Dear David f,

>>We invent God, religion, philosophy, mathematics<<
I think you know my opinion that “God created man to His image” and “Man created God to his image” are “two sides of the same coin”. And that in my ("Platonist") mind this dilemma is somehow related to the invention/discovery understanding of most mathematicians of the subject of their research.

I find the following a very cute explanation of this dilemma that you might be interested in:

“We propose a metaphor capturing this distinction. Imagine a plain on which a vast, invisible edifice supposedly rises up to the sky. We know it’s there because of its effect on the plain and the climate around it. People plant near what seems to be the base of the edifice the seeds of a vine that grows up the invisible walls, feeling its way along the nooks, crannies, and statuary, slowly producing an outline of. . . something there. This vine does not grow at will, for it needs constant care. It needs water and fertilizer and even directing, hence gardeners. These caretakers constantly prune and poke at it, from the ground or while standing on totteringly tall ladders. The result is that the shape of the vine and the outline it appears to make reflect not only the edifice within but also the interests and agendas of the gardeners.” (http://www.ams.org/notices/200704/fea-mccolm-web.pdf)

Dear David,
the dynamic is nothing grand; we are competitive social animals and our societies are built on economies of trade; since in wealthy countries this is based on surplus, we have to look beyond “need” for its success. Capitalism thus harnesses “negative” human drives (evolutionary positives) such as avarice and one-upmanship, making a virtue of consumption. The economic model of human history is perhaps the most objective. What is it about this that you “very much doubt”?
The “Jewish question” per se can only be reprehensible in our day and age, yet hatred of Jews was common currency when you were a lad. Where is your evidence, in “On the Jewish Question” that Marx was a “jew hating bigot”, beyond the prejudice of the day?
Von Ranke had the whole world in raptures over his periodisations and hierarchy of history well into the 20th century; is Marx to be singled out and condemned for subscribing to the scholarship of the day?
Similarly the mania for progress; at the dawn of the industrial revolution and without the benefit of environmental hindsight, was Marx expected to back sustainability? He was an empire builder like the rest; his idea on labour was that "everyone" gets their hands dirty.
Marx’s stuff on individuality is of particular interest to me http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03abs.htm#p246
He simply deconstructed bourgeois conceit and was certainly not recommending mass murder. His key insight was into the veil of ideology that flatters and prevents us from thinking critically, so maintaining the status quo. Marx wanted individuality to flourish, but believed that communal equality was prerequisite. The strength of capitalism is largely built on maintaining the ideology of the inherent evil of communism, especially in the US where even equality in the health system is denounced as communism---hysterical and pernicious nonsense maintained by and maintaining bourgeois paranoia.
As your countryman says, “always historicise”. It’s anachronistic to criticise Marx’s manifesto based on today's world; I agree that his utopianism was mostly nonsense, but his critique of capitalism remains compelling.
I regard Hitler and 'Stalin' as two of the many evil geniuses of the age.

Why all the doom and gloom of death wishes , that sounds quite biblical and end of days Sceptic; The only Gods man has invented is the Socialist/ Communist Idols, the worshiping of Murderers – Liars and thief’s , Self professing destruction ;

Once you shift outside of the parameters of what was Accepted behaviour and good will , Good ethics and a NON Postmodern outlook and the post subscription to Nihilism ; We were doing OK.

It must be obvious now that what had taken place in WW2 with Socialist hatred of Jews, Christians are the new Jewish substitutes for annihilation ; and once again it is a threat to the evils of Socialism – and , well lets face it ;- The Lucifer principle .

A scientific Expediation into the forces of History

Thanks for an interesting article, David.
On the question of eating swine, the quoted passage appears to me to be a specific injunction against eating an animal which is not entirely herbivorous; although cloven hoofed, pigs do not 'chew the cud'. Pigs will eat anything -including excrement, unfortunately; a habit which certainly makes them 'unclean' in my book.
Being copraphagic is obviously not an endearing trait in an otherwise very intelligent and surprisingly affectionate and loyal animal.
Interestingly (to me, at least) although pigs love investigating and eating the excrement of other animals, they are quite fastidious when it comes to their own.
Years ago, I started up a travelling farm animal pet show, and as a result kept pigs as pets, inside our house yard. We made the mistake of putting their kennel as far from the house as possible, as we were worried about their smell. We discovered the pigs always shat as far away from their own abode as possible; right at our back steps.
Their house smelt fine... ours didn't.
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer".

I,m not sure we can say we invented maths and physics.We discovered the rules that govern us by using these tools.The laws of maths and physics were always there.We just had to adapt our minds to understand them.

We invented the concept of God to try to explain the universe and make us feel secure.The existence of god or otherwise is irrelavent.It should be about the progression of our consciousness at all levels,ie social,ethical,scientific etc.

When you understand human motivation and it's foibles,the journey of truth can begin.Our present obsession with power and money will destroy us.It is merely a reflection of our insecurities fostered by our ignorance.

We only have to look at global politics to see the USA and China trying to dominate the world scene.

david f, now you’ve really confused me.

<< Each key element of religion can lead to and is dependent on the other. >>

Is this a reference to institutionalized religion? If so then any element is by its nature, a human construct and any consequential links that “can lead to” and yet “be dependent on the other” are part of the (seemingly contradictory) rule base. Surely, such contradictions can only be “explained” by that other consequential human construct, theology?

<< The lonely experience called spirituality depends on belonging to a community of others who have also trodden that path>>.

How can spirituality, as an intensely personal experience, be dependent upon group “belonging”? Surely any religious group is defined by “its” collective rules and to belong, one must subscribe to their rules?

<< and use the inadequate instrument of language to tell about it.>>

Isn’t it language (communication) that converts the personal spiritual experience into something humans can then impart to others? Therefore, each experience handled likewise forms another “group belief” which actually “creates” yet another religion? Isn’t this the very process that has led to the creation of 34,000 religions?

Until possibly the last century, where is has become increasingly difficult to separate God from aliens and sciences, the construct of God was “the” basis religious rules. As an increasingly difficult concept to “sell” in modern society, God based religions seem to be giving way to those simply based upon power and wealth