The corruption of institutions is a fellow traveller to the decay of the universe. Stay on the front foot!

Being 'religious' can mean anything from being a Muslim to a climate fanatic. If you are a Christian, say so. I am a Christian, but I am not 'religious', which has nut job connotations to most people.

" ….where does that leave the Church?". Up the proverbial Creek without a paddle. The church bureaucracy tossed Christianity out the door long ago.

Faith is an enemy to reason. It asks one to believe because it is absurd. It asks one to believe what is neither justified nor proven. Christianity and other religions are losing their hold on the educated. We want more than to be told to accept and believe what cannot be proved. We want more than to accept what the leader says.

Faith inspired crusades where streets are covered with blood. Faith encourages flying airplanes into buildings.

Religious faith is not the only source of atrocity. Faith in the eventual classless society supports concentration camps. Faith in the superiority of race supports genocide.

Doubt is a virtue. Ask yourself if your belief can be justified. Ask yourself if you may be wrong. Doubt is an inspiration to learning and knowledge. Faith is a virtue to the ignorance. Be kind and ask questions is a much better guide to a decent world than faith.

david f,
Blind faith is the enemy of reason, but my faith as a Christian is largely based on reason.

I note David has faith in his world view, can he give a reason to make sacrifice? To give it away with no expectation of personal profit. That is faith.

Meanwhile check this compilation re the nature of true faith as distinct from the essentially childish (even infantile) beliefs in all of the usual self-consoling cultic nonsense about the mythical Jesus.
http://beezone.com/wide-stacks-many-topics/faith-1.html

Related references:
http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/authority_certainty_freedom_part1_edit.html

http://www.dabase.org/up-5-2.htm

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/birthday_message/index.html

david f is very close to finding out if his scepticism is right. He is somewhere between 90 and 100.

Christians should reject being told how or what to think by advocates/fundamentalists/fanatics who believe they speak for God or claim they do.

Every believer has to decide what they privately believe and how to express that private belief. Based on the ring of truth that rings for you in your heart of hearts.

If you believe that the son of God died on a cross to pay for your sins, you need to hold in an open mind the possibility that the opposite could be true.

And you can worship your God from anywhere, even a green cathedral or under the stars or in your home.

I mean 2 thousand years from now the Harry Potter stories might be taken as literal gospel? Especially if there is a nuclear war and much of current knowledge goes up in Smoke and is lost in the annuls of time.

And at the end of the day, we're all sons and daughters of the universe.

And we know that the universe and everything in it is a unified field of energy.

Can the universe think? Well, you and I can and we're an integral part of the universe.
Alan B.

Footnote: And what David f says.
Alan B.

Alan

I agree with your opening sentence. Buy I'm not sure what the "opposite" of dying on the cross for our sins would be.

The article has profound things to tell about Christianity, which I generally agree with, however I do not agree with its terminology:

'Religare' indeed means to [re]bind, but this binding is with God, not with practices, beliefs, mores or laws.

Being bound to practices, beliefs, mores or laws indeed limits one's freedoms, but being bound to God is the ultimate freedom, because God has no limits.

As a result of Constantine's distortions, Christianity has not become religious - it became secular, it became part of the establishment, it became bound to practices, beliefs, mores and laws!

Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was not a center of religious power, but of secular hypocrisy concentrated on a national god, falsely claimed to be God in order to frighten and subdue the masses. These hypocrites had no real connection with God.

Likewise, Popes exercised only secular power, not "religious and secular power" as the article claims.

All this is not to say that practices, do's and dont's have no place in religion - they actually do at times, especially for beginners on the spiritual path, but to progress spiritually they must be self-imposed: enforcing them by authorities is definitely counter-religious.

Dear ttbn,

I am 97. When I am dead I don't expect I will be aware of anything.

From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.

Then star nor sun shall waken,
Nor any change of light:
Nor sound of waters shaken,
Nor any sound or sight:
Nor wintry leaves nor vernal,
Nor days nor things diurnal;
Only the sleep eternal
In an eternal night

We have the natural world around us, driven by chemical reaction and heat.
These result in changes taking place by brute force.
Then we have a modified world.
The one we live in.
We modified it to make it more comfortable and convenient.
But our modified world won't last forever. It has a limited life.
Natural world forces will eventually take over.
And our modifications are messing it up anyway.

Religious 'beliefs' don't exist naturally.
They were made up by those who wanted to control the behaviour of others.
Religion works by 'subjugating' some of our instincts.
But unless we had developed those instincts, religion couldn't be made to work.
So the world got along for a very long time without religion, whilst brains developed.

And when we die, it is because the brain stops.
Our computer brain doesn't process any more data.
There are no thought processes.
Just atoms and molecules which will eventually become part of new material.
The pyramid builders got it wrong.
But their mistaken belief left us an insight in to their way of life.
The latter is an example of an ill wind blowing good?

david f

I still have hope. This life is not good enough to be the end.

Thank you, Peter, for another thought-provoking article.

While I agree with much of what you say, I wonder if you overstate the differences between Christianity and other faiths. While you rightly point out that Jesus was a frequent critic of the religious establishment of his day – to the extent that the Gospels give this as the main reason he was crucified – his critiques were consistent with the dialogue within Judaism about compliance with the spirit or the letter of the law, and the role of the Jerusalem temple and the Jewish leadership (e.g. Jeremiah 6:20, Isaiah 1:11-15, Amos 5:21-23, Ezekiel 34). And the fact he was humiliated and executed would be a scandal to some Jews, but maybe not to all - Isaiah’s suffering servant, for example, was a prominent model of messiahship, which some scholars think influenced the way the early church understood Jesus’ crucifixion.

I would guess that the tension between the letter and the spirit of the law, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, conformity and freedom, faith and religion etc will feature in many faiths. In many discussions or religious matters in these forums I find myself in agreement with Yuyutsu far more often than some of my fellow Christians.

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« The word "religion" is derived from the Latin "religare" which means to "bind". »
.

That is one interpretation, Peter. It is the one that, for obvious reasons, has the preference of most, if not all, of the 4,000-odd religions in the world, but, as I’m sure you are aware, it is not the only one. There are several others.

