelligence.
-
Animal Intelligence and Consciousness: Some believers interpret animal intelligence and consciousness as evidence of a shared spiritual essence or “divine spark,” suggesting that animal awareness and emotions reflect a deeper, interconnected spiritual world. Mystrikism respects the profound intelligence and emotional complexity observed in many sentient species but views these traits as products of evolutionary processes. Studies in animal cognition and behaviour provide natural explanations for intelligence and awareness in animals without invoking supernatural connections. For Mystriks, animal consciousness is a remarkable part of the natural world, not an indicator of a divine or spiritual force.
-
Plant and Fungal Consciousness (Mycorrhizal Networks): Some argue that the interconnected networks of plants and fungi, such as the mycorrhizal networks between trees, suggest an “earth consciousness” or support ideas like the Gaia hypothesis. They interpret this natural interconnectedness as proof of a guiding supernatural force within nature. Mystrikism appreciates the complexity and interdependence of ecological systems but understands them as products of biological and chemical interactions rather than evidence of supernatural guidance. Mystriks view these networks as examples of nature’s adaptive mechanisms, rooted in evolutionary processes rather than a unifying spiritual consciousness.
Celebrating Non-Human Intelligence Without Assuming Divine Origins
While non-human intelligence and interconnected ecosystems inspire awe, Mystrikism interprets these phenomena within a naturalistic framework. Mystriks see them as products of evolution and biology rather than as indicators of divine influence. By grounding interpretations in empirical understanding, Mystriks maintain a worldview that honours the complexity and wonder of non-human life without assuming supernatural origins. This commitment to evidence-based insight allows Mystriks to explore life’s richness with intellectual integrity, appreciating the marvels of the natural world without invoking unverified spiritual assumptions.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 18 of 22
A Critical Examination of: The Mathematical and Logical Proofs of the Divine
Mathematical patterns, logical proofs, and abstract concepts are frequently seen by believers as signs of a divine or supernatural reality. In this section, we examine these ideas through a Mystrikal lens, clarifying why they do not satisfy the empirical standards that Mystrikism requires for belief.
-
Mathematical Patterns in Nature (Golden Ratio, Fibonacci Sequence): Recurring mathematical patterns, such as the golden ratio and Fibonacci sequence, are sometimes seen as evidence of intelligent design, with believers arguing that these ratios are too precise and frequent to be coincidental. Mystrikism views these patterns as natural outcomes of physical laws and evolutionary processes rather than signs of a designer. The golden ratio and Fibonacci sequence emerge in various natural forms due to the efficiency of specific growth patterns and structural constraints, which are explainable through biology, physics, and mathematics. For Mystriks, these patterns are appreciated as elegant features of nature but are not assumed to indicate a supernatural source.
-
Gödel’s Ontological Proof: Mathematician Kurt Gödel developed a formal argument for God’s existence using modal logic, which some believers reference as a rational proof of the divine. Mystrikism recognises Gödel’s ontological proof as an intriguing exercise in logic but notes that its validity is widely debated within philosophical and mathematical circles. The proof relies heavily on assumptions about necessity and existence that are open to interpretation. For Mystriks, abstract logical arguments are valuable for exploring ideas but do not constitute empirical evidence of a supernatural reality.
-
The Argument from Abstract Objects: Some believers argue that the existence of abstract concepts, such as numbers or logical laws, implies a transcendent source, reasoning that because these concepts exist independently of the material world, they point to a divine mind. Mystriks appreciate the utility and universality of abstract ideas but sees them as human constructs developed to understand and navigate the natural world. Philosophical perspectives on abstract objects vary, and many naturalistic explanations account for these concepts as products of human cognition. For Mystriks, abstract objects serve as intellectual tools rather than a verification of a supernatural origin.
Valuing Mathematical and Logical Beauty Without Assuming Divine Origins
While mathematical beauty and logical rigour inspire awe and offer insights into the universe, Mystrikism interprets these within a natural framework, seeing them as products of human inquiry rather than as indicators of divine influence. By grounding interpretations in empirical understanding, Mystriks maintain a worldview that honours the complexity and elegance of mathematics and logic without resorting to supernatural assumptions. This commitment to evidence-based insight allows Mystriks to explore the wonders of mathematics and logic with intellectual integrity.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 19 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Esoteric and Occult Evidence
Esoteric practices like divination, alchemy, and ritual magic are sometimes viewed by believers as evidence pointing to a supernatural realm. Here, we assess these claims from a Mystrikal perspective, explaining why they fall short of the empirical standards upheld by Mystrikism for establishing belief.
-
Divination Practices (Tarot, Astrology, I Ching): Some argue that the perceived accuracy or personal relevance of divination practices, such as tarot, astrology, or the I Ching, indicates a supernatural connection. Mystrikism views these practices as tools that can offer psychological insight or facilitate introspection, often working through the Forer effect or confirmation bias, where individuals see vague statements as personally meaningful. Studies in psychology suggest that the human mind is prone to find patterns and meaning even in random or generalised information. For Mystriks, divination practices do not provide evidence of higher consciousness but rather reflect our tendency to seek patterns and narratives that resonate with personal experiences.
-
Alchemy and Ancient Mystical Practices: Some believers view alchemy, Kabbalah, and other ancient mystical systems as evidence of a supernatural tradition containing hidden spiritual knowledge. Mystrikism respects these practices for their historical and cultural significance but interprets them as early forms of symbolic and philosophical exploration rather than evidence of reality, esoteric or otherwise. Alchemy, for example, combined proto-scientific experimentation with symbolic concepts, often reflecting the worldview of its time. For Mystriks, these mystical practices provide cultural insights into how people have sought meaning and understanding but do not reveal any hidden supernatural truths.
-
Ritual Magic and Manifestation: Some claim that ritual magic or manifestation (the idea of attracting outcomes through intention) demonstrates the existence of a supernatural force. Mystrikism understands that while ritual practices can have psychological effects, such as providing a sense of control or focus, they lack empirical evidence to support supernatural influence. Studies show ritualistic behaviour can affect perception and mood, often creating a placebo effect. Still, there is no scientific basis to suggest that intentions or symbols can directly influence actual reality. For Mystriks, these practices reveal the mind’s capacity for self-suggestion and focused intention without needing paranormal explanations.
Appreciating Esoteric Traditions Without Assuming Supernatural Reality
While divination, alchemical traditions, and ritual magic offer intriguing insights into human psychology and cultural expression, Mystrikism interprets them within a naturalistic framework. This perspective honours historical and personal values without assuming they point to a supernatural reality. By grounding interpretations in empirical understanding, Mystriks maintain a worldview that appreciates the psychological impact of esoteric practices without resorting to unverified spiritual assumptions.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 20 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Non-Physical Dimensions and the Multiverse Hypothesis
Theories of parallel universes, near-death experiences, and higher dimensions are often seen by believers as hints of a supernatural realm. In this section, we analyze these interpretations from a Mystrik viewpoint, highlighting why they lack the empirical evidence needed to support belief within Mystrikism.
-
Theories of Parallel Universes: Some believers interpret multiverse theories, proposing that multiple realities exist as potential evidence for supernatural dimensions, suggesting that divine or supernatural beings could inhabit these alternate spaces. Mystrikism recognises that while multiverse theories are intriguing, they are speculative frameworks grounded in theoretical physics, not evidence of a supernatural realm. Multiverse hypotheses aim to explain specific cosmological observations and are mainly conceptual, lacking empirical proof. For Mystriks, these theories represent interesting scientific possibilities rather than confirmation of divine or supernatural beings.
-
Near-Death and Between-Life Regression Hypotheses: Some believers interpret near-death experiences (NDEs) and between-life regression experiences, where individuals claim to access memories of past lives or a realm between lives as evidence of an enduring consciousness that transcends death. Mystrikism acknowledges the emotional and transformative impact of NDEs but views these experiences as psychological and neurological phenomena. Studies indicate that NDEs often involve altered brain states, such as oxygen deprivation or neurochemical responses to trauma, which can produce vivid perceptions. Without reproducible evidence supporting consciousness outside the brain, Mystriks remain sceptical of these experiences as proof of a supernatural reality.
-
Higher Dimensions Beyond the Physical World: Theoretical physics sometimes speculates on higher dimensions beyond human perception, which some believers interpret as possible realms for supernatural beings or realities. Mystrikism values higher-dimensional theories as scientific explorations of how the universe might function but does not assume that these dimensions house supernatural forces. If they exist, higher dimensions would likely operate according to natural laws rather than serving as spaces for divine entities. For Mystriks, these speculative dimensions are part of ongoing scientific inquiry rather than evidence of a supernatural plane.
Embracing Theoretical Exploration Without Assuming Supernatural Realms
While the multiverse, NDEs, and higher dimensions offer fascinating insights and possibilities, Mystrikism interprets them within a natural framework. By grounding interpretations in empirical understanding, Mystriks maintain a worldview that honours scientific curiosity without invoking unverified supernatural explanations. This commitment to evidence-based insight allows Mystriks to explore the mysteries of the universe with intellectual integrity, embracing the unknown as an invitation to inquiry rather than as a justification for supernatural beliefs.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 21 of 22
A Critical Examination of: The Arguments from Human Creativity and Imagination
Human creativity, bursts of inspiration, and encounters with the sublime are sometimes seen as traces of a divine presence. Yet, through the lens of Mystrikism, we critically examine these interpretations, showing why they don’t fulfill the empirical criteria that our philosophy upholds for any claims of belief.
-
Human Creativity as a Reflection of Divine Creation: Some believers argue that creativity, expressed in art, music, and literature, mirrors a divine creative ability, suggesting that humans share a divine impulse to create. Mystrikism, however, sees human creativity as an evolutionary and psychological phenomenon arising from complex cognitive functions, cultural influences, and personal experience. Studies in psychology and neuroscience show that creativity results from the brain’s capacity to make novel connections and adapt ideas. For Mystriks, this remarkable ability enriches human life without needing a supernatural explanation.
-
Inspiration and “Divine Madness” in Artists and Poets: Throughout history, many artists and writers have described their inspiration as coming from a “muse” or a state of “divine madness,” which some believers interpret as evidence of a supernatural force. Mystrikism respects the intensity of artistic inspiration but understands it as a product of the brain’s imaginative processes and altered states of consciousness. Psychological studies suggest that creativity often feels external due to the brain’s ability to generate surprising or seemingly foreign ideas. For Mystriks, inspiration is an extraordinary aspect of human cognition rather than proof of a divine influence.
-
The Sublime or Transcendent in Literature and Art: Experiences of the sublime, where one feels overwhelmed by beauty or profound ideas, are sometimes interpreted as encounters with the divine. Believers argue that these transcendent moments offer a glimpse into a supernatural realm. Mystrikism acknowledges the emotional power of the sublime, recognising it as a natural psychological response to extraordinary stimuli. Studies in aesthetics and psychology indicate that feelings of awe arise from our brain’s processing of scale, complexity, or beauty. For Mystriks, these transcendent experiences are treasured as part of the human condition but are not assumed to be connections to a supernatural realm.
Appreciating Creativity and the Sublime Without Assuming Divine Origin
While creativity and encounters with the sublime are deeply meaningful, Mystrikism interprets them within a natural framework, viewing them as products of human cognition and emotional response rather than signs of a divine realm. By grounding interpretations in empirical understanding, Mystriks maintain a worldview honouring the beauty and mystery of creativity and transcendence without resorting to unverified supernatural assumptions. This commitment to evidence-based insight allows Mystriks to explore the richness of human expression with intellectual integrity, celebrating imagination and art as essential aspects of life without invoking the supernatural.
Conditional Non-Belief
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 22 of 22
A Critical Examination of: Unique and Esoteric Sources of Evidence
Certain mystical experiences or esoteric traditions are cited as unique proof of the divine. Mystrikism values open-minded exploration but maintains that such claims need solid evidence to be credible, regarding them as speculative until further substantiation.
-
Accounts from Mystics and Sages: Believers often see testimonies from mystics, saints, and ancient wisdom traditions as evidence of a divine realm. While Mystrikism respects the cultural significance and personal insights of these practices, it interprets mystical experiences as products of altered consciousness rather than supernatural encounters. Studies in psychology and neuroscience suggest that meditation, trance, and ascetic practices affect brain activity, producing profound but natural states of awareness. For Mystriks, these experiences are meaningful but lack reproducible evidence of divine reality.
-
Anomalous Phenomena in Unexplored Regions or Historical Ruins: Some interpret ancient constructions, myths of lost civilisations, and sacred sites with unusual energies as evidence of divine or supernatural influence. Mystrikism appreciates the engineering marvels of ancient sites and the cultural power of legends but attributes these to human ingenuity and psychological phenomena. Research in archaeology and anthropology explains many ancient achievements through available technologies and collective labour, while “unusual energies” are often subjective experiences influenced by expectation. Mystriks see these as intriguing but not empirical proof of supernatural origins.
