Sqeers,
Thank you for “taking me to task” thus helping me to make the basic tenets of my world-view better understood also by myself. [A PhD students of mine ones asked me to help him with a problem. He came, spoke and wrote for half an hour and finished with a “thank you, it is clear now” without me having had to open my mouth. I acted just as a catalyst.]

I think metaphors cannot be “demonstrated”, they indeed are usually just rhetorical devices trying to convey a deeper meaning that cannot be grasped directly, at least not in a few words. Nevertheless, let me try to elaborate.

My position here is based on analogy with my life-long experience that a mathematician both DISCOVERS facts and at the same time CREATES new ones. The “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” (E. Wigner) refers to the fact that the most “fruitful“ of these artificial constructs end up referring to something in physical reality (can be made parts of physical models of reality). This is accepted by practically all mathematical physicists.

On the other hand, not everybody believes that the cultural constructs called religions, refer to a Reality existing independent of these constructs, modeling this Reality through mythologies, sacred texts, theology or philosophical interpretations (“mental gymnastics”).

As I already said somewhere, I believe that
(a) there are many different “fingers pointing to the same moon“ (sorry, again a metaphor), and on top of that I also believe
(b) that the finger I am most familiar with (Christianity) is the best “pointer”, its models are at present “closest to truth” that we can‘t know “as it is” for principal reasons. Of course, others will prefer another “pointer” as the “closest to truth” (or none at all, if they do not see at all that the fingers point) for similar subjective as well as objective reasons. (ctd)

(ctd)
There is no point in comparing the subjective reasons, only the objective. This is somewhat similar to models (theories) of physical reality in mathematical physics, except that the number of competitors is much smaller and less varied than in case of religions. And unlike in case of religions, there arises sooner or later a consensus among specialists on the (relative) adequacy of this or that theory/model, because here the subjective component is negligible.

You can share the first belief but not the second, which would make you into an “epistemological relativist”, while denying the very existence of the “moon” (“objective reality“ in marxist parlance) could perhaps be called “ontological relativism”, but these are just my personal constructs (pun intended).

In practice, people treat “religious constructs” -Trinity, saints, etc - as if they were part of the unknowable “supernatural” Reality, and only the most sophisticated believers are explicitly aware of the difference. Like a mathematical physicist works with pseudo-Riemannian spaces (a mathematical construct) as if that was the space-time, although well aware that the former is just a model of the latter provided by Einstein’s theory.

Another imperfect metaphor for the subject/object duality is when we consider our loving relationship to another person: the “subjective” part of that is given by what we feel, the “objective” parts is given by how everybody else sees that person. Again, sometimes very hard to make a clear distinction.

Excuse me if I do not comment further on your dislike of Christianity or conservatism (political? the Leo Strauss or Michael Oakshott versions?). I think it is unrelated to what you asked me to elaborate on, and beside, there have been books written in support of your position as well as books supporting the opposite interpretation of history or politics.

I am still not sure whether this elaboration explained anything, but I have to stop. Hopefully you will read it, though I am not sure who else would be interested in such long posts.

Thanks for your patience, George, and I hung on every word.
My position is simply that questing after these truths is a luxury that ought to be indulged once the practicalities of our existence are taken care of; not merely our own comfort, but its "equitable sustainability", its "ethical economy". I don't, like some vulgar rationalist, deny the existence of the moon (it's a balloon, I've read), but neither can I let it distract me inordinately from terrestrial problems.
I agree with Oakshot only in that radical reform always takes us into uncharted waters which might be worse than those we left. Strauss seems, from what little I know of his philosophy, the more complex thinker, resting his conservative stasis in philosophical dilemmas over the nature of (political) reality (somewhat similar to your bifocalism?). I agree with his caution that any world order to come is likely to degenerate into tyranny; at least I agree that preventing this is the greatest challenge to establishing an ethical world. In the