Cicero, who is generally considered to be the authority on the Latin language, identifies the etymological derivation of the word religion as follows :

« For religion has been distinguished from superstition not only by philosophers but by our ancestors. Persons who spent whole days in prayer and sacrifice to ensure that their children should outlive them were termed 'superstitious' (from superstes, a survivor), and the word later acquired a wider application. Those on the other hand who carefully reviewed and so to speak retraced all the lore of ritual were called 'religious' from relegere (to retrace or re-read), like 'elegant' from eligere (to select), 'diligent' from diligere (to care for), 'intelligent' from intellegere (to understand); for all these words contain the same sense of 'picking out' (legere) that is present in 'religious. Hence 'superstitious' and 'religious' came to be terms of censure and approval respectively. »

Cicero's “De Natura Deorum”, 2, 28, 72 :

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Natura_Deorum/2A*.html

.

Dear Josephus,

I do not have faith in my worldview. I have examined it and changed it when my examination of it caused me to question it. As a child I was taught to believe in God. I examined that view and found I could no longer substantiate it when I questioned the evidence for the existence of God. As I have gone through life I have questioned other matters in which I had faith and abandoned such faith if it did not stand up when questioned. Doubt has opened my path to knowledge in life. We are told that we should believe by those who regard themselves as authorities in various matters. If we accept what those authorities tell us we become subservient to them. Freedom is a result of questioning authority. Many find it easier to be enslaved. I still question. Any belief I have is provisional and subject to question. It may not stand up under examination.

It seems to me some persons spend a lot of time considering effects rather than causes.
Effects can change.
Which alters your view of life.
Which can be confusing?
We need to look for basic causes for all things.
There ARE fundamental truths which we should use as the principles underpinning our thoughts.
There IS truth there if you look for it.
Begin by allowing your brain to roam freely, then apply reason to what you find?

.

Dear Peter,

.

I think it is important to mention that we should not lose sight of the fact that there is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.

Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only general consensu is that he probably did existe and that his baptism and crucifixion were probably historical facts.

All the rest is pure conjecture, or should I say a question of (religious) "faith" ?

As you like it - or not !

.

The human brain indicates the height of reason and intelligence present in the universe and humanity did not create that capacity it originated in a higher intelligence, to which we are intrinsically attached.

Dear Josephus,

You made assertions without proof. You assume there must be a higher intelligence. Apparently there is no evidence for the existence of such an entity. Evolution explains the existence of humans and human intelligence. Evolution does not require the existence of a higher intelligence. The existence of celestial bodies does not require such an entity. You can believe what you like. Other religions have other believers who will make similar assertions. You happen to have been born to parents who had a particular religion. If you had born to parents of another religion you would probably be proclaiming the truth of that religion. The Aboriginal creation myth embodies the Rainbow Serpent. The biblical creation embodies a talking snake who persuades Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. I see no reason to accept either snake.

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« Faith is neither blind nor incredulous but trust in that which has the ring of truth. It is crucial that this difference be acknowledged because it is the difference between being bound and being free. »
.

As you claim that “it is crucial”, Peter, we need to study your definition of “faith” carefully before making any commitment.

The OED offers eight definitions of “faith”, none of which corresponds to yours. The first two are the principal definitions :

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing

2. belief that is not based on proof

There is no mention of “trust in that which has the ring of truth” as you indicate. In other words, it is not necessary to have “trust in that which has the ring of truth” in order to have faith in somebody or something. “The ring of truth” is not a precondition of faith.

Quite the contrary, according to Evan Morris's Word Detective website, the idiom “ring of truth” harks back to the early 19th century, when counterfeit coins were common. Merchants detected fakes by dropping coins on the counter and listening to the sound.

Another popular method of verification was to bite the coin to see if it left a mark.

Merchants who practiced those methods of authentification did not rely on faith. They had no faith. They wanted good, solid proof.

Consequently, I’m afraid your definition of faith does not ring true. The type of faith you are referring to in your article, religious faith, corresponds to definition N° 2 of the OED indicated above : “belief that is not based on proof”, in other words, blind faith.

But not to worry, Peter, happily, the choice is not “between being bound and being free” as you fear.

If you get your definitions right, you’ll be OK.

Religion has nothing to do with “being bound”. It’s just a question of repeating your lessons over and over again, and faith has nothing to do with “the ring of truth”. It’s just “belief without proof”.

.

A dog has faith that the food its master brings is good and not poisoned.

If a stranger brings food, the dog may suspect and refuse to eat it, but when the food is brought by its master, it rings true for the dog that the food is good.

The dog has no proofs, not even a concept of "proof", but without any faith, the dog would starve to death.

Nietzsche implied that truth is only descriptive and valueless- there are narratives beyond truth that lead to a higher truth.
Jung believed that phenomena were holistic

"Nietzsche implied that truth is only descriptive and valueless- there are narratives beyond truth that lead to a higher truth."

That sounds like nonsense

"Jung believed that phenomena were holistic."

Phenomena are holistic except when they aren't.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« A dog has faith that the food its master brings is good and not poisoned.

If a stranger brings food, the dog may suspect and refuse to eat it, but when the food is brought by its master, it rings true for the dog that the food is good.

The dog has no proofs, not even a concept of "proof", but without any faith, the dog would starve to death. »
.

I’m not surprised that you believe that Yuyutsu. It seems to be in the nature of much of humanity to hold certain beliefs without proof – is it wishful thinking, ideology, blind faith, … ?

Gullibility and credulity are rampant throughout the world. We see examples of that every day :

• Trump and “the Big Lie” in the US

• Putin and the Special Military Operation against the nazis in Ukraine

Millions of American and Russian citizens as well as many others throughout the world continue to believe those stories.

I’m afraid there’s not much we can do to change that. Never mind, here is the true story about the dogs :

http://www.dogseateverything.com/

http://www.advancedvetnj.com/site/blog/2021/07/28/why-dog-eat-everything

Might I add that I was brought up with a brother and a dog that I always considered to be a second brother? Both are no longer of this world, and I dearly regret them both.

Perhaps you did not have the chance to have a second brother as I did, Yuyutsu.

.

.

Dear Canem Malum, Dear david f.,

.

Nietzsche obviously had a problem with the notion of truth. Just why is a complete mystery. Nobody seems to know.