-
Evidence from Esoteric and Paranormal Investigations: Believers sometimes point to paranormal investigations, psychic mediums, and cryptid sightings as evidence of supernatural realms. Mystrikism remains sceptical, understanding that paranormal findings often lack controlled conditions and rely heavily on anecdotal evidence and cognitive biases. Studies on ghost hunting and mediumship reveal that experiences can usually be attributed to environmental factors, suggestibility, and confirmation bias. For Mystriks, paranormal claims must meet the empirical rigour required for validation as evidence of the supernatural.
-
Religious or Holy Relics and Objects: Believers sometimes view relics with claimed powers, such as the Shroud of Turin or saintly relics, as physical proof of divine intervention. Mystrikism respects the cultural and symbolic value of these relics but interprets supernatural claims as unverified until proven in controlled, repeatable experiments. Historical and scientific analysis has often revealed natural explanations for supposed miracles associated with relics, making them significant cultural artifacts rather than evidence of supernatural influence.
-
Strange Phenomena in Astronomy and Space: Some interpret UFO sightings and mysteries like dark matter as evidence of supernatural forces, arguing that these unknowns might indicate a hidden realm. Mystrikism views these phenomena as part of ongoing scientific exploration rather than supernatural indicators. UFOs, for example, are often explained through natural atmospheric phenomena or human error, while dark matter remains a theoretical concept within astrophysics that lacks evidence for a supernatural component. Mystriks encourage further investigation without prematurely attributing these mysteries to divine explanations.
-
Inexplicable Historical Mysteries and Documented Phenomena: Certain believers argue that historical records of wonders, curses, or unexplainable phenomena indicate supernatural involvement. Mystrikism considers that many historical “mysteries” result from limited knowledge or cultural beliefs rather than supernatural intervention. History and anthropology studies suggest that interpretations of curses or prophetic phenomena often emerge from psychological and cultural influences rather than divine influence. For Mystriks, these historical claims lack empirical grounding.
-
Physical Phenomena Observed in Religious Practices: Cases of stigmata, incorruptible bodies, and other physical phenomena are sometimes cited as evidence of divine influence. Mystrikism remains sceptical, interpreting these cases as results of psychological or environmental factors rather than supernatural events. Medical and environmental scientific research often explains these phenomena in terms of biology, cultural expectations, or preservation conditions. For Mystriks, such cases require rigorous investigation and do not meet the standards of empirical evidence for supernatural claims.
Recognising Unique Claims Without Assuming Supernatural Origins
While mystics’ experiences, ancient artifacts, and paranormal findings offer fascinating insights, Mystrikism interprets them within a natural framework. By grounding interpretations in empirical understanding, Mystriks maintain a worldview that appreciates cultural richness and psychological depth without resorting to unverified spiritual assumptions. This commitment to evidence-based insight allows Mystriks to explore the mysteries of human history and experience with intellectual integrity, honouring the profound without assuming the supernatural.
Presuppositionalism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 4
[Audio version]
Understanding Presuppositionalism
Presuppositionalism is a philosophical approach that claims certain foundational assumptions must be accepted before any reasoning can occur or knowledge can be acquired. In other words, presuppositionalism holds that everyone starts with certain ‘givens’ that shape how they interpret reality. Without these bedrock assumptions, thought can’t even get off the ground. In religious contexts, it is most commonly associated with Christian apologetics, where it is argued that the existence of God is a necessary precondition for valid reasoning, discerning right from wrong, and justified factual belief.
Some fervent religious presuppositionalists are convinced that non-believers can’t recognise the “ultimate” foundation behind such things as mathematics or logic without a god or gods. You might calculate 2 + 2 as 4 all day long, but they’d argue you don’t have an ultimate basis explaining why it reliably comes out that way.
Theistic presuppositionalism claims that without assuming God’s existence, one cannot justify reason itself. If that sounds like circular reasoning, congrats, you’re paying attention. Because it is. Theistic presuppositionalists essentially say, "God exists because otherwise, we couldn't reason, and we know we can reason because God exists." It's a neat little loop, airtight and conveniently impossible to argue against (which, I suspect, is the point). It’s like trying to win a game by declaring yourself the referee. This approach is often criticised for assuming the conclusion (God exists) within its premise. It also tends to dismiss alternative worldviews by claiming that all non-theistic reasoning is inherently flawed due to a lack of divine foundation.
It’s worth noting that presuppositionalism isn’t a monolith. Different strands, like Van Tillian, Clarkian, and Frame’s approaches, each tweak how they argue for God as the basis of knowledge and offer various interpretations of the 'circular' aspect, some conceptualising it as a 'transcendental argument'. We might explore that in another post. While these internal distinctions exist, they all share the fundamental idea that certain foundational beliefs must be presupposed for rational thought and moral reasoning to be possible.
Presuppositionalism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 4
[Audio version]
Secular and Scientific Forms of Presuppositionalism
But before we throw out the baby with the theological bathwater, let’s acknowledge that all worldviews start somewhere. Even the most hardened sceptic has to assume a few things. Some non-religious, science-friendly examples:
-
Mathematical and Logical Foundations – Logic and mathematics are often taken as apriori truths, essential for rational inquiry but not provable without assuming their validity. Logic and math are accurate and reliable. We take for granted that numbers and logic aren’t just cosmic fan fiction. If 2 + 2 doesn’t actually equal 4, we’re all in trouble.
-
Naturalistic Presuppositions – The assumption that the natural world exists independently of human perception and operates under consistent laws. Reality exists outside of our heads. Otherwise, we’re stuck in some "What if we’re in a simulation?" nonsense.
-
Scientific Realism – Is the belief that empirical observation and experimentation can uncover objective truths about reality. At the end of the day, the scientific method works. We assume poking reality with a stick (experimentation) tells us something useful. And so far, it’s been pretty fucking solid. It gave us penicillin, landed us on the Moon, and gave us WiFi, amongst countless other achievements.
-
Linguistic Frameworks – The idea that human communication and meaning presuppose a shared conceptual structure. Simply put, language has meaning. Otherwise, this article is just little shapes on a screen, and we’re wasting all our time.
These secular presuppositions differ from theological presuppositionalism in that they are constantly tested, revised, and justified by empirical success rather than being immune to falsification (let alone successfully verified). Even science has to start somewhere, but the difference is these assumptions are valuable and actually useful in the real world. They help us build airplanes, cure diseases, and figure out why cats are so weird.
Presuppositionalism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 4
[Audio version]
Does Mystrikism Presuppose Naturalism?
Mystrikism, as a rational and naturalistic philosophical framework, is not strictly presuppositionalist but acknowledges that all worldviews require some foundational assumptions. Mystrikism does not just assume naturalism is true because it feels nice. No, it actually reaches that conclusion based on centuries of reality consistently refusing to do anything supernatural when examined up close.
-
It’s not dogmatic - It remains open to revision. Unlike religious presuppositionalism, which asserts certainty in its foundational beliefs, Mystrikism allows for updates to its worldview if new, verifiable evidence arises. If ghosts, gods, or cosmic teapots show up under rigorous testing, we’ll take another look. But so far? Bupkis.
-
It’s evidence-based - It does not assume naturalism arbitrarily, it is a conclusion drawn from evidence. The repeated success of scientific inquiry in explaining reality without invoking the supernatural justifies a naturalistic stance. We repeatedly find natural explanations for phenomena previously labeled supernatural. Once upon a time, lightning was Zeus having a tantrum; now, it’s just atmospheric electricity.
-
It’s falsifiable - It prioritises falsifiability. Supernatural claims are dismissed not because they are presupposed to be false but because they fail the test of falsifiability and empirical validation. if something spooky starts happening in repeatable, testable ways, the framework gets updated (looking at you, quantum mechanics, you weird bastard). NB. It still obeys natural laws (though sometimes deeply unintuitive ones).
-
It actually works - Naturalism has given us modern medicine, space travel, and the ability to order pizza from our phones. Supernaturalism has mostly given us vague hand-waving and incense.
Presuppositionalism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 4 of 4
[Audio version]
A Rational Alternative to Presuppositionalism
Mystrikism flips the script on the whole "you must assume a deity to make sense of reality" shtick. Instead, it argues:
-
The scientific method is the best shot we’ve got at understanding the world. Alongside the integrated principles of science, it provides the most honest and reliable means of acquiring knowledge. And so far, it’s been delivering.
-
Naturalistic explanations have consistently replaced supernatural ones throughout history. Supernatural explanations keep shrinking. Every time we’ve actually figured something out, it’s turned out to be natural. Ghosts? Probably just creaky pipes. Miracles? Probably just coincidence or misinterpretation. Demon possessions? Probably just undiagnosed epilepsy.
-
While foundational assumptions exist, they are justified by their success in exploring the past, clarifying the present, and predicting the future. Fundamental premises are fine, but they need to substantiate themselves. And naturalism does, over and over again.
-
Epistemic humility is essential. What we accept as true today may change with new discoveries. Admitting ignorance is more honest than pretending to have all the answers. This is a big one. Mystrikism is totally cool with saying, "We don’t know yet, but let’s find out." Theistic presuppositionalism says, "We don’t know, therefore God."
-
Certainty is overrated. Doubt is King. Once you claim absolute truth, your awareness dims and you stop exploring. Doubt fuels curiosity by acknowledging hidden details might exist, so you keep asking questions and refining your perspective.
Theistic presuppositionalists want airtight certainty; Mystrikism is cool with embracing the unknown and letting the evidence lead wherever it may. That’s not just more intellectually honest, it’s also way more fun.
Unlike religious presuppositionalism, which attempts to secure absolute certainty and asserts that belief in God is necessary for rational thought. It’s like trying to win an argument by declaring yourself the winner before the debate even starts. Mystrikism, on the other hand, is happy to admit what it doesn’t know and figure things out as it goes. It does not require dogmatic first principles but instead grounds its worldview in evidence, reason, and the humility to acknowledge what we do not yet know. Mystrikism ensures that its foundations are continually tested and refined rather than uncritically assumed. In this way, it provides a compelling and rational alternative to dogmatic presuppositionalist claims.
And really, isn’t that what being human is all about? A little humility, a little curiosity, and a whole lot of marveling at just how weird and awesome this universe really is.
Phenomenology
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 8
Concise History and Description
The term “phenomenology” was first introduced by the Swiss philosopher Johann Heinrich Lambert in the 18th century. It mainly describes the study of appearances and how they can mislead our understanding of reality. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel made it famous in the Phenomenology of Spirit, tracing consciousness through its stages. In the 20th century, Edmund Husserl refocused on direct lived experience, while thinkers like Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Jean-Paul Sartre expanded it to address existence, embodiment, and intersubjectivity. Over time, phenomenology has shifted from analysing deceptive appearances to systematically examining the deeper structures of our lived experiences.
Phenomenology
Phenomenology is a branch of philosophy that studies how things appear in our conscious experience. Rather than analysing the underlying causes or scientific details, it describes the ‘what-it-is-like?’ aspect of our experiences. This method values first-person narratives and the quality of lived subjective experience.
Artistic expression and interpretation are some of the most deliberate and apparent examples of phenomenology. A painting, a song, or a story isn’t just a collection of colours, sounds, or words, it’s a doorway into a subjective experience that can evoke awe, nostalgia, sadness, or even transcendence.
Here are a few more examples that capture the essence of Phenomenology, which focuses on how things appear to our own conscious experience:
-
Savouring Your Morning Coffee - Picture the moment you first sip your coffee in the morning. Beyond just the facts, like it’s a dark liquid at 150°F, 65.5°C, you’re fully aware of the warmth on your tongue, the aroma wafting up, and maybe even a nostalgic comfort if it reminds you of mornings at home. Phenomenology is all about that firsthand “in the moment” experience you’re living through rather than an external, third-person measurement.
-
Walking Through a Flower Garden - You might pass by a bed of flowers and get this immediate sense of bright colours, particular fragrances hitting your nose, and maybe a calming vibe. You’re not measuring petal length or identifying species, you’re immersed in the “feel” of encountering these flowers, their colours, the smell, and the atmosphere. That’s the phenomenological angle: what it’s actually like for you right then.
-
Listening to Live Music - In a concert, the physical facts are sound waves travelling at specific frequencies, decibels hitting your eardrums, and so on. But the human side is that rush when the beat drops, your emotions swirling in response to the melody, and that indescribable energy in the crowd. Phenomenology zeroes in on how you experience those moments, not the raw physics behind them.
-
The Quiet Moment Before Sleep - Think about lying in bed, lights off, and your mind drifting. You might feel your body sink into the mattress, sense your heartbeat, and notice random thoughts floating by. Phenomenology would say: Pay attention to this subjective awareness, what it’s like to be you in that moment, rather than measuring your pulse or analysing your REM cycles.
But Aweism, as celebrated by the Union of Mystriks, elevates phenomenology to an art form. When you stand beneath a vast, star-filled sky and feel a deep sense of wonder or bathe in the ethereal light and quietude deep within an ancient forest, that’s phenomenology intersecting with Aweism. It’s an experience that transcends intellectual analysis and becomes something deeply felt, stirring curiosity and connection to the greater cosmos.
Unlike traditional notions of “spirituality” rooted in supernatural beliefs, Mystriks cultivate naturalised awe. They intentionally pause to savour, reflect, and deeply appreciate the simple beauty of our world and the universe through natural moments that transcend the ordinary without invoking divine or paranormal explanations.
This reverence (respect and awe) is anchored in reality rather than magical thinking. It embraces the phenomenological awareness that we not only have boundless unknowns yet to explore but also that we are unable to grasp the limits of our own ignorance or even the boundaries (if there are any, due to the dynamic nature of the cosmos) of knowledge itself. Rather than fueling fear or worship, this recognition becomes a wellspring of wonder and intellectual humility.
In short, while objectivity might detail “what” is happening from an outside standpoint, phenomenology is all about “what it feels like to you” in a particular moment. It’s the direct lived experience at the core of our consciousness.
Phenomenology
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 8
Phenomenological Efficacy
Phenomenological efficacy examines how the quality of our subjective experiences can lead to tangible changes in behaviour, cognition, or emotions. Even though these experiences are currently difficult to measure directly, their impact can be seen in how they influence our decisions or health outcomes.
Here are some examples that show phenomenological efficacy, how the subjective experience (phenomenology) shapes or influences actual outcomes, and how that differs from mere phenomenology (which is more about describing and understanding the experience itself):
1. The Runner Who Feels “In the Zone”
-
Phenomenology: You’re running, and you sense the wind in your face, hear your own footsteps, feel your heart pumping, fully immersed in the act of running.
-
Phenomenological Efficacy: Because you feel unstoppable like you’re gliding, you push yourself harder than usual and shave minutes off your time. The experience (feeling in the zone) causes the improved performance.
2. A Guitarist’s Stage Presence
-
Phenomenology: Standing on stage, you feel the buzz of the amplifier, the spotlight’s heat, the vibration in your fingertips, and the collective energy of the crowd as you play.
-
Phenomenological Efficacy: That electrifying sensation makes you perform with more passion and confidence, which in turn ramps up the audience’s enthusiasm. Your personal, lived experience directly influences the concert’s energy and outcome.
3. Studying with a Feeling of Purpose
-
Phenomenology: You’re deeply absorbed in your textbook, feeling that sense of clarity or curiosity that makes time fly. There’s a calm focus on the words, the diagrams, the new ideas clicking in your mind.
-
Phenomenological Efficacy: Because you feel genuinely fascinated and engaged, you remember the material better and ace the test. Your subjective sense of “this is so interesting!” results in a real-world improvement in grades.
4. The Therapeutic Breakthrough
-
Phenomenology: In therapy, you might experience a wave of insight or a strong emotional release, suddenly seeing your situation with more clarity or feeling a heavy burden lifted.
-
Phenomenological Efficacy: That internal “aha” moment propels you to take different actions outside therapy, maybe you communicate better with loved ones or break an old pattern. The new understanding changes your real-life behavior and well-being.
How it Differs from Just Phenomenology
-
Phenomenology on its own is about describing and being aware of what it feels like to have a certain experience, getting at the lived, conscious details.
-
Phenomenological Efficacy is about taking that described experience one step further and showing how it produces tangible effects or transformations in your actions, decisions, or outcomes.
In short, Phenomenology says, “Here’s what it’s like to be in this moment,” while Phenomenological Efficacy asks, “Okay, and how does feeling that way actually impact what you do or what happens next?”
Phenomenology
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 8
Disclaimer - For many I will be teaching grandma how to knit with the next couple of explanations, and for that I apologise, but I just want to ensure we are on the same page. Apologies also for the brevity of these commentaries. I recognise these topics could fill whole books, but I don't want to put people to sleep any more than I probably already do.
Objectivity
In scientific research, epidemiology in particular, objectivity means collecting and analyzing data without personal bias. Researchers use methods like randomized controlled trials and standardized measurements to ensure that their observations reflect reality as accurately as possible, independent of who is conducting the study.
Here are some examples:
-
Using a Thermometer Instead of Guessing - Think about when you feel a little feverish. You might suspect you have a fever if you’re sweaty or flushed, but your emotions or stress can cloud your judgment. So, you grab a thermometer. That little device doesn’t care if you feel hot, it just measures temperature and gives you a solid number. That’s objectivity: it bypasses personal impressions and goes straight for reliable data.
-
Weighing Fruit at the Green Grocer - Let’s say you’re buying apples, and you want exactly 2 pounds or 2 kilos. You could eyeball it and say, “This looks about right,” but chances are you’ll either overestimate or underestimate. Instead, you pop your apples on the store’s digital scale. No guessing, just a clear measurement. That’s objectivity in action, data over hunches.
-
Comparing Headphones by Sound Tests, Not Ads - Maybe you want new headphones. You could get swayed by flashy commercials or a friend’s super-enthusiastic opinion. But an objective approach might be to compare actual sound test results or read unbiased reviews that measure frequency response, comfort, battery life, etc. This experiment-driven method helps you cut through subjective hype.
-
Deciding if Clothes Fit with Exact Measurements - Picture yourself shopping online. You might glance at a model and think, “They’re about my height, so a medium should be good.” But that’s a bit of a guess. Instead, you check the size chart, get your own measurements with a tape measure, and match them up. Basing the choice on your waist, chest, or hip measurements is more objective, no illusions, just numbers.
Each of these examples shows how relying on factual measurements or unbiased data can keep personal feelings, guesses, or opinions from muddying the waters. That’s the essence of being objective.
Subjectivity
Subjectivity is all about personal experiences and perceptions. In philosophy, it’s the idea that our internal, emotional, and personal contexts shape how we interpret events. This means that two people might experience the same event very differently because of their unique backgrounds, culture, idiosyncrasies and feelings.
Here are some examples:
-
Enjoying Spicy Food - You might love hot peppers because you grew up eating them, while your friend thinks they feel like fire on their tongue. The flavor itself hasn’t changed, what’s different is each person’s individual taste, memories, and comfort level. That’s pure subjectivity: the experience depends on the person, not just the peppers.
-
Interpreting Abstract Art - Imagine standing in front of a modern painting. One person sees deep meaning and feels moved, another might shrug and say, “Looks like random shapes to me.” The art’s appearance is the same for everyone, but how it’s perceived or interpreted depends on personal perspective and background. That’s subjectivity in action.
-
Liking a Movie for Emotional Reasons - When you walk out of a film, you might say it was incredible because it reminded you of your childhood. Meanwhile, a friend who didn’t share that nostalgia found it “just okay.” The emotions tied to your own life story colored your opinion, showing how subjective feelings can shape our reactions.
-
Choosing Favorite Music - Ever wonder why your favorite playlist can make you feel pumped up, while somebody else just isn’t into it? There’s no definitive “best” or “worst” genre, musical taste hinges on personal experiences, moods, and cultural background. Again, it’s all about individual perspective rather than hard-and-fast facts.
In all these scenarios, the thing itself (the spicy dish, painting, film, or song) remains the same, but how each person reacts or interprets it varies. That’s the hallmark of subjectivity.
Subjectivity is scientifically unreliable because it is based on personal perception, which is influenced by emotions, biases, and cognitive limitations. Since subjective experiences are internal and unique to the individual, they cannot be externally measured, independently verified, or replicated under controlled conditions. This makes them unsuitable as a foundation for scientific inquiry, where consistency, falsifiability, and objective measurement are required. While subjectivity plays a crucial role in personal meaning-making, creativity, and human experience, it lacks the empirical reliability necessary for drawing universally valid conclusions about reality.
Phenomenology
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 4 of 8
Inter-Subjectivity
Inter-subjectivity refers to the overlapping area where different individuals’ subjective experiences meet. It’s the common ground or shared understanding that emerges when people discuss their personal views. This concept is central in social sciences and phenomenology, as it highlights how personal insights can converge into a collective perspective.
Here are some examples of Inter-subjectivity, how different people’s subjective experiences overlap or come together to create a shared understanding:
-
Inside Jokes Among Friends - You and your close group have a particular joke that might sound silly or confusing to outsiders. Yet for all of you, that phrase or reference instantly conjures up the same memory or laughter. This common “knowing” is inter-subjective. iI’s the mutual sense of meaning you’ve built together.
-
Agreeing on Taste in a Group Setting - If you’re out to eat with friends, you’ll probably talk about what’s good on the menu. Maybe you all come to a shared conclusion that the spicy tacos are the best thing there, blending your individual tastes into a single consensus. The group’s agreement is inter-subjectivity in action.
-
Team Sports Strategy - In a soccer match, not everyone sees the field from the exact same angle, but you develop a “game plan” that everyone understands. This unified strategy arises from each player’s perspective meshing with everyone else’s, so you operate as one cohesive unit. That communal “we know what we’re doing together” is inter-subjectivity.
-
Creating a Shared Cultural Norm - Consider small talk etiquette: you meet someone new and go through the standard “Hi, how are you? Good, thanks, and you?” Everyone knows how this mini-ritual plays out. You could say it’s a socially constructed habit, each person’s personal take on politeness merges into a collective rule everyone “just gets.”
Why It’s Different From Subjectivity or Objectivity?
-
Subjectivity is about your personal view or experience.
-
Objectivity is about facts that aim to stay neutral and independent of anyone’s feelings.
-
Inter-subjectivity is a shared space we create when we bring our subjective viewpoints together, forming a collective understanding that feels real to everyone involved.
Phenomenology
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 5 of 8
Inter-subjective Verification
This concept takes inter-subjectivity a step further by involving the process of confirming shared experiences or observations through collaborative or independent means. In research, it means cross-checking data from multiple observers or sources to ensure that a finding isn’t just a fluke of one person’s perspective.
Imagine you’re trying a new restaurant, and you ask several friends about their experience. If most of them say the pasta was too salty, you have strong, common evidence that it might not be the best dish. In a clinical setting, if several doctors, using different tests, arrive at the same diagnosis for a patient, that’s inter-subjective verification. It’s like double-checking your math homework with a buddy to be sure you got the answer right.
Here are some examples of Inter-subjective Verification, the idea that multiple people share their subjective experiences or perspectives to confirm something together:
-
Confirming a Restaurant Location - You’re trying to meet friends at a new restaurant. You think it’s one block over from the library, but you aren’t totally sure. So, you text your group. Each of them chimes in, “Yeah, that’s the spot, corner of 5th and Main.” Everyone’s individual memory aligns, so you collectively verify the correct location. That’s inter-subjective verification: cross-checking a fact through multiple subjective viewpoints.
-
Double-Checking the Room Temperature - You walk into a room and think, “Wow, it’s freezing in here.” Your partner, on the other hand, feels it’s just a bit cool, and your roommate insists it’s comfortable. Then you all talk it over. Two of you actually get chills, and the other is wearing a sweater anyway. You settle on the consensus that it’s indeed on the colder side. By comparing each person’s subjective sense of “cold,” you reach a shared conclusion.
-
Verifying a Class Assignment Due Date - Suppose you missed part of a lecture, and you’re unsure if tomorrow’s homework is due at the start of class or by midnight. You ask your classmates. One recalls the professor saying, “submit online by midnight,” and another agrees they remember the same. A third person checked the syllabus, and it matched what they said. Now you’re confident because multiple people’s experiences point to the same answer.
-
Tasting a New Recipe - You try cooking a dish you’ve never made before, and it comes out tasting a bit off to you. You’re not sure if it’s too salty or if you’re just tired, so you invite a few friends to give it a try. If everyone else says, “Yeah, it’s a little heavy on the salt,” then their combined input confirms your hunch. You’ve collectively verified the flavor profile through each person’s subjective taste buds.
How It Differs from Simple “Inter-subjectivity”
-
Inter-subjectivity is about the shared space of understanding we create when our subjective experiences align.
-
Inter-subjective Verification emphasises actually testing or confirming something by comparing how it appears to multiple observers. It’s not just recognising that we share a perspective, it’s actively checking with one another to reach a reliable group conclusion.
Inter-subjective verification, as opposed to subjectivity on its lonesome, enhances scientific reliability by requiring multiple independent observers to reach the same conclusion based on shared evidence. This process reduces the impact of individual bias and ensures that observations are not merely personal interpretations but rather patterns that hold across different perspectives. While still not as rigorous as purely objective measurements, such as direct empirical experimentation or mathematical proofs, inter-subjective verification remains a crucial tool in fields where fully objective methods are impractical or impossible. It serves as a middle ground between subjective experience and strict objectivity, providing a level of empirical validation that subjectivity alone cannot achieve and offering a structured, repeatable approach to knowledge where controlled experiments may not be feasible.
Phenomenology
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 6 of 8
Why the Emphasis on the Scientific Method Instead of Phenomenological Efficacy?
At the core of Mystrikism is a commitment to honesty through the scientific method, kindness through the promotion of measurable well-being, and respect and openness to the vast unknown. Our emphasis isn’t so much on “Science” as a broad, institutionalised concept but on the Integrated Principles of Science, particularly the scientific method.
Phenomenology, the study of lived experience, offers valuable insight into human perception and the human condition. It allows us to explore the richness of consciousness, the nuances of subjective experience, and how meaning and purpose are shaped through personal and cultural interpretation. However, phenomenological experiences are prone to biases, illusions, and self-reinforcing narratives, making them an unreliable sole foundation for understanding reality.
In Mystrikism, we do not dismiss phenomenology, we refine it through structured, reality-tested approaches to knowledge. This is where the scientific method, critical thinking, and modes of reasoning (as detailed in the Integrated Principles of Science) become indispensable. These methodologies act as calibration tools, ensuring that what we perceive is not just an internal experience but an external reality.
The Scientific Method as a Refinement of Subjectivity
Science is often mischaracterised as sterile, detached, or at odds with human experience, but this is a misunderstanding of its role. In reality, science is a human experience in its own right, an extension of our natural curiosity and pattern recognition. The difference is that it provides a structured process to refine and verify our perceptions, preventing us from falling into confirmation bias.
Take Sherlock Holmes as an example. The detective’s keen observational skills (a phenomenological process) give him valuable insights. However, he could easily be misled without the rigorous process of deduction, cross-examination, and empirical validation. No matter how compelling, his initial impressions must be tested, refined, and proven reliable.
Similarly, phenomenological experiences are not inherently misleading but require structured inquiry and verification to ensure they are not just self-reinforcing illusions. Mystrikism seeks to sharpen the clarity of personal experience through disciplined inquiry, not discard it altogether (at least not initially).
This aligns directly with one of Mystrikism’s core principles: to strive to be honest, upholding the scientific method as the most reliable means of comprehending reality.
Phenomenology
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 7 of 8
Expanding Phenomenology Through Coherence
While Mystrikism does not reject phenomenology, it embraces it with refinement. Subjective experience is meaningful but must be contextualised within a framework that prevents misinterpretation.
Consider astronomy before the telescope:
-
Ancient civilisations observed celestial movements and constructed complex myths about the stars. However, without scientific tools to verify their interpretations, they reached incorrect conclusions, such as geocentrism.
-
With the advent of telescopes, rigorous observation, and the scientific method, we refined our understanding, transitioning from myths to astrophysics.
In this analogy, phenomenology is the first-hand experience of looking at the stars, it is subjectively meaningful and significant. But science is the telescope, ensuring that our interpretations are not mere illusions but precise representations of reality.
This principle is reflected in Mystrikism’s modes of reasoning, which employ inductive, abductive and finally deductive reasoning in the gradual process of refining our understanding.
Kindness and Openness to the Unknown
A core Mystrikal principle is approaching the unknown with reverence, not dogma. At least not dogmatic dogma.
Many belief systems impose rigid frameworks onto the unknown, either fearing it, glorifying it, worshipping it, or pretending to understand it with immutable certainty. Mystrikism, by contrast, sees the unknown as a dynamic infinite aspect of reality, a space for discovery, curiosity, respect, and awe.
This aligns with Aweism, a feature of the Union’s naturalised “spirituality”, which acknowledges that our experience of the universe transcends ordinary comprehension yet remains grounded in naturalism. Rather than attributing profound experiences to supernatural forces, Mystrikism encourages us to sit and be at peace with the mystery, and to savour and admire its sublimity, ineffability and inexplicability, while remaining intellectually honest.
Take theoretical physics as an example:
-
Scientists exploring concepts like quantum entanglement, dark matter, and the multiverse are working at the edges of the unknown. However, unlike mysticism, they do not assert conclusions without evidence. They approach these mysteries with curiosity, humility, and a willingness to be proven wrong.
This is the Mystrikal approach: we embrace mystery and wonder, but never at the cost of the best approximation of truth.
Phenomenology
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 8 of 8
Balancing Subjectivity with Objectivity
The challenge, then, is not to discard subjectivity but to develop a mature, honest relationship with it.
-
Unfiltered subjectivity leads to self-deception (as seen in conspiracy theories, superstition, and misinformation).
-
Without an appreciation for human experience, rigid objectivity can feel sterile and meaningless.
Mystrikism rejects both extremes and instead seeks a balance where the richness of subjective experience is honoured but constantly tested against reality.
A practical analogy:
-
A bridge engineer versus an artist: An artist might intuitively understand balance and movement, but if they design a bridge without physics, structural testing, or verification, the bridge collapses. On the other hand, an engineer could build a mathematically perfect structure, but without consideration of human experience and aesthetics, it might feel cold, uninspiring, or even unusable.
True wisdom lies in integration, where subjective experience is refined through objective inquiry, and objective knowledge is enriched by human meaning.
Mystrikism’s Path to Wonder, Truth, and Coherence
Mystrikism invites people to approach the mysteries of existence with the following:
-
Intellectual Curiosity – A commitment to truth, even when it challenges our assumptions.
-
Ethical Kindness – An awareness of how knowledge impacts well-being.
-
Deep Respect for Reality – Neither imposing rigid beliefs nor abandoning the pursuit of truth.
Ultimately, this is not a rejection of phenomenology but an expansion of it, ensuring that our experiences align with reality rather than self-confirming illusions.
By cultivating a deeper relationship with both subjectivity and objectivity, we enrich our understanding of the universe without falling into dogmatic dogma, unquestioning belief, or intellectual arrogance.
Thus, the Mystrikal approach is neither pure subjectivity nor rigid empiricism but an honest, ever-evolving inquiry into reality, guided by both reason and wonder.
"Spirituality"
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 3
[Audio version]
Aweism and Phenomenological Efficacy - A Mystrik's "Spirituality"
Why does Aweism belong in our "spiritual" trinity of the unknown? Moments of awe are real to us and deeply felt, yet they are beyond our complete comprehension or comprehension, period. They exist in that liminal space where we can describe their effects but not fully understand and trace their origins. Whether it's the vastness of a star-filled sky, the delicate perfection of a dewdrop clinging to a blade of grass, or the electrifying swell of a perfect piece of music, awe reshapes us in ways science has yet to decode. One day, if our species endures, the integrated methods of science may explain it, but never entirely, and that won't change the experience. We will still feel it, uniquely and personally. The feeling is intensely real yet entirely subjective, offering a powerful sense of transcendence, not in a supernatural way, but as an experience of vastness, sublimity, connection, and wonder.
The Science Behind Awe
Sociologist Phil Zuckerman, who coined the term "Aweism” in his book: 'Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions', described it as a profound and overflowing feeling that secular individuals experience when confronted with something extraordinary. Neuro-scientific research supports this idea: awe diminishes the activity of ego-centred regions of the brain while activating areas associated with selflessness, curiosity, and heightened perception. In simpler terms, awe makes us feel appropriately smaller yet more connected. It humbles us, expands our worldview, reduces stress, and even altering our perception of time.
Experiencing Awe in the Everyday
Awe is not confined to grand spectacles or rare celestial events. It emerges just as readily in the ordinary if we train ourselves to hunt for, or merely notice it:
-
The quiet beauty of early morning light spilling through your window.
-
The intricate perfection of a spider's web shimmering with the last light of the day.
-
The unspoken depth in a moment of kindness between strangers.
-
The shared understanding when reading words written centuries ago, yet feeling their meaning as if they were spoken today.
-
The gravity of intuitive discovery.
Awe can be either spontaneous and intentional or both. Sometimes, it strikes us out of nowhere, but in every case, we cultivate it by pausing, observing, savouring, and immersing ourselves fully in the moment.
Phenomenology - The Art of Experience
Phenomenology studies lived experience and what it is like to exist in any given moment. While objectivity describes what is happening externally, phenomenology explores what it feels like. Mystrikism views phenomenology as the gateway to Aweism: the means through which we fully absorb and appreciate moments of awe.
Imagine the first inhale of crisp air on a Winter’s morning, the way it fills your lungs with a quiet sharpness. The sensation of sunlight on your skin after stepping out of the shade, warmth seeping into you like an unspoken embrace. Feel the electric contrast between hesitation and immersion when your fingertips graze the surface of cold water before fully plunging in. Or the fleeting yet profound recognition of yourself in someone else's eyes, a moment of connection beyond words.
These are phenomenological experiences.
Here is where we get to the meat of this concept. Beyond merely experiencing awe, Mystrikism explores how these moments can shape us, through what is called phenomenological efficacy. Awe does not just uplift us, it broadens our awareness, and fill us with a sense of belonging and interconnectedness. It changes behaviour and expands connections. It lingers in our minds, inspires creativity, activates our minds, influences our future actions and deepens our understanding of ourselves and the world. Consider:
-
The Runner in the Zone - Feeling euphoric and weightless, they push themselves further than they thought possible.
-
The Pier in the Breeze - The salty wind brushes their skin, the waves murmur below, and the world feels boundless for a moment.
-
The Musician on Stage - The immersive energy of the moment fuels an extraordinary performance.
-
The Artist in Flow - Lost in creation, they feel the work unfolds through them rather than by them as if tapping into something greater than themselves.
-
The Scientist at a Breakthrough - A moment of insight leads to discoveries that shift human understanding.
-
The Dancer in Motion - As they move, the boundaries between body, music, and space dissolve, creating a moment of pure presence and effortless expression.
-
The Listener to a Powerful Story - Their worldview shifts, their empathy expands, and they make choices they never would have before.
Experiencing awe alters us, subtly or profoundly, leading us to deeper insights, stronger connections, and sometimes even positive life-changing decisions.
The Practice of Pausing - Opening Yourself to Awe
Central to Mystrikism is the deliberate practice of pausing, resisting the momentum of modern life to make space for awe. The world is always astonishing, but too often, we are too preoccupied to look for it, let alone notice and appreciate it.
-
Instead of rushing through your morning, pause to savour the warmth of your coffee, the way it curls in steam against the air.
-
Instead of hurrying past a tree, stop and run your fingers along its bark. Feel the texture, the ridges shaped by time, the quiet presence of something that has stood for decades, perhaps centuries.
-
Instead of tuning out the sound of rain, listen. Hear the rhythm as it meets leaves, rooftops, or the earth. Each drop is a fleeting note in an endless symphony.
-
Instead of checking your phone while waiting in line, observe the small, unspoken moments around you, the way strangers interact, the flicker of expressions, and the way light moves across the room.
-
Instead of inhaling your meal without thought, notice the flavours, the textures, the effort and the history behind what's on your plate.
Pausing is not passive, it is a conscious defiance against the dulling effects of routine. It is an invitation to deepen our experience of reality, move beyond mere existence, engage, feel, and experience the transcendent and sublime inexplicability of the cosmos.
Aweism offers a rational path to embracing the mysteries of existence. It does not ask for supernatural beliefs or leaps of faith; it simply invites us to be present, to appreciate, and to marvel at the profound beauty of the natural world. These moments of marvel, whether grand or seemingly mundane, remind us that while we may never fully understand the universe, we can revel in its mystery.
"Spirituality"
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 3
The Dynamic and Infinite Unknown - Reclaiming Perspective
In Mystrikism, we acknowledge the unknown not as a forbidding void to be filled with speculative fears and gods of the gaps but as a fundamental and rational aspect of reality, an ideational realm that humbles us, tempers egotism, and offers an unparalleled and much-needed perspective on our place in existence.
This is the second part of our Trinity of the Unknown, following Aweism, which explored the transformative power of profound experiences. Now, we turn to the infinite and dynamic unknown, a concept that replaces traditional notions of "higher power" with something real, vast, undeniable and intrinsically inexplicable, with the boundless mysteries of reality itself. Unlike supernatural beliefs, the unknown is both an actual and abstract concept with no mind, agency, personality, agenda, awareness, or any divine, paranormal, or supernatural elements to speak of. Just merely what we are not aware of, know or comprehend. Mystrikism recognises it as wholly natural and impersonal, an immense, indifferent force that inspires and challenges us.
The Infinite Unknown as a Rational "Higher Concept"
For centuries, religious traditions have positioned a "higher power" as a being or mythical force that governs existence, judges morality, confers humility, or bestows meaning. Mystrikism reframes this concept not by rejecting the idea of, or the need for, something greater than ourselves but by redefining what "greater" should mean.
The unknown is the only power beyond us that does not contradict reason and logic, and is steadfastly in alignment with the principles of science. The unknown's vast, fluxive, inexhaustible nature makes it eternally beyond the full reach of human comprehension. Unlike religious deities, it has no will, no desires, no intention, it does not watch, guide, or intervene. It humbles us by confronting the limits of our understanding. It dismantles our arrogance by revealing how we are both an interconnected piece of the puzzle and how infinitesimal we are in the grand scheme of existence. The secrets yet to be uncovered offer perspective, reminding us that no individual, civilisation, or even species is the centre of the universe, or that we all are, which is essentially the same thing.
To revere the unknown in Mystrikism is not to worship or glorify it, but to revere it (simply meaning respect and awe) as the epic and dynamic reality that precedes us, outlives us, and defines the very limits of what we know.
Humility in the Face of the Unknown
The infinite unknown is a relentless force against egotism and self-importance. It strips away illusions of certainty, reminding us that no amount of knowledge will ever be absolute or complete. Every scientific discovery, every philosophical insight, every moment of personal revelation peels back one layer, only to reveal countless more beneath it. This recognition is not a flaw of human nature but a defining feature of reality itself. The idea that we will, one day, fully comprehend the universe is not realistic. History has shown that the most incredible leaps forward in human thought have come not from certainty but from the willingness to admit ignorance.
Humility in Mystrikism is not about self-diminishment but about intellectual honesty. Acknowledging how much we do not know opens the door to deeper inquiry, greater wisdom, and a more profound appreciation for existence. As the Stoic philosopher Epictetus observed, "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”
The Unknown as a Corrective to Ego
The unknown does not exist with our comfort in mind, it exists independently of us. Yet, its mere presence is enough to dismantle our hubris. Individual egotism and anthropocentrism thrive on control, certainty, and the belief that we understand enough to dictate meaning, morality, and purpose. It convinces us that our viewpoints, our ideologies, and our grasp of reality are fixed and correct. The infinite unknown destroys that illusion. .
-
The history of science is littered with once-unchallenged "truths" that were later overturned.
-
The universe is expanding and changing at an accelerating rate, defying old assumptions about cosmic structure.
-
The nature of consciousness remains elusive despite centuries of philosophy and neuroscience.
Every certainty is temporary, and every conclusion is provisional. The unknown forces us to remain adaptable, agile, open, and curious instead of rigid, dogmatic, or self-assured.
Perspective Through the Infinite Unknown
Our perspective shifts when we place ourselves within the vastness of the unknown. Suddenly, personal anxieties, individual ambitions, and even the agendas of entire societies can feel less important - not meaningless, but contextual.
Recognising the infinite unknown means embracing the idea that we are not at the centre of existence but are a part of it. This perspective is not nihilistic, it is liberating. It allows us to shed the burden of self-importance and instead engage with reality in a genuine, humble, and authentically connected way.
-
We are a brief moment in an endless timeline.
-
We are a fragment of something unimaginably vast.
-
We are, and always will be, students of the unknown.
This is not a cause for despair - it is a source of awe. It means there is always more to learn, more to explore, more to experience, and more beauty to uncover.
Reverence Without Worship
Mystrikism does not ask us to exalt, glorify or pray to the unknown, only to respect it for what it is.
-
A reminder of our limits - a check against arrogance and certainty.
-
A catalyst for curiosity - an invitation to explore, question, and seek deeper understanding.
-
A perspective shift - showing us that we are neither insignificant nor central but interconnected within something grander than ourselves.
This is not submission, it is engagement. It is not magic, it is rational awe. The unknown is a reality to be revered, studied, and explored. It is, and will always be, the great companion of curiosity, the eternal catalyst of discovery, and the most honest and effective teacher of humility.
"Spirituality"
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 3
The Eternal Purpose
Traditional worldviews often present purpose as something fixed, bestowed by an external authority, written in ancient texts, or embedded in the fabric of reality. Mystrikism takes a different approach: purpose is neither given nor predetermined but fluid, personal, and ever-unfolding.
The ultimate purpose of sapient life is the pursuit of understanding. Our existence is not about fulfilling a preordained destiny but an ongoing process of discovery about ourselves, each other, the intricate ecosystems of nature, and the cosmos. As Carl Sagan beautifully expressed, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." Every moment of insight, every step toward greater awareness, is a triumph over ignorance. We are the instruments through which the universe examines its own complexity, and with every question asked, we illuminate the hidden corners of reality.
For a Mystrik, purpose is not a fixed destination but an evolving journey, the search itself. Meaning is not imposed from the outside, it is something we create through curiosity, exploration, and deep engagement with existence.
Meaning from the Unknown. – The Role of Mystery
Every discovery brings forth new questions. Science, philosophy, and human understanding are not about closing gaps but revealing deeper layers of complexity. Imagine discovering the most beautiful and expansive theme park in the world, and each time you enjoy a ride, at the end, you find a thousand more, each more exciting and intriguing than the next. The structure of DNA was not the end of biology but the gateway to genetic mysteries. The theory of relativity did not complete physics; it opened the door to quantum mechanics.
The unknown is not a void to be feared or filled with desperate nonsense. It is the very thing that sustains our sense of purpose. Meaning is not found in having all the answers but in the insatiable drive to seek them.
Embracing the Infinite Unknown
The core principle of Mystrikism is to honour and engage with the vast mysteries of the universe. Our pursuit is not about arriving at a final, absolute truth but the continuous expansion of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.
The unknown is not a problem to be solved, it is the foundation of wonder. It humbles us, tempers our pride, and expands our perspective. It reminds us that while we are nanoscopic in the grand scale of existence, our ability to seek and uncover the best approximation of truth is uniquely ours, at least until we encounter other sufficiently sapient beings. We have finite lives with infinite questions, and this paradox makes the journey all the more rich and meaningful.
Eternal Purpose. – Why It is Timeless
One of the most profound realisations in Mystrikism is that purpose is not something to be "completed." The illusion that we can someday reach the final answer, the ultimate resolution, is a misunderstanding of the nature of existence.
If our purpose were finite if one day we could say: "It is done, we have learned all there is to learn," what would come next? The fact that discovery is endless is not a flaw in existence, it is its most beautiful feature.
For some, the idea of an infinite journey may feel unsettling, but for a Mystrik, it is exhilarating. There will always be more to experience, understand, and explore. This ensures that meaning is not a fleeting moment or a finished task but a constant process, renewed with every question asked, every insight gained, and every moment intensely lived.
The Trilogy Complete
With this, we conclude the three-part exploration of Mystrikism's naturalised "spirituality": Aweism, the Infinite Unknown, and Eternal Purpose & Meaning. Each facet of the Trinity of the Unknown reflects how Mystriks "spiritually" engage with the unknown and existence: we embrace awe, revere the unknown, and pursue meaning through the endless search for understanding.
This means that it is not something handed down but something we forge. It is found in our curiosity, our connections, and the moments we choose to experience and savour. The journey is not just the path. It is the purpose. As long as there are questions left, our purpose remains eternally renewed. .
Dreams, Simulations, & Solipsism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 4
Why Engage With Solipsism?
Solipsism, the idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist poses deep questions about perception and reality. It is an extreme form of scepticism that asks: what if everything and everyone around you is merely a creation of your own mind? This radical doubt has appeared in many forms throughout history. From Descartes’ Dream Argument (the notion that life could be an elaborate dream) to modern sci-fi twists like the Simulation Hypothesis (the idea that we live in a computer simulation) and even ancient spiritual concepts like the Hindu notion of Maya (the world as an illusion), humans have long imagined that the reality we experience might not be “real” in the way we think. There are even whimsical variants like Last Thursdayism, which humorously suggests the universe could have been created last Thursday with false memories of an older world. All these scenarios, including solipsism in its pure form, challenge our ordinary assumption of an external, shared world.
While such ideas make for fascinating mental exercises, Mystrikism sees solipsism as ultimately unsustainable because it contradicts evidence, reason, and practical experience. The Union of Mystriks, an agnostic, non-theistic philosophical group, does not consider solipsism a viable worldview. In the same way that we reject claims of absolute certainty, our evidence-based approach respects healthy scepticism but rejects extreme, nihilistic doubt that denies all external reality. The successes of science and technology (from consistent laboratory observations to functional engineering and medical advances) strongly indicate an existence independent of any observer’s beliefs. In short, however intriguing radical scepticism may be, Mystrikism maintains that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Reliable, objective, verified, reproducible, relevant, trustworthy, empirical, logical, and falsifiable evidence - and solipsism and its cousins provide none.
Other Ontological Uncertainty Theories that share similarities with solipsism:
-
Simulation Hypothesis – Proposes that our entire world might be a sophisticated computer simulation run by advanced beings. In this view, everything we experience is generated by code, and what we think of as physical reality is actually a virtual construct. If true, our “external” world is no more real than a highly immersive video game.
-
Dream Argument – Suggests that waking life could be indistinguishable from a dream. Just as we occasionally realise we have been dreaming, one could wonder if it’s possible we never truly wake up. This line of thought, dating back to Descartes’ meditations, asks how to be sure the world we experience isn’t just a persistent illusion like a dream.
-
Maya (Hindu Philosophy) – In ancient Indian philosophy, Maya is the concept that the physical world is an illusory veil, disguising a deeper spiritual reality. What we perceive with our senses is compared to a magic trick or mirage – captivating but not the ultimate truth. This perspective encourages looking beyond material appearances in search of a fundamental truth underlying the illusion.
-
Subjective Idealism – The philosophical view (notably championed by George Berkeley) that only minds and mental contents exist. In subjective idealism, an object exists only when some mind perceives it. This is slightly less radical than solipsism (which says only one mind exists) because it allows multiple minds to perceive and thus bring reality into existence. Nonetheless, it shares with solipsism the notion that an independent material world is illusory.
These scenarios and others (e.g. the “Boltzmann Brain” thought experiment, where a single self-aware brain pops into existence by chance, or the tongue-in-cheek Last Thursdayism mentioned earlier) illustrate how far the imagination can go in questioning reality. Each has its own flavour, but all share a common problem: they undermine the idea of an objective, knowable world and are typically unfalsifiable. Mystrikism approaches all such claims with the same healthy scepticism, we may entertain them hypothetically, but we withhold belief in them absent reliable evidence. With this broader context in mind, let’s examine why solipsism, in particular, fails as a credible or helpful worldview.
Dreams, Simulations, & Solipsism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 4
Conflicts with Science and Objective Inquiry
Solipsism fundamentally conflicts with the scientific and rational inquiry that Mystrikism holds dear. Our philosophy centres on uncovering the best approximation of truth using reason and evidence. Any claim that no external world exists undermines this entire project because it suggests that evidence itself (coming as observations from the world) cannot be trusted or has no meaning. Solipsism’s unfalsifiable nature makes it scientifically meaningless. If no possible test could ever disprove the idea that “everything is in my mind,” then the idea sits outside the realm of science. A hypothesis that explains any outcome (since every result could be “just my imagination”) explains nothing. This is why solipsism and its parallel theories fail under the principles of verificationism and falsificationism. They cannot be verified through any objective test, nor can they be falsified, so they provide no useful insight into reality by Mystrikism’s standards.
Real-world evidence overwhelmingly favours an external reality. The consistent laws of physics and repeatable experiments work regardless of who observes them, a strong indication that the world isn’t just a personal hallucination. For example, if you and I drop two separate objects falling according to gravity, we can verify the other’s result. If only my mind existed, I would have to be unwittingly “inventing” your confirming observation as well, an unnecessary and convoluted assumption. The success of technology and medicine also testifies to a stable external world. Computers function, aircraft fly, and surgeries heal bodies only because the underlying physical principles remain constant and independent of anyone’s belief.
Solipsistic thinking also misinterprets specific scientific findings. Take quantum mechanics: Some widespread misreadings claim that “a conscious observer creates reality” at the subatomic level. In truth, physics shows that interactions (not conscious minds per se) cause quantum states to change or “collapse.” Experiments demonstrate that particles interact with their environment in predictable ways without any human observer present. Reality doesn’t wink out of existence when nobody looks, it chugs along, as evidenced by, say, the formation of stars in galaxies billions of lightyears away long before any life existed to observe them.
Additionally, neuroscience strongly indicates an external source for our experiences. Our brains evolved in response to an external environment; sensory organs receive input from outside. We know this because altering the brain alters perception. Injuries to specific brain regions could make one lose the ability to see motion or recognise faces, which makes sense only if those brain regions were processing real external information to begin with. Similarly, hallucinations, often cited by solipsists as proof that the mind can fabricate reality, are in fact, rare, internally generated misfires that we can distinguish from veridical perception. A hallucination implies a reality against which false perceptions can be measured (we call it a hallucination precisely because it doesn’t match external truth). All of this shows that treating the external world as real and knowable is incredibly successful for prediction and explanation, whereas treating it as imaginary leads nowhere. In short, solipsism clashes with the entire enterprise of objective inquiry. Denying the existence of a shared, law-governed universe asks us to abandon our most reliable tools for understanding our experiences.