He is reputed to have been an excellent philologist among his many other competencies, but he never managed to come to grips with the notion of truth :

http://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/nietzsche-as-german-philosopher/nietzsches-concept-of-truth/63FF3E5E16829EA7088889A9CE0623B5

As he was obviously not lacking in intelligence, the only explanation that comes to my mind is that he may possibly have had a psychological problem of some sort, due to childhood traumatism, for example.

For what it is worth, my definition of truth is the sincere expression of each individual’s interpretation of reality.

I see it as purely subjective. Each individual tends to observe reality from behind a veil of ignorance, bias, and prejudice, according to one’s personal aptitudes and experience.

As a result, there are just as many truths as there are individuals – none of which may correspond to reality though many may be the same or very similar.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«For what it is worth, my definition of truth is the sincere expression of each individual’s interpretation of reality.»

This is a good definition for relative truth.

It is relative to a particular person and to their knowledge at the time, behind, as you say, their veil of ignorance, also relative to their state of being - suppose someone is dreaming that they murdered someone: when they awake they will surely realise that they haven't, but in their dream, are they telling the police that someone else did it? Or what about an intoxicated person who genuinely believes that their friend is a pot-plant?

There are therefore many relative truths, even more than the number of individuals, but there is only one absolute Truth which never changes, which is the same with everyone, in all their states of being: awake, dreaming, intoxicated, in deep dreamless sleep, in a coma or even while dead, which does not depend on anything, including time, yet everything depends on it.

The Absolute Truth cannot have parts or divisions, for they would relate to each other.
The Absolute Truth cannot have properties, for all properties are changeable.
Yet this is the Truth of you and me and everyone else, of existence itself and of everything that exists.
That which depends on nothing yet everything depends on, only that I can refer to as God.

God is a human invention. That particular human invention serves the purpose of making humans think there is an answer where there is no answer. All questions do not have an answer. There is no reason why we are here. We can find out more about the physical processes which led to our being here or anything else being here. There is a joy in finding out about these processes. There is a joy in observing nature, making a living, learning, contributing to and enjoying the arts, but ultimately the only meaning to life is whatever meaning we choose to invent. We invent meanings or accept meanings that other people invent. Some human invented the idea of God. Other humans accept that idea. If thinking that that invention is something other than an invention and makes you happy be happy.

Christians believe that the invented God needs a sidekick so they invented Jesus who may have existed but without the mumbojumbo cited in the New Testament. They invented another sidekick called the Holy Ghost who completes their Trinity. The article I am commenting on calls the belief in these inventions freedom. That freedom is slavery to superstition.

Dear David F.,

God cannot be a human invention, or anyone else's invention for that matter, for the simple reason that all inventions are mortal, all inventions are born and then eventually they die.

«Some human invented the idea of God.»

Well that is very different - actually not just one human and not just one idea of God, many humans did and many different ideas too, and many will still be invented in future too. All these ideas were once invented and will eventually be forgotten.

«There is a joy in finding out about these processes. There is a joy in observing nature, making a living, learning, contributing to and enjoying the arts»

For some there is. Others find joy only in sex while others still find joy in prayer. You should not make such sweeping generalisations.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Now you are telling me I shouldn't be making sweeping generalizations. You have been spouting your nonsense about God which has no justification whatsoever but is just a matter of unsubstantiated belief. Look to yourself. I see no reason that I or any thinking person should accept your nonsense.

Dear David F.,

«Now you are telling me I shouldn't be making sweeping generalizations»

In regard to this very particular issue of where people find joy:

«There is a joy in [1]finding out about these processes. There is a joy in [2]observing nature, [3]making a living, [4]learning, [5]contributing to and enjoying the arts»

There are plenty of people who find no joy in all these 5 categories: some find joy in only some of these while there are others who do not find joy in even one of the above list. In my particular case, I find joy in just two of the above (#4 and #5).

Were you suggesting that everyone ought to enjoy the same things as you enjoy?
That was the "sweeping generalisations" I referred to, nothing beyond that.



«your nonsense about God which has no justification whatsoever but is just a matter of unsubstantiated belief.»

I made a very logical point:

Had God been a human invention, then God would be mortal.

Neither theists nor atheists believe that God is mortal.
Neither theists nor atheists believe that a mortal is worthy of being worshiped or referred to as 'God'.

Theists believe that God, whom they worship, is immortal.
Atheists believe that God does not exist (neither as a mortal nor as an immortal), end of story, hence that the theists actually worship nothing.

But your claim that "God is an idea" is odd and is shared neither with theists, nor with atheists, nor with agnostics.
- Are you next going to claim, for example, that both heavens and earth (humans included) were created by an idea of the [yet uncreated] human mind? or that a mere idea rewards and punishes people for their good/bad acts?

That which you refer to as "nonsense" is merely a Reductio ad absurdum which I used to refute your earlier statement - a standard logical procedure.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … there is only one absolute Truth … »
.

That’s correct, Yuyutsu, and there are as many absolute truths as there are observers.

However, each observer may express his own absolute truth more or less correctly, more or less clearly, and more or less completely. Despite its imperfections, the truth of each observer remains absolute provided they are not intentional.

As I see it, Yuyutsu, truth is simply the intention of the observer not to mislead anyone. It has no existence beyond the observer. If there is no observer, there is no truth – just reality and unrelated facts. Nor can there be truth if there is an observer but no expression of what he observed.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You merely spout more nonsense. You stated, "Had God been a human invention, then God would be mortal."

All fictional characters are human inventions. No fictional character is mortal.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

By definition, if one observer expresses one truth and another observer expresses another, then these truths are not absolute but relative to the particular observer who utters them.

Beyond that is the absolute Truth, which does not depend on anything: neither on an observer nor on time, etc.
While I call it "Truth", you preferred to call it "reality" - and well, what's in a name? I have no objections to that: if you rather call God 'Reality' then so be it.

---

Dear David F.,

«No fictional character is mortal.»

Well of course they are: fictional characters were once born, when some author invented them, now they exist (as a human invention in the minds of people, mainly children) but eventually they will be forgotten and no longer exist, eventually each fictional character will die, will cease to exist - it could take a decade, a century, some millennia perhaps, or at the longest until humans are extinct and no humans is left to remember it.

Here is yet another simple proof why God cannot be a human invention:

A. Human inventions exist (as inventions, as mental objects, but still).
B. God does not exist.

How possibly could something that exists be equated with something that does not?

Banjo Paterson, David F- I might provide some more information later on why Nietzsche had a problem with prioritizing truth over meaning.

One of the complaints was seemingly that science was descriptive (logos) but without value and meaning (telos). To science to steal is the same as not to steal- just different possibilities in state space- but in many ethical frameworks including traditionalist ones- stealing is usually bad.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« By definition, if one observer expresses one truth and another observer expresses another, then these truths are not absolute but relative to the particular observer who utters them.»
.

Someone or something cannot be relative to himself or itself, Yuyutsu. The OED provides the following definition of the word “relative” as follows :

« something having, or standing in, some relation or connection to something else »

Allow me to suggest the following examples :

A basketball player is relatively tall compared to a footballer and a snake is relatively long compared to a frog.

As I indicated earlier, truth is simply the intention of the observer not to mislead anyone. So long as he respects this rule to the best of his ability, he is expressing what he considers to be the absolute truth – even if what he expresses does not correspond to reality.

The fact is, the best we human beings can do is to express our own personal interpretation of reality – and each one of us may interpret reality differently from every other human being – which is why there is no such thing as THE truth. There are as many truths as there are observers – and if they are all perfectly honest then it can possibly be said that there are as many absolute truths as there are observers.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that each and every observer has expressed what he considers to be the absolute truth, there is no guarantee that any of them have correctly and completely described reality.

Truth is subjective (existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought – OED) and reality is objective ( being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject – OED).

Truth depends solely on the observer and on the observer alone. It is the sincere and honest expression of his personal interpretation of reality, to the best of his ability.

.

Dear Banjo,

The truth you speak about is fine, but is not only relative to the people who say it and their circumstances but also relative to its purpose.

We have the number PI. It cannot be fully expressed because it has an infinite number of digits with not even a recurring pattern, but saying:
PI = 3.14159265359
is fit enough for most of its uses, so at most times we can say that the above is true, yet there are some rare scientific applications that require even more accuracy, so for them the above would be false, whereas they may consider
PI = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510
to be the truth - but every mathematician will admit that even that, is still only a relative truth, relative to purpose.

Another example: suppose someone is asked "how are you?" and despite having difficulty to walk, some dizziness and shortness of breath they say "I am fine.": Are they saying the truth? Well that is relative to their circumstances - if they told so to a policeman who questions their ability to drive, then it would be a lie, but if they just came out of hospital and the person they speak to knows that they were hospitalised, then their response would be truthful, a relative truth, relative to how they were a few days ago with their life on the balance.

So the intention of an observer not to mislead anyone can indeed, for practical purposes, be considered "truth" in most circumstances - that quality can also be referred to as "transactional truth" because it is useful and sufficient in supporting honest human transactions in everyday life.

Yet it is insufficient for describing Reality.

I am not claiming that any human expression could ever describe Reality in full - that is not possible, but suppose it were possible, then and only then we could call that expression "absolute truth".

If that were possible, then since Reality is the same for everyone and at all times and circumstances, it follows that absolute truth can only be one.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The fact that we cannot express the infinite number of digits that comprise pi but must truncate them at some point is not a relative truth. It is an approximation which is not the same thing as a relative truth. However we need not express pi as a series of numbers. The equation C/D=Pi where C is the circumference of a circle and D is the diameter of the circle expresses the relationship. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ contains the idea of relative truth.

Dear David F.,

Interesting to see that Western philosophers also came up with the concept of relative truth - that concept is well established in Hindu philosophy.

«The fact that we cannot express the infinite number of digits that comprise pi but must truncate them at some point is not a relative truth.»

That is a fact, but not what I referred to in my example.
The relative truth in my example is that
PI = 3.14159265359
rather than the undisputed fact that we must truncate the number of digits.

That truth of that particular statement depends on the required accuracy, but relative truths can also depend on so many other things. It is more difficult to see, for example, how the truth you mentioned, of "C/D=Pi", is also relative, yet it depends on the existence of perfect circles. Have you ever seen a perfect circle? I didn't. Without a C and a D, that statement is not true - in real life's imperfect circles, this ratio is always slightly different.

Almost every truth we know, is relative to something or another.
There is nothing wrong about it, it just means that that truth is not absolute.

Dear Yuyutsu,

An approximation and a relative truth are not the same thing.

Dear David F.,

«An approximation and a relative truth are not the same thing.»

I agree: approximations, when the word "approximately" is not used or implied, are just one particular class of relative truths, one of many. They are true relative to the condition that no accurate (or more accurate) information is required under the practical circumstances.

And when the word "approximately" IS used, still some other implicit condition(s) likely make the truth of the statement only relatively true.

For example, "water boils at approximately 100 degrees Celsius".

Yes, that statement is true, but only relatively true, relative to the water being on planet earth and approximately at sea level.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thanks for your response, but I see we continue to disagree on the meaning of truth.

Unfortunately, I am unable to comment on your mathematical demonstration as my formal education ceased at primary school. My proficiency in mathematics is limited to the four basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

However, I see that David f. has replied to that part of your post. As he is a physicist, I am sure we can have confidence in his judgment.

I find very significative the last sentence of your post :

« … Reality is the same for everyone and at all times and circumstances, it follows that absolute truth can only be one. »

That sentence embodies our disagreement.

It signifies that for you, Yuyutsu, absolute truth means the perfect representation of reality. In other words, that truth is dependent on the degree to which an observer correctly represents reality.

In your view, truth is the relationship between what the observer expresses about reality and reality itself.

Whereas, in my view, truth has nothing to do with the degree to which an observer correctly represents reality. He may totally misrepresent it. But provided his expression is sincere and not intended to mislead anyone, it is the absolute truth.

In my view, truth does not depend on the concordance of his expression with reality but on his sincerity, honesty, and absence of intention to mislead.

In short, you see truth as the concordance of one’s expression with reality. Whereas I see truth as the concordance of one’s expression – not with reality – but with one’s perception of reality.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

You also indicated in one of your earlier posts that you consider that there is only one absolute truth, the God of your belief. You describe that God as “the Truth of you and me and everyone else, of existence itself and of everything that exists”.