Breeding Ethical and Social Nihilism
If taken seriously, solipsism would erode the very foundation of ethics and human connection. Any sound ethical system requires a shared reality where the actions of one person can help or harm other conscious beings. However, a solipsist, believing that “others” don’t indeed exist as independent minds, could question why anything matters beyond their own immediate experience. If the world is only a figment of my mind, does the pain or joy of other people have any significance? This line of thought can slide into a dangerous moral nihilism, the idea that concepts of right and wrong or caring for others are meaningless since “others” are just imaginary.
Mystrikism strongly rejects this implication. We observe that, in practice, no one who entertains solipsism actually lives by its logic. Even if someone claims “other people might not be real,” that person still reacts with empathy and social emotion as if others are real, it’s human nature. We are an intensely social species, and our brains are hardwired for connection. For instance, neuroscientific research on mirror neurons shows that we instinctively resonate with others’ experiences; seeing someone in pain can trigger the same areas of our brain as if we felt the pain ourselves. This empathy makes little sense if others were mere phantoms. The fact that we naturally feel compassion and understand others to be conscious like ourselves is strong practical evidence that other minds are real.
Furthermore, all meaningful social interaction assumes reality is shared. Language, for example, only works because we presume there is a common world we’re both referring to when we communicate. Legal systems, moral norms, friendships, and love do not make sense under true solipsism. If I genuinely believed you were just a figment of my imagination, why respect your rights or listen to your opinion? Yet virtually no one, solipsist thought experiment aside, would ignore a child’s cry for help or treat other people as lifeless NPC’s in a video game. The Golden Rule (treat others as you wish to be treated) resonates across cultures precisely because we all know others feel pain and joy like we do. Thus, a solipsist worldview isn’t only unscientific – if acted upon, it would be profoundly antisocial and ethically barren. Mystrikism’s compassionate, evidence-based philosophy holds that our working assumption must be that other people are real and matter. Any philosophy that suggests otherwise is not only unverifiable but would strip life of empathy, responsibility, and meaning. The fact that solipsism is “unliveable” in this way – even by those who ponder it – shows its value is, at best, that of a thought experiment, not a guide to living.
Dreams, Simulations, & Solipsism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 4
Misinterpreting Consciousness and Experience
Solipsism stems from the correct observation that all our experiences are subjective, everything we know comes through the filter of our own mind. However, it takes this truth to an unwarranted extreme conclusion that nothing exists beyond our own mind. In doing so, solipsism misinterprets the nature of consciousness. Mystrikism acknowledges that each of us is trapped, in a sense, in the perspective of our own mind (you only ever directly feel your own thoughts and sensations). But it does not follow that an external world isn’t causing those sensations. The solipsist conflates having an experience of the world with inventing the world wholesale. Just because we cannot step outside our perceptions doesn’t mean there is no objective reality feeding those perceptions.
Our current understanding of consciousness suggests the opposite of what solipsism claims. The mind appears to arise from interaction with an external reality, not in isolation from it. Developmental psychology shows that from infancy onward, we test our perceptions against the external environment (think of a baby dropping objects to learn about gravity or touching things to learn about texture). Our brains build an internal world model, which is moulded and corrected by external inputs. When the external inputs are abnormal, for instance, in sensory deprivation experiments or when using hallucinogenic drugs, the mind’s model can decouple from reality and produce strange, self-generated experiences. Crucially, we recognise those for what they are: mind tricks that occur when normal input is disrupted. A hallucination or a vivid dream can be startling, but upon waking or returning to normal conditions, we realise those experiences were misrepresentations. They tend to be disjointed or fleeting, whereas interacting with the consistent outside world provides a continuous and coherent narrative for our lives.
Notably, even experiences people often cite as “proof” of reality being an illusion end up reinforcing an external reality when examined closely. Take the example of lucid dreaming: you can become aware you’re dreaming and even manipulate the dream, but recognising a dream as a dream means you understand there’s a more real state to compare it to (waking life). Or consider mystical experiences during deep meditation or induced by psychedelics, where individuals report a dissolution of the ego or a feeling of “oneness” with the universe. These can be profound and subjectively real, but they do not actually demonstrate that the external world is fake, usually, people interpret them as glimpses into a different aspect of reality or consciousness, not as a revelation that “other people don’t exist.” Many who have such experiences come back with a greater appreciation for connections with others, not an assumption that others are imaginary.
Philosophically, solipsism often contrasts with idealism or phenomenalism, claiming that reality is mind-dependent. However, even these frameworks typically accept that there might be multiple minds or a structured way that experiences occur (for example, Berkeley’s subjective idealism still had God ensuring consistency between individual observers). Solipsism jettisons even that structure, leaving one lone thinker without common ground. Mystrikism finds this to be an unnecessary leap. It’s a far more parsimonious explanation that an external world exists and that our consciousness is a product of a biological brain interacting with that world. All available evidence supports this: from the alterations in consciousness we can produce with physical interventions (drugs, brain stimulation, surgery) to the way independent observers agree on what they perceive (impossible to explain if each of us were just imagining everything separately). Solipsism claims that the entire universe lives inside one’s head, but it is actually an extraordinary claim about the nature of existence. As such, it would require extraordinarily robust proof to be taken seriously. Yet there is no evidence for it, only the philosophical challenge that it’s difficult to disprove completely. Mystrikism reminds us that “not being disprovable” is not the same as “likely true.” We can dream up many unfalsifiable scenarios, but we do not (and should not) believe them without positive evidence.
Solipsism and its many related conjectures are intriguing reminders to question the certainty of what we think we know. Engaging with these ideas can be a helpful exercise in humility, illustrating the epistemic limits of our knowledge (after all, we experience the world only through our own minds). Mystrikism encourages healthy scepticism and open-minded inquiry, we do not dogmatically assume our perceptions are infallible. However, we draw a firm line between constructive scepticism and absolute nihilistic doubt. Ultimately, solipsism fails every practical and theoretical test: it is unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and undermines scientific understanding and human values. By contrast, assuming an external reality and other minds exist has led to tremendous success in knowledge and ethics, from curing diseases to building coherent moral societies to simply having meaningful relationships.
Mystrikism’s stance is to remain agnostic but evidence-demanding. Just as we reject unfounded theological claims (in line with our agnostic non-theism) due to lack of evidence, we likewise reject solipsism’s radical claim for the very same reason. Both God and the solipsist’s world of one face a similar issue: neither can be substantiated with reliable, objective, verified, reproducible, relevant, empirical, logical, and falsifiable evidence. In our commitment to the scientific method, a claim must at least be testable or supported by converging evidence to earn credibility. Solipsism offers nothing of the sort. It asks us to believe that all of reality magically centres on one perceiver without providing any mechanism or proof, a proposition no more convincing than the idea that an undetectable trickster deity is fooling us.
Why engage with solipsism, then? As a philosophical exercise, examining it strengthens our appreciation for why we trust the scientific process and common-sense reality in the first place. It reminds us not to take claims at face value and always to consider what counts as evidence. After such an examination, we can confidently conclude that living as if an external reality exists is not only unavoidable but profoundly sensible. The world may not be exactly as it appears (science continually revises our understanding of it), but it demonstrably exists beyond our heads. We share experiences with other minds, solve problems in that external world, and make progress by assuming reality’s independence. In the spirit of Mystrikism, we remain open to new information, if someday a genuine test of the Simulation Hypothesis or other radical idea emerges, we will examine it with an impartial eye. Until then, we provisionally accept that reality is real. Solipsism, along with its various imaginative cousins, ultimately reinforces a core principle of Mystrikism: claims that cannot meet basic standards of evidence and falsifiability can be set aside as interesting thought experiments, but they should not command our belief or alter the way we behave in the real world.
Dreams, Simulations, & Solipsism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 4 of 4
The Various Forms of Classic Solipsism
-
Epistemological Solipsism - is the view that one can only know the contents of their own mind for certain, and nothing outside the mind can be confirmed . The existence of an external world or other minds is treated as an unsolvable question or an unnecessary hypothesis rather than something that can be proven .
-
Methodological Solipsism - is an approach that uses the individual’s mind as the sole sure starting point for building knowledge or theories . It doesn’t deny the external world outright; instead, it insists that any claim about the outside world be grounded in indisputable facts of one’s own consciousness . This is a strategy or thought experiment in skepticism, not a literal belief that nothing else exists.
-
Ethical Solipsism - is the moral stance that only one’s personal moral judgment exists or matters, with no objective moral values outside one’s own viewpoint . In essence, it considers the individual’s conscience as the only source of right and wrong, dismissing external or societal moral standards unless they align with one’s own.
-
Theistic Solipsism – A spiritual twist on the idea, suggesting that only God’s mind truly exists and everything (and everyone) else is a projection of that single divine consciousness. In this view, the entire universe is essentially God dreaming all of us. This is related to certain mystical philosophies claiming the world is a deliberate illusion created by a higher power to test or teach the soul. (Notably, as a non-theistic philosophy, Mystrikism finds such claims just as unconvincing as secular solipsism due to their complete lack of empirical evidence.)
Similar Existential Uncertainty Theories and Scenarios
Many hypotheses of unreality echo kindred themes of solipsism. A few notable examples include:
-
Omphalos Hypothesis - This asserts that the world was created to look old, complete with all the features and evidence that imply ancient origins, even though it is actually new. It questions how we interpret evidence of age and history by suggesting that appearances can be misleading by design.
-
Delusory or Hallucinatory Reality Theories - These theories argue that what we perceive as reality might be nothing more than a shared hallucination or cognitive trick. They challenge the assumption of an independent, objective world by suggesting that our entire experience of reality could be a construct of the mind or even manipulated by unknown forces.
-
Coma Dream Theory - According to this theory, your entire life might be one continuous dream experienced during a prolonged coma-like state. It blurs the line between waking life and dream, suggesting that the reality we take for granted could simply be an extended, internally generated hallucination.
-
Drug-Induced Reality Theory - This idea posits that our collective perception of reality might be similar to a shared psychedelic experience, where biochemical processes in the brain alter our experience of what’s “real.” It raises questions about whether our sensory inputs genuinely reflect an external world or are merely the products of chemical interactions.
-
Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis - Proposes that your consciousness could be a spontaneous, random fluctuation, a self-aware “bubble” that pops into existence with fabricated memories. In this view, the coherent experience of life might be the unlikely byproduct of chance rather than evidence of a stable, external world.
-
Nihilistic and Anti-Realist Approaches (No External Reality) - These approaches take a radical stance by asserting that there is no objective, external reality at all. They argue that any order or meaning we perceive is just a human construct, leaving us with a perspective that the world, in its truest sense, is empty of inherent significance.
-
Illusionism (Philosophy of Mind) - Contends that our sense of consciousness may be a kind of cognitive illusion. It challenges the idea that our inner experiences are as solid or reliable as the external world, suggesting instead that what we take to be the essence of the mind might be a misleading construct.
-
Radical Subjectivism - Argues that all we truly know is our own personal, subjective experience. While it stops short of denying the existence of other minds outright, it insists that every aspect of reality is filtered through our individual perception, making the notion of an objective, independent world highly questionable.
-
Transcendental Idealism - Introduced by Kant, this theory argues that the mind’s inherent structures shape our experience of the world. While we can never know things “in themselves,” there is still an external reality that our senses and concepts filter, making it less extreme than solipsism but still challenging the idea of an entirely objective, mind-independent world.
-
Radical Constructivism - This approach suggests that our minds actively construct all knowledge and perceptions of reality. It doesn’t outright deny an external world, but it maintains that what we know is entirely the product of our internal cognitive processes. This idea echoes solipsistic scepticism about any direct access to objective reality.
-
Ego Tunnel Theory - This idea, popularised by Thomas Metzinger, claims that our entire conscious experience is like an “ego tunnel” created by our brain. In other words, what we consider reality is merely an internal model or simulation, a construct that may not accurately mirror any objective world. It’s similar to “Brain in a Vat” or “Illusionism,” emphasising that our perceptions are essentially the brain’s way of representing an uncertain external reality.
-
Brain in a Vat - This classic thought experiment imagines that you might just be a brain maintained in a vat, with all your sensory experiences fed by artificial signals. It raises questions about how, or if, we can ever be sure that our perceptions truly correspond to an external, physical world.
-
Theological & Mystical Variants (Divine or Spiritual “Illusions”) - These variants propose that our perceived reality is a temporary or deceptive manifestation created by a higher spiritual or divine force. They suggest that the world as we see it is less about concrete physical existence and more about a mystical illusion meant to guide us toward a deeper, transcendent truth.
-
Last Thursdayism - Humorously claims that the universe might have been created very recently, say, last Thursday, with all memories and evidence of an older past being fabricated. It’s a playful challenge to our assumptions about history and the reliability of our perceptions.