Naturally, I respect your belief in that hypothetical God, but I do not share it. Nor do I see how a hypothetical God could qualify as “absolute truth”, unless, of course, it is some sort of honorific title such as an Order of Chivalry like the Most Noble Order of the Garter founded by King Edward III of England in 1348.

Perhaps the equivalent of the medieval knights in the Hindu religions are the Rama deities who I understand are considered to be the embodiment of chivalry and virtue – particularly Ramachandra, the seventh incarnation (avatar) of Vishnu.

That said, Yuyutsu, I don’t know if you consider “absolute truth” to be a divine attribute of your God or just an honorific title.

Please forgive me for saying so, but I must confess that neither one nor the other possibility makes any sense at all to me.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«Whereas, in my view, truth has nothing to do with the degree to which an observer correctly represents reality.»

What you write about, could better be described as truthfulness.

Truthfulness is an important virtue: a truthful person's words equal their thoughts, so they are true relative to the person's knowledge; they are also true relative to other people who lie or do not tell all they know; they are also true relative to the time and space allowed to speak them out - which here for example, is limited to 350 words a post, 4 post per topic per day. If what one knows in order to provide a truthful answer is longer, then they might have to compromise and truncate what they say.

«It signifies that for you, Yuyutsu, absolute truth means the perfect representation of reality.»

Which cannot be done. There is what there is, it is true, but is beyond the ability of words to describe. Absolute Truth cannot be represented.

«In your view, truth is the relationship between what the observer expresses about reality and reality itself.»

That is still just relative truth. While all expressions are real, Reality itself cannot be expressed.

«you consider that there is only one absolute truth, the God of your belief. You describe that God as “the Truth of you and me and everyone else, of existence itself and of everything that exists”.

Naturally, I respect your belief in that hypothetical God»

What do you mean by "hypothetical"? You may possibly dislike my use of the word 'God', but do you doubt that you are real, do you doubt that there is the truth of what you really are (whether you know what it is or not)?

[continued...]

[...continued]

«I don’t know if you consider “absolute truth” to be a divine attribute of your God or just an honorific title.»

God has no attributes. "Absolute Truth", alternately just "The Absolute", refers to that which does not depend on anything (including on time thus never changes, including on the viewer and whether they are awake or asleep, etc., etc.), yet everything depends on which. This term can be used as a synonym for 'God', especially by those who are allergic to the word 'God' due to its historical abuse in various parts of the world.

Lord Rama/Ramachandra is believed to have been a historical man, born of human parents (King Dasharatha and Queen Kaushalya), and who served as an example of righteousness to humankind, especially concentrating on the aspects of patience, forbearance, respect, humility and friendship.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « There is what there is, it is true, but is beyond the ability of words to describe. Absolute Truth cannot be represented. »
.

As I indicated in my previous post, Yuyutsu, in my view, absolute truth is the concordance of one’s expression – not with reality – but with one’s perception of reality. And as that is the determining factor, apart from a few exceptions (e.g., mentally ill persons), we are all capable of achieving it – unless we choose otherwise.

I agree that, for us human beings, concordance with reality is nigh on impossible. Nature has not equipped our bodies with all the sensors and receptors that would be necessary for us to capture, record and interpret reality in all its complexity and significance.
.

2. « What do you mean by "hypothetical"? You may possibly dislike my use of the word 'God', but do you doubt that you are real, do you doubt that there is the truth of what you really are (whether you know what it is or not)? »
.

By “hypothetical” I mean : “highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence” (OED).

My understanding is that we have inherited the God concept from primeval man, generation after generation, as an explanation of the universe and everything in it.

Time has passed and we now have a better understanding of the universe but for much of humanity, the basic concept of deity continues to be considered relevant. The concept has been relayed by various prophets, gurus, mentors, and political and religious leaders down the ages, to such an extent that there are now over 4,000 different religions operating throughout the world, each with its own particular concept of what some (but not all) consider to be a unique God.

The fact is the God concept has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and continues to remain a simple hypothesis.
.

3. « Lord Rama/Ramachandra is believed to have been a historical man, … »
.

Thanks for those details, Yuyutsu. Much appreciated.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

1) Suppose two people make the same statement, but for one of them that is exactly what they know/believe while the other believes that statement to be untrue.

Is their statement an absolute truth?

No - the truth of the statement is relative to who made it.

It can even be the same person who made this statement twice, first they believed it to be true but subsequently they received more information (and/or forgot something) that made them believe it to be false, yet still they said it anyway.

- in that case, the truth of the statement is relative to the time it was made.

«By “hypothetical” I mean : “highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence” (OED).»

Are you highly conjectural? Is Reality highly conjectural? You might not know what you are, you might not know what Reality is, but can you doubt that you are? can you doubt that Reality is?

2)
«My understanding is that we have inherited the God concept from primeval man, generation after generation, as an explanation of the universe and everything in it.»

Concepts of God abound, some ancient others modern, some are used to try and explain the universe, others not, some consider God to be a deity, others not - yes, none of these concepts was ever proved, but I was not referring to a concept of God, I was referring to God!

If you don't like any of these concepts of God, then as I said earlier, you may as well replace 'God' with 'Reality', which seems to appeal to you more, and read 'Reality' wherever I used the word 'God'.

By definition, everything relies on God, yet God does not rely on anything.

Same for Reality: everything relies on Reality, yet Reality does not rely on anything.

There are even more synonyms of 'God' which one could use, but from all I read from you, I think that 'Reality' is closer to you heart.

I agree that Communists and similar will try to subvert the image of Christianity in order to replace it. Perhaps Christians can identify with the term Traditional Christian, Traditional Faith, or similar.

.

Dear Yuyutsu

.

Yes, I think we basically agree on the meaning of the word truth. As for the way our memory works, it doesn’t necessarily record everything we would like it to, nor does it necessarily recall every single detail at the drop of a hat. The importance, so far as truth is concerned, is that we do not hold anything back and do our best to relay our perceptions as well as we can and as soon as we can.

As I understand it, Yuyutsu, nothing in the universe remains static. Everything is in constant evolution and the mutations last not just billions but trillions and trillions of years on the cosmic scale. In that context, I sometimes wonder what, if any, significance can be attributed to concepts such as reality and truth.

It all seems so insignificant and futile.
.

You wrote :

1. « … the truth of the statement is relative to who made it. »

I don’t think the word “relative” is appropriate, Yuyutsu. Relative, in this sense, means “considered in relation to something else; comparative” (OED).

A person can make a statement and it can be that person’s statement, but a statement cannot be relative to (compared to) a person.
.

2. « I was not referring to a concept of God, I was referring to God ! »

Of course, you never refer to a concept of God, Yuyutsu. I never suggested that you do. You always refer to the God of your belief. I stated that we inherited the God concept from primeval man – not from you, Yuyutsu !
.

3. You assimilate God to reality, but while there are numerous synonyms for God in the English language, reality is not one of them.

Reality is “that which exists independently of ideas concerning it” (OED). Whereas God is defined as :

« The Supreme being, Creator and Ruler of the universe » ( OED ).

The two are quite different and I, personally, do not feel the need for a God or gods – real or supernatural !

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«nothing in the universe remains static. Everything is in constant evolution»

In order to perceive motion, like in a moving vehicle, there has to be some static background. The universe is moving and you notice this because your consciousness is static.

«It all seems so insignificant and futile.»

Except your consciousness.
You as pure consciousness remain regardless of the fluctuations of the universe around.

«Relative, in this sense, means “considered in relation to something else; comparative”»

Yes, considered in relation to another person who lies, a person whose thoughts and words are equal, is saying the truth.

«God is defined as :

The Supreme being, Creator and Ruler of the universe (OED).»

Not a bad attempt by the OED authors. The Sanskrit term which they refer to is 'Ishvara'
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Ishvara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishvara

I don't want to bombard you with too much information, but essentially, Ishvara is a reflection of God, a very refined reflection, probably the finest a human can ever see, but still only a reflection.

«The two are quite different»

Yes, Ishvara and God/Reality are quite different, like a reflection in a mirror is different from the person who stands in front of the mirror.

The image depends on the person in front of the mirror, but the person in front of the mirror does not depend on the mirror.
Similarly, Ishvara (or the 'God' as defined in the OED) depends on God/Reality, but God/Reality does not depend on Ishvara.

Unlike "The Supreme being, Creator and Ruler of the universe", the universe might not exist and still that would have a zero effect on God/Reality.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thanks for introducing me to Ishvara. Very interesting.

As for everything in the universe being in constant evolution, you might be interested in viewing this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA&ab_channel=melodysheep

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I watched the clip you referred me to.

What I saw there was panic and despair, "how will I continue?".

The reason for this panic is our unfulfilled desires, and these stem from our firm belief that time is real. We hope that given enough time, whatever universes we will pass through, eventually, somehow, we can fulfill all our desires and finally find peace.

However, your desires will never be fulfilled in full so long as you experience time as being real. If nothing else, there will always be the thought, "I haven't seen it all yet, there is still time to come, could things be even better and more wonderful in future?", and along this thought also the intolerable horror of possibly falling into oblivion without ever fulfilling your desires.

Our troubling desires, which keep making us miserable, can only be gone once we shake up this illusion of time.

The Hindu scriptures touch on and explain some of what is shown in the clip, including even the "lifeboats" between worlds. However, these descriptions and explanations are sporadic and terse because the topic of how the universe works and what will happen to it, is only secondary, is not really important relative to the ultimate question that takes most of the space: "How can I shake up the illusion of time so that once and for all I will be free from its ravages?".

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Yes, time is something of a conundrum.

The only thing of which I am aware is that we all live in the present, from cradle to the grave. There is no way we can escape from the present and enter the past or the future. Every minute of our life is the present minute.

I am also aware that it has been scientifically proven that time is inversely proportional to the speed at which we travel. The faster we move through space, time passes at a slower rate. It has also been scientifically proven that a clock slows down in a stronger gravity field and shows less time. A clock on the ground shows less time than a clock on the ground.

The OED defines time as "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future, regarded as a whole."

I, personally, am not inclined to see time as reality any more than the OED suggests I should. For me, reality is all the physical matter and energy in the universe.

If and when all that finally disappears, that will be the end of time !

.

.

Oops ! I meant to write that a clock on the ground shows less time than a clock in a plane flying high above the ground.

Sorry about that.

.

"What is time" is a deep question on the nature of reality- some work in "cellular automa" indicates possible models. According to some paradigms the universe is the way it is because "we wouldn't be here if it weren't" the "anthropic principle". It seems that the universes properties are based on a type of "DNA" a chain of properties that are descended from the evolution of the visible universe in question. This includes strangely the dimensionality of the universe- ie. 3x Space+ 1x Time- some possibilities may be unstable.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«I, personally, am not inclined to see time as reality any more than the OED suggests I should.»

Correct. The OED does not claim that time is absolutely real, only that it is real relative to the existence of events.

«For me, reality is all the physical matter and energy in the universe.»

Einstein discovered that physical matter is in fact nothing but energy.
One could relate to energy as the subtle substratum of matter, and matter as a condensed, or gross, form of energy.

Hindu scriptures predicted this and also tell us that there are still three subtler levels of existence as the substratum of physical energy, that what science discovered in the 20th century is only the tip of the iceberg.

Scripture further tells that our feelings and thoughts belong to these subtler levels.
Thus feelings and thoughts are material too, but subtler than energy, and can be condensed into physical energy and then further condensed into physical matter. Perhaps the study of quantum mechanics will one day discover that too - who knows?

But then scripture also tells us that none of that, none of these 5 levels constitutes Reality, that even the subtlest of them is still only relatively real, that only God is Absolute Reality.

«If and when all that finally disappears, that will be the end of time !»

By definition, time cannot end, because "ending" depends on time, so the question "WHEN will time end?" is unanswerable.

In time, as the clip shows, all matter will dissolve into energy. Then all energy will dissolve into thoughts, and thoughts will then dissolve as well into the subtlest layer of existence. Still, none of that will end time, which is within that subtlest layer.

While time never stops, the illusory experience that it is supposedly real can stop for you once you decide so and make the effort to step out of time. That does not make you immortal, because you already are, it only make you realise that to be the case, that you have been immortal all along.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« By definition, time cannot end, because "ending" depends on time, so the question "WHEN will time end?" is unanswerable »
.