Principled Disgust
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 6
[Audio version]
In most traditions, religious or secular, repugnance is treated as a moral toxin, something to be eradicated from the emotional ecosystem. But here at the Union of Mystriks, we hold a deeper, more balanced view.
Love and revulsion are siblings, responses to how we value the world. Love arises from kindness, honesty, and compassion. Disgust arises in opposition to deliberate cruelty, malignant dishonesty, malicious recklessness or negligence, and wilful harm. Both compassion and disgust are responses to reality. To deny either one is to dull our moral intelligence.
Some may suggest that legitimising disgust in any form opens a door to abuse. But precisely because of this concern, we demand rigour, transparency, and ethical scaffolding around its use. Our standards are higher because the stakes are higher.
The Poison Is In The Dose
Kindness is not a vague sentiment for us. It is a measurable, evidence-based ethical framework grounded in deliberately and actively increasing well-being and reducing suffering for all life and nature's ecosystems. It is one of our core principles.
We do not practice kindness because it feels good (though it often does) but because it works. It is the most effective strategy for sustaining long-term flourishing and cultivating the peace necessary for the fearless exploration of reality and the universe.
Even this solid foundation has its limits. When applied without discernment, kindness can become a shield for the harmful and a weapon against the vulnerable. Unchecked compassion toward an architect of suffering is not neutrality, it is a betrayal. It permits the continuation of harm and becomes, in effect, further cruelty toward their victims.
When we encounter those who knowingly dismantle or compromise well-being or actively promote irrationality, moral disdain, even hostility, becomes protectively necessary. This isn't about being vindictive, it's punitive. Vindictiveness seeks to satisfy ego or retaliate for personal injury, punitive action, by contrast, seeks to interrupt harm, uphold justice, and protect what is vulnerable. It's about acknowledging that compassion without discernment ceases to be compassion. It becomes negligence.
For example: In an effort to promote tolerance and inclusion, UK authorities in the early 2000s were hesitant to act against extremist hate preachers, fearing accusations of discrimination. This excessive leniency, though rooted in kindness and cultural sensitivity, allowed radical ideologies to spread unchecked, contributing to homegrown extremism and public harm. The intention was compassion; the result was avoidable danger. Even kindness, without boundaries, can become complicit in the harm it seeks to prevent.
Principled Disgust
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 6
What Is Principled Disgust?
Principled disgust is not rage. It is not prejudice. It is reasoned antipathy. An ethically grounded, justified disgust at those actions, behaviours, or ideologies that cause intentional suffering, are knowingly harmful, and are consistently destructive.
Intentionality - means the harm is not accidental or incidental. It is done with a clear objective, carried out with forethought, calculation, strategy or malicious negligence. Whether political, ideological, financial, or personal, the motive behind the action reveals a deliberate disregard for the well-being of others. This level of purpose sets it apart from impulsive mistakes or unconscious bias.
For example: The architects of the Atlantic slave trade, from European ship owners and colonial administrators to African rulers and traders who sold captives, systematically built and maintained a transcontinental industry of human exploitation. This was not incidental harm, it was a calculated system designed to maximise economic profit at the cost of millions of lives, families, and cultures. Regardless of origin, participation in such a system was intentional, strategic, and profoundly unethical.
Knowingness - reflects a full awareness of the consequences. The individual or group understands the harm that will result yet continues, sometimes even intensifying their efforts. This is the hallmark of moral corruption, when one knows what they do is damaging and still persists, indifferent or even pleased by the suffering caused. This is not about punishing ignorance but holding accountable, those who deliberately cause harm.
For example: The Purdue Pharma case is a clear example of knowingness in harm. Despite overwhelming evidence of the addictive nature of OxyContin, Purdue executives aggressively marketed the drug as safe and non-addictive, targeting doctors and vulnerable communities. Internal documents later revealed they were fully aware of the devastating consequences. Yet, they continued to expand distribution, driven by profit, not ignorance.
Consistency - shows a repeated pattern of behaviour or ideology over time. It is not a momentary lapse or isolated incident but a sustained commitment to misinformation or destructive influence. The repetition forms a character, a brand, or a movement that reliably produces misery or spreads ignorance. It would be irrational to equate this with one-off human mistakes. We are not condemning imperfect people, we are responding to persistent, calculated harm.
For example: The Catholic Church's handling of clerical abuse cases spanned decades, continents, and leadership changes. Despite repeated evidence of systemic sexual abuse, the institution consistently protected abusers and silenced victims, revealing a pattern, not isolated errors. In such rare but serious cases, sanctioned outrage arises not despite our kindness, but because of it.
Principled Disgust
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 6
Who Deserves Critical Condemnation?
Disinformation Architects - Those who knowingly spread disinformation that undermines health, safety, or education. This includes anti-vaccine activists who understand the scientific consensus but choose to propagate lies for personal fulfilment, fame or political gain. It includes influencers who profit from conspiracies that erode public trust in evidence-based medicine, ethically accountable institutions of justice, the methods of science, and, ultimately, in one another. These are not innocents. They are dealers in confusion, harming people by proxy. We understand that not everyone who shares misinformation is malicious, but we differentiate between the misled and the misleading.
For example: In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic surged, conspiracy theorist David Icke falsely claimed that 5G technology caused the virus. His videos spread rapidly, resulting in real-world attacks on communication towers and disruption to emergency services. This is not harmless speculation, it's disinformation that endangers lives. Despite global debunking, Icke's ongoing dissemination of falsehoods makes him a clear example of someone who knowingly undermines public safety.
Institutions of Exploitation - Institutions that commodify suffering or marginalise entire populations for profit or power. Whether it be for sweatshop labour, corrupt prison systems, or exploitative healthcare models, these institutions thrive by turning misery into currency. They may wear the face of business, bureaucracy, or nationalism, but beneath is a knowing machine of harm. Critically, this is not an attack on all institutions or any particular political system, it is a condemnation of any structure that has abandoned ethical boundaries in pursuit of gain.
For example: Nestlé, one of the world's largest food and beverage companies, has faced international criticism for its role in commodifying water, a basic human right. Nestlé has extracted and bottled water for profit in drought-affected regions, often leaving local communities with depleted resources. This is not merely aggressive capitalism, it is the systematic extraction of a life-sustaining resource from vulnerable populations for corporate gain.
Promoters of Proud Irrationality - Leaders or movements that glorify irrationality, deny evidence and teach others to do the same. This includes cults of personality, ideologues, and influencers who weaponise misinformation and anti-intellectualism. They don't merely resist the best approximation of truth, they train others to distrust it. Their ignorance is not innocent, it's an orchestrated rejection of honesty. And while free thought must be protected, organised deception must be resisted.
For example: Alex Jones, founder of Infowars, repeatedly claimed that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax. His platform harassed grieving parents incited conspiracy-driven attacks on the victims and their supporters and distorted public perception. Jones's actions are not just incorrect, they're cruel. They exemplify proud irrationality weaponised against facts, decency, and mourning families.
Principled Disgust
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 4 of 6
From Rejection to Strategy - Ethical Opposition
Where principled disgust is emotional and philosophical, ethical opposition is its rational, tactical counterpart. It is not merely a reaction, but a response, deliberate, and measured. It arises when we recognise that certain harmful systems or individuals cannot be reasoned with, reformed, or disarmed through dialogue alone. When empathy fails, and persuasion meets a wall, ethical opposition steps forward, not with vengeance, but with clarity and intention.
This kind of resistance isn’t rooted in bitterness. It doesn’t thirst for domination. Instead, it functions as a protective force, forged in emotional honesty and rational care. It stands as a barrier, between the forces of destruction and those who are vulnerable to being harmed. It aims to shield, oppose, contain and outmanoeuvre what threatens the conditions necessary for well-being and discovery.
Like all forces within the Mystrikal ethos, ethical opposition must remain subject to pause, reflection, and review. It must never become automatic or unexamined. Strategy without humility becomes cruelty. Resistance without introspection becomes dogma. We remain open to being wrong, even about our enemies, because ethical opposition isn’t just about what we fight, but how we fight it.
Some may argue this opens a door to intolerance. That’s a valid concern. Let’s be clear, though. What we reject is not diversity of opinion, nor the honest friction of differing views. What we oppose is that which actively undermines the conditions that make thoughtful disagreement even possible, dishonesty, dehumanisation, manipulation, cruelty, and ideologies that erode the foundations of dialogue itself.
For example: The grassroots resistance to family separation policies at the U.S. border offers a striking example of ethical opposition. When appeals to compassion were ignored and institutions remained complicit, citizens, lawyers, and aid workers organised legal challenges, direct support networks, and sustained public pressure. It wasn’t an act of vengeance, it was a coordinated stand to protect vulnerable children and families from systemic harm. This movement didn’t mirror the cruelty it opposed; it responded with strategic resolve and moral clarity. It illustrates how ethical opposition isn’t about striking back, it’s about standing between harm and the harmed, when dialogue alone has failed.
Principled Disgust
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 5 of 6
The Safeguards of Justified Revulsion
Unlike enduring principles such as honesty or humility, justified revulsion is volatile. It must be watched closely. Unexamined aversion can lead to collateral damage, moral misfires, and personal corruption. That is why Mystrikism insists on specific safeguards:
Agility - Principled rejection must remain dynamic, not dogmatic. The world changes, so must we. If the harm we condemn fades, evolves, or is meaningfully addressed, our response must shift accordingly. Ethical opposition is not eternal punishment. We do not fossilise our antipathy. We adapt. What once demanded strong resistance may later call for forgiveness, dialogue, or closure. If our condemnation stays frozen while the facts move forward, we risk clinging to an outdated grudge, mistaking stagnation for virtue. Agility is how we ensure our revulsion stays tethered to the present, not the past.
For example: Former enemies in post-conflict Rwanda, including perpetrators of horrific violence, have, in many cases, reintegrated into society through the Gacaca court system, local community-led trials designed to promote reconciliation. What this shows is that condemnation, when no longer warranted, can evolve into dialogue. Moral judgment must be adaptable; otherwise, it calcifies and obstructs healing.
Proportionality - Our response must match the scale, intent, and impact of the harm. Not every misstep is a monstrosity. Overreactions, even when rooted in righteous anger, can become their own form of harm. Proportionality reminds us to calibrate our outrage. It asks: Are we responding to cruelty with clarity, or with exaggeration? A minor breach of trust doesn’t warrant exile. A flawed but redeemable figure doesn’t deserve perpetual damnation. We must distinguish between patterns of systemic abuse and isolated errors, between ignorance and malice. Justice loses its credibility when its tone is out of tune with the crime.
For example: During the Red Scare in 1950s America, Senator McCarthy's anti-communist campaign accused countless innocent people of subversion. Careers were destroyed, families torn apart, and freedoms curtailed, all in response to a perceived threat that was exaggerated beyond reason. Proportionality protects us from turning genuine concern into moral hysteria.
Evidence - Revulsion must be earned, not assumed. Feelings alone are not a foundation for ethical action. They may spark investigation, but they do not stand in for proof. Mystrikism holds fast to the scientific method not just as a way of knowing, but as a way of resisting delusion. Condemnation without evidence is ideology masquerading as morality. It creates false villains, polarises communities, and weakens real accountability. Before we oppose, we must examine. Before we denounce, we must verify. If we’re wrong, we admit it. If we’re right, we proceed, but always grounded in what is demonstrable, not what is merely believed.
For example: In the Central Park Five case, five teenagers were wrongfully convicted based on coerced confessions and lacking evidence. Years later, DNA evidence and a confession from the actual perpetrator exonerated them. Their lives had already been irreparably harmed. This tragedy underlines why revulsion, no matter how intense, must be rooted in verified evidence, not emotional momentum or social pressure.
We must ask regularly: Is this condemnation still necessary? Has anything changed? Has the individual, behaviour, or system grown, reformed, or withdrawn? And if so, we adjust.
These safeguards are not bureaucratic niceties, they are ethical boundaries that prevent us from becoming the very thing we oppose. Without agility, proportionality, and evidence-based justification, we risk slipping from sanctioned outrage into unjustified hostility. The very same tools that allow us to ethically stand against cruelty, irrationality, and suffering can easily become weapons of harm themselves if not rigorously and regularly examined.
When repugnance becomes habitual or unaccountable, it ceases to be a moral response and begins to replicate the very cruelty we claim to resist. That is the danger of untethered condemnation: it loses its moral standing and becomes just another source of suffering. Mystrikism demands that our actions, no matter how emotionally charged, remain aligned with measurable well-being, clarity of evidence, and a willingness to evolve. In doing so, we preserve the integrity of our resistance and protect the ethical high ground from which it draws its strength.
Principled Disgust
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 6 of 6
Unexpressed Antipathy Becomes Uncontrolled Destruction
If principled disgust and justified revulsion are not given rational, protected outlets, they do not simply vanish. They rot. They twist inward. They manifest in uncontrolled, irrational, and unethical behaviours that sabotage both self and society.
Antipathy is a natural state when we are confronted with ideologies, behaviours, and individuals that are morally disgusting, ethically repulsive, and consciously harmful. It must be named and rationally guided. Without that, suppressed revulsion becomes destructive animal rage. Disappointment becomes dehumanisation. And justice becomes indistinguishable from vengeance.
Some may advise us to suppress these feelings altogether. But suppression is not peace. It is deferred collapse. Safeguarded, sensible, and asseverated antipathy is ethical and essential to societal and personal mental health.
For example: In post-WWI Germany, resentment over economic collapse and national humiliation was never fully addressed or healthily processed. This unexpressed collective anger fermented into nationalism, scapegoating, and ultimately, the rise of Nazism. When abhorrence is buried instead of examined, it grows twisted and violent, turning a wounded society into a dangerous one.
To live fully, ethically, and awake is to accept the complexity of human emotions. If awe can elevate us, then disgust can protect us. Mystrikism does not demand that we amputate half our nature to appear virtuous. It asks us to integrate and enlighten all our responses under the beacon of reason and ethics.
We do not wield principled rejection lightly. But when safety is endangered, when honesty is distorted, when the best approximation of truth is weaponised, and when compassion is twisted into complicity, we should not remain silent. Even when we burn with justified revulsion, we respond with discipline, scientific integrity, and always, always, with the intent to protect well-being, not to dominate or inflict further harm to the innocent.
Racism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 1 of 4
[Audio version]
What is Racism?
Racism refers to discrimination, prejudice, or unequal treatment based on someone’s perceived racial or ethnic background. But it’s not just about individuals treating others badly because of skin colour, physical traits or genetic heritage. That’s only part of the picture.
Modern understandings of racism, backed by decades of work from scholars, scientists, and civil rights advocates, recognise that racism also includes systemic and institutional forms of inequality. This includes the historical and structural forces that continue to affect opportunities, representation, safety, and well-being across different racial groups, even when no one person is overtly “being racist.”
For example:
-
Structural racism exists when laws, policies, or social systems (like housing, education, healthcare, or criminal justice) disadvantage some racial groups more than others, even without anyone consciously intending harm.
-
Implicit bias refers to unconscious associations that can shape people’s behaviour in subtle but harmful ways, reinforcing racial hierarchies, even among those who consciously reject racism.
-
Cultural racism shows up when certain cultures are treated as inherently inferior or backward, often as a stand-in for racial prejudice without invoking genetics. Mystrikism, however, draws a sharp line here. We never judge people based on biological lineage or racial appearance, but we do believe cultures and ideas should be open to critique. If a cultural practice, backed by strong evidence, promotes harm, oppression, or actively suppresses scientific inquiry, it’s rational to openly challenge and oppose it. That’s not racism. It’s responsible and honest moral evaluation. Still, Mystrikism urges care and nuance. Individuals are not automatically defined by their culture’s worst elements. (See Part 2).
These forms of racism can persist even in societies that publicly denounce racism. That’s why it’s essential to see racism not just as isolated bad behaviour, but as something deeply entangled with power, history, and social systems.
Mystrikism’s Position: We Reject All Forms of Racial Prejudice and Structural Racism
The Union of Mystriks absolutely rejects racism in all its forms, whether personal, institutional, implicit, or cultural. We see no rational or ethical value in judging people by their race, and we recognise the enormous harm caused by both overt bigotry and structural inequality.
Modern science confirms that there are no meaningful biological differences in intelligence, capability, and potential across racial groups. We’re all part of the same human species, shaped by the same evolutionary processes, with a rich diversity of traits worth understanding and respecting.
Mystrikism holds that while individuals should never be judged by race, cultural norms and practices are not above scrutiny, especially when they cause harm, deny rights, or block the pursuit of the best approximation of truth. Evaluating ideas is not the same as condemning people. We believe it’s possible, and necessary, to challenge damaging traditions while still respecting the dignity of those raised within them.
Racism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 2 of 4
[Audio version]
When It Comes to Culture, Is Judgment Ever Valid?
While Mystrikism says, “Don’t judge someone by their skin complexion, racial features or genetic heritage.” Nonetheless, the Union doesn’t pretend all cultural practices or ideologies are equally constructive, beneficial, or worthy of respect. Cultures, whether that of an individual or group, can be evaluated on how well they promote peace, well-being, and scientific inquiry. It is important to acknowledge that Mystrikism recognises that cultures are not static or uniform within themselves.
How do we avoid unfair bias? Mystrikism proposes evaluating cultural norms and behaviours only and, as always, exclusively using reliable, objective, verified, reproducible, relevant, trustworthy, empirical, logical, and falsifiable (R O V R R T E L F - Rovrrtelf) data:
If a culture or cultural practice systematically promotes aggression, oppression, anti-scientific thinking, or a disregard for human rights, Mystrikism believes it’s fair to question and critique that culture or that particular aspect of it. That doesn’t mean instantly condemning all individuals from that culture. Instead, it means recognising patterns that can be measured objectively, especially if they cause persistent harm or hinder scientific exploration.
Real-world examples
-
The Taliban - Commonly recognised as an extremist group that imposes severe restrictions on freedom, especially for women, and stifles scientific, artistic, and secular thought. Many governments classify the Taliban as a terrorist organisation. Their policies and actions often contradict peaceful, curiosity-driven ideals.
-
Nazi ideology - The historical Nazi regime was explicitly racist, destructive, and anti-scientific in its approach to genetics and social policy. Criticising or rejecting Nazi culture is, by definition, opposing a violent and oppressive system. It’s not “racism” to denounce Nazism, it’s a stance against hateful, pseudoscientific ideology.
-
North Korean Regime (Kim Dynasty) - The totalitarian rule in North Korea suppresses free inquiry and controls nearly all forms of information. Independent research, especially if it challenges state narratives, is effectively banned. The state’s strict isolation and propaganda make it almost impossible for most citizens to access objective scientific data from the outside world.
-
Stalinist USSR - Under Joseph Stalin, dissent and academic freedom were severely limited, with significant interference in scientific fields (for example, genetics, which was replaced by the pseudoscientific theory of Lysenkoism). Scholars who questioned official ideology risked persecution. While pockets of genuine research persisted, the regime’s overarching environment of fear stifled open scientific exploration.
-
Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge (1970s Cambodia) - The Khmer Rouge regime viewed intellectuals and academics with deep suspicion, often equating formal education with “Western corruption.” They systematically targeted and eliminated educated people, decimating the country’s scientific and academic institutions in the process. The result was a culture of fear that destroyed inquiry and innovation.
-
Economically Marginalised Communities - Many lower socioeconomic groups tend to reject education, intellectualism and science as disconnected from their lived realities. Within these communities, which are often deeply steeped in supernatural beliefs, there is a diminished respect for scientific reasoning and empirical understanding. Simultaneously, low-income groups often see formal education as an imposition of external values. Together, these attitudes weaken the impetus to get a good education and prevent the development of nuanced perspectives on reality essential for peaceful societies. These attitudes also compound socioeconomic disadvantages and adversely affect overall well-being. The resulting cycle of disenfranchisement perpetuates a system where rigid beliefs and economic marginalisation feed off one another.
We could add other extremist or oppressive groups or subcultures, such as certain white supremacist movements (like the KKK) or any group that systematically rejects evidence-based reasoning and promotes harm.
In all these instances, Mystrikism says it’s legitimate to evaluate cultural ideologies and their outcomes. If evidence consistently shows that a group’s cultural practices are oppressive, destructive, or vehemently anti-evidence, Mystrikism views that as problematic. But, and this is important, Mystrikism also urges one to remain open to nuance: not everyone who grows up in such a society fully supports all its tenets.
Racism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 3 of 4
[Audio version]
Examples of Groups Who Misuse or Distrust Science, Education and Intellectualism.
Global:
-
Corporate R&D divisions – spin trials, suppress dissenting data, bury negative findings.
-
Political Party affiliated think tanks – cherry‑pick stats, legitimise policy, amplify partisan talking points.
-
Advocacy NGOs & lobby groups – fund studies, shape public narratives, sideline conflicting research.
-
Industry‑funded university labs – sponsor‑driven questions, compromise peer review, delay publication of inconvenient truths.
-
Government education departments – underfund schools, break policy promises, erode public trust, undermine testing & learning.
-
Justice systems & law enforcement agencies – perpetuate sentencing disparities, ignore evidence‑based reforms, erode community confidence, dismiss data‑driven oversight.
North America:
-
Rural Appalachia (USA) – generational poverty, religious literalism.
-
Deep South evangelical communities (USA) – anti-secular, anti-science trends.
-
Inner-city minorities (e.g., Detroit, Chicago) – underfunded schools, systemic mistrust.
-
Indigenous reservations (e.g., Navajo Nation) – historical trauma, cultural alienation.
-
Northern Mexican rural communities – superstition, low access to formal education
Latin America:
-
Amazonian Indigenous groups – animism, poor infrastructure.
-
Andean highland farmers (Peru, Bolivia) – syncretic religions, isolation.
-
Brazilian favelas – Pentecostalism, systemic neglect.
-
Rural Chiapas (Mexico) – Zapatista-aligned anti-state views.
Europe:
-
Northern UK former coal towns – educational alienation, populism.
-
Roma communities (across Europe) – extreme exclusion, superstition.
-
Rural Balkans – poverty, folk religions, educational apathy.
-
French banlieues (North African diaspora) – distrust of institutions.
Africa:
-
Northern Nigeria – Islamic extremism, rejection of Western education.
-
Somali rural communities – oral traditions, weak state systems.
-
South African informal settlements – belief in witchcraft, poor education.
-
Congo, CAR, Angola rural poor – animist beliefs, systemic neglect.
Middle East & Central Asia:
-
Yemeni tribal areas – Quranic over secular schooling.
-
Afghan rural regions – Taliban influence, anti-modern education.
-
Iraqi rural Shia and Sunni regions – entrenched traditionalism.
-
Iranian peripheries (e.g., Baluchestan) – poverty, state neglect.
South Asia:
-
Dalit and Adivasi groups – systemic exclusion, religious oppression.
-
Rural UP and Bihar – caste-driven schooling resistance.
-
Sri Lankan Tamil rural poor – trauma, religious orthodoxy.
-
Pakistani tribal areas – madrasa over science-based learning.
East & Southeast Asia:
-
Hill tribes (Thailand, Laos, Vietnam) – marginalisation, folk beliefs.
-
Rural Indonesia (e.g., Kalimantan) – Islamic conservatism, animism.
-
Philippine slums (e.g., Manila) – religious fatalism, low education.
-
Mongolian rural herders – isolation, shamanic traditions.
Oceania:
-
Remote Aboriginal communities (Australia) – poverty, spiritual cosmologies, mistrust of science.
-
“Bogan” communities (Australia) – anti-intellectualism, low education, conspiratorial leanings.
-
Rural Papua New Guinea – animism, underdevelopment, oral traditions.
-
Pacific Islands (e.g., Vanuatu) – folklore-based worldviews, minimal schooling.
The Arctic / Circumpolar Regions:
-
Inuit & First Nations (Canada, Alaska) – cultural trauma, science mistrust.
-
Sámi people (Nordic countries) – historic marginalisation, partial integration.
Racism
A Mystrikal Perspective
Part 4 of 4
[Audio version]
Are There Rational Justifications for Cultural Critique?
Mystriks do not endorse blanket hatred or discrimination against individuals. Still, they consider it fair to hold negative views of cultures that, if revealed through Rovrrtelf evidence, show consistent patterns of harming others or suppressing scientific understanding.
Pre-judging a group can sometimes be a logical form of risk management or pattern recognition. If consistent, credible data show that a collective consistently engages in harmful behaviour, so extra caution might be justified.
For example, if reliable evidence reveals repeated acts of oppression or violence, exercising vigilance can help avert future harm. However, without mindfulness and great care, this practice can easily veer into unfair stereotyping, penalising individuals who don’t personally adhere to the destructive traits associated with their group. So, while there may be a rational basis for responding to well-substantiated dangers, it must be balanced with an awareness that not everyone within a culture or ideology is equally responsible for its worst aspects.
Mystriks says NO to racism - as there is no evidence based reason to discriminate by race and a plethora of moral reasons not to.
Culture can be examined - If data consistently shows harmful or oppressive patterns, Mystriks won’t just shrug and say, “It’s all equal.” They’ll analyse, critique, and (ideally) work toward positive change.
Nuance matters - Not everyone within a certain culture or ideology automatically embraces the worst aspects of it. People are complex. Individuals can be forward-thinkers stuck within oppressive structures.