The way I see it, Yuyutsu is that if we consider that time is simply the sequence of events and the course of evolution, the phenomenon of time ceases to exist (ends) when all reality (physical matter and energy) has disappeared and there are no longer any events nor evolution.

No reality = no events and no evolution = no time = the void. :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Void_(philosophy)

.

.

Here is the link again :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Void_(philosophy)

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«if we consider that time is simply the sequence of events and the course of evolution, the phenomenon of time ceases to exist (ends) when all reality (physical matter and energy) has disappeared and there are no longer any events nor evolution.»

Reality is much more than physical matter and energy.
True, science predicts that all matter will eventually dissipate and scripture further predicts that in the longer term energy too will eventually dissipate, but even then, events (such as thoughts) will still continue to occur in subtler levels, and that undercurrent will be sufficient to keep time running.

Whether the above is true or not, "time ends when" is logically contradictory: if there is no time then there is no "when" either. Same for "when there is no time", such expressions that speak of "when" indicate that one secretly still believes in time's absolute existence and is unable to let go of that idea even while they claim otherwise.

«No reality = no events and no evolution = no time = the void. :»

The expression "no Reality" is similarly self contradictory. If one makes such a claim then they ought to be asked, "Is there REALLY no Reality?"!

It is possible to conceive of there being no time, no events and no evolution, but that would not imply the absence of Reality.

Time, space, events and evolution, all depend on Reality, but Reality does not depend on there being time, space, events or evolution.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote :

1. « Reality is much more than physical matter and energy. »
.

I presume you’re referring to your beliefs, Yuyutsu, otherwise you would have already pointed to whatever scientific facts you are referring to - if, indeed, there are any.
.

2. « … in the longer term energy too will eventually dissipate, but even then, events (such as thoughts) will still continue to occur in subtler levels … »
.

If there is no longer any physical matter or energy, there won’t be anybody around to have thoughts. So far as I am aware, thoughts are the production of people’s brains. If there are no people, there are no brains to produce thoughts. No people, no brains, no thoughts, no events, no evolution, no time … the void.
.

3. « Whether the above is true or not, "time ends when" is logically contradictory »
.

So let’s drop the “when” and leave it as “time ends”.
.

4. « The expression "no Reality" is similarly self contradictory. If one makes such a claim then they ought to be asked, "Is there REALLY no Reality?"! »
.

Scientists’ best guess, given the current state of their art, is that that is how the universe and everything in it will ultimately end up : no reality – and, as I indicated in my previous post :

No reality = no events and no evolution = no time = the void.
.

Let’s face it, Yuyutsu, we know next to nothing about the universe. The little we know is that there are about 400 billion stars in our galaxy (including our sun) and that there are about 2 trillion galaxies as far as we can see with our telescopes. We know that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate and how it is evolving over time.

By observing the light that has taken millions of years to reach us, we know more about the past than we will ever know about the future.

That’s about it - so far ...

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

1. «I presume you’re referring to your beliefs, Yuyutsu,»

Well of course I refer to scripture, not to science:
It was only in the previous century that science discovered the connection between energy and matter, formerly believed to be unrelated - hopefully it will one day also discover the connection between thoughts and energy, which scripture also pointed to thousands of years ago. I suspect that quantum mechanics hold the keys to that connection.

2. «So far as I am aware, thoughts are the production of people’s brains.»

Thoughts are somehow related to people's brains, but are not produced there.
Science never discovered thoughts, it only discovered corresponding electro-chemical events that occur in certain areas of the brain when one is thinking.
When similar events occur in your knee or even in other areas of your brain, you experience no thought.

Scripture tells that besides our gross physical bodies we also have subtle bodies that are essentially made of thoughts and persist even after our gross physical bodies die.

3. «So let’s drop the “when” and leave it as “time ends”.»

Rewording does not help: "time ends" means that there WILL be no events AFTER that, but what's "will" and "after" when there is no time?

Even while time is unreal, the limited human mind seems unable to conceive of the absence of time. It is this limitation, this very disability, which make us be subject to and suffer from the ravages of time.

4. "No reality" is self-contradictory.

If indeed there is no reality, then the reality is that there is no reality, hence there is a reality...

«No reality = no events and no evolution = no time = the void.»

Both science and scripture agree that physical matter will not last forever. Whereas scripture predicts that energy too will not last forever, science, for now at least, does not even attempt to predict the fate of energy or claim that there will be no further energetic events even after all matter is gone.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I guess all that has to do with Hindu spiritualism.

I’m sure it has served its purpose, as you say, for thousands of years, and no doubt it continues to be a guiding light for many Hindus and others today.

However, the vision of its early proponents seems to have been somewhat anthropocentric. The thoughts of mankind are held to pervade the entire universe – even after all physical matter and energy (reality) has disappeared.

Please correct me If I am wrong, but I understand that some (if not all) even go as far as claiming that all reality in the universe consists of thoughts.

That is a thought I’m afraid I cannot embrace.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«the vision of its early proponents seems to have been somewhat anthropocentric. The thoughts of mankind are held to pervade the entire universe»

Oh, nothing to do with mankind. Thoughts and feelings were there long before mankind and will still be there long after. Long before and after matter and energy even, so what to speak of humans!

Human thoughts are organised and catalogued by the human brain, which also ornaments them with words, names, shapes and similar content - I suspect that these elements are missing from raw thoughts, but that does not mean that they are not there. Dementia sufferers for example have thoughts and feelings like the rest of us, they are just unable to organise them and connect them with words.

«I understand that some (if not all) even go as far as claiming that all reality in the universe consists of thoughts.»

There could be the odd person who claims so, but that is not the view of Hinduism at large.

For centuries it was believed that the universe consists only of matter.
Then energy was discovered in the 19th century and in the 20th it was further discovered that matter is in fact also just a concentrated form of energy.

Hindu scriptures claim that energy too is just a concentrated form of thought (and hopefully science too will discover it soon enough),
but they never claim that reality ends there - rather that thoughts too are a concentration of something even subtler, and then even that subtler layer is not Reality itself (only a reflection of Reality through the prism of ignorance, to be technical).

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Many thanks for those precisions.

I note, however, that as regards what I indicated to be my understanding that some (if not all) proponents of Hindu spiritualism claim “that all reality in the universe consists of thoughts”, you remarked :

“There could be the odd person who claims so, but that is not the view of Hinduism at large”.

Whereas you later indicated that “… matter is in fact … a concentrated form of energy, and that “Hindu scriptures claim that energy …is just a concentrated form of thought”.

Consequently, it would seem that, according to Hindu scriptures, “all reality [physical matter and energy] in the universe consists of thoughts” – “but that is not the view of Hinduism at large”.

That being the case, I should be interested to know exactly what “the view of Hinduism at large” is.

Am I right in thinking that the version of the scriptures is perhaps limited to what may be described as the Hindu elite, the so-called “intelligentsia” or, if such a movement exists, the Hindu fundamentalists ?

Also, Yuyutsu, I don’t wish to abuse of your knowledge and benevolence, but I should also be very interested in any details you could possibly provide regarding the nature and source of the “thoughts and feelings … that have nothing to do with mankind … that were there [in the universe] long before mankind and will still be there long after. Long before and after matter and energy …”.

I find that quite intriguing.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Yes, most ordinary Hindus never studied their scriptures in depth.
I suppose the same can be said for Christians and Muslims also.

According to Hindu scriptures, the only Reality is God, which has no qualities/properties. It is ignorance which covers the knowledge of God with figuratively five sheaths (or "koshas") like the rings of an onion, one grosser than the other, each sheath emanated by its preceding subtler sheath.
http://vikaspedia.in/health/ayush/yoga-1/pancha-kosha

The grossest sheath is called 'Annamayakosha', literally the food-cover, and it roughly corresponds with physical matter.
The next sheath within is called 'Pranamayakosha', literally the breath/energy-cover, roughly corresponding with physical energy.
Beneath that is 'Manomayakosha', the mental-cover, which contains emotions and desires.
Further subtler is 'Vijnanamayakosha', or the intellectual-cover, consisting of unbiased logical thoughts.
The innermost sheath is called 'Anandamayakosha', or the bliss-cover.

So when you ask:
«but I should also be very interested in any details you could possibly provide regarding the nature and source of the “thoughts and feelings … that have nothing to do with mankind … that were there [in the universe] long before mankind and will still be there long after. Long before and after matter and energy …”.»

You would be referring to the innermost sheath (Anandamaykosha), from which emerge intellect (vijnanamayakosha) and in turn emotions (manomayakosha).

That innermost sheath cannot be described in words because it is subtler than the intellect. It is said however that we experience it during deep, dreamless sleep. For the same reason we cannot remember this experience, because memory requires our intellect. We do however find deep solace in that experience and wake up refreshed (but note that we do not necessarily enjoy dreamless sleep every night - we could possibly be dreaming without remembering our dreams).

The experience of time is said to be included in that innermost sheath.
The outer four sheaths are cyclically generated in time and then eventually decay in time, but the innermost sheath, though still it should not to be confused with the Absolute Truth, is unaffected and cannot be destroyed in time because it is Time itself.

Dear Yuyutsu,

According to Maimonides God has no attributes. Although I believe that God is merely a creation of the human mind I am interested in the concepts that believers have come up with. Maimonides believed that we only have negations to guide us. "God is powerful" should be taken to mean that "God is not powerless". This negation is not restricted to Maimonides. The Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) becomes (Do not do unto others what is harmful to you.) Maimonides also believed that taking the Torah as literal truth and to think God is a bodily thing is a mistake. Anyone who thinks that should be excluded from the Jewish community. God cannot have any attributes since attributes define, and God cannot be defined. Extending this to my worldview what cannot be defined does not exist, and therefore God does not exist.

Dear David F.,

Yes, I fully agree on these points, both with you and with Maimonides.

Existence is overrated. I wonder since when it started to become such an issue.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thanks for that.

It’s amazing how ingenious prescientific thinkers were in developing the early cosmological and religious explanations of life on Earth and its relationship with the universe.

It certainly attests to the wonder of human intelligence.

Though some scholars consider Hinduism to be one of the oldest, if not the oldest, living religions on earth, its origins dating back to the 2nd millennium BCE or possibly even earlier, I can’t help comparing it to what we refer to in Australia as Aboriginal cosmology.

The Hindu and Aboriginal peoples both strived to develop a comprehensive cultural-religious worldview.

The Hindu version as attested by the Upanishads is obviously more accomplished than that of the Australian Aboriginal tribes whose historically long geographical isolation must necessarily have been a determining factor in the more rudimentary nature of their worldview as attested by The Dreaming.

.

Aiden wrote:

"Blind faith is the enemy of reason, but my faith as a Christian is largely based on reason."

Dear Aiden,

My understanding of faith as a Christian requires that one accept that that human virgins have babies, there is a God that is three entities in one and a person goes on living after that person is dead. Since you stated that your faith is largely based on reason the 'largely' allows you to reject those ridiculous beliefs or any other ridiculous beliefs in Christianity. It would seem simpler to ditch all of it.

Instead of living in a story world, why not live in a real world?
A world where there are real objects, and real people.
And being real means these things can be seen and touched.
We can engage with them.

I know the real world can seem harsh, but its harshness obliges us to think and plan.
We can use reason to make it more comfortable and convenient for our use.
We shouldn't wrap it up in tales of fantasy?
We shouldn't see it as something it isn't?

At least not all the time.
The occasional foray in to the realms of make-believe can be good for us.
Reading a book which takes over one's thinking, can certainly give one a welcome break from routine.
Then we can return, refreshed, to normal endeavour.

Firstly, get it quite clear in your mind that religious beliefs are a product of man.
They came about because man needed a 'theory', an explanation, for how life worked.
Theories of all sorts abound in many areas of thought.
These stick around until it is established they are inadequate or unsound.
Then they are modified or ditched, and thinking moves on.

But religion is different.
In some persons it fills an urgent need.
So no matter that it doesn't make sense.
People will still clutch on to it, almost in desperation.
They are that unsure of themselves.

One would hope that by the time they are in advanced years, they would have experienced 'a getting of wisdom'.
In other words, they have found they are able to use reason and logic to plan a rewarding life.
Life is all about survival and reproduction, in a somewhat harsh environment.
Luckily, we can use reason to plan and make changes, to modify it, and make it feel more comfortable.
But first there must be reason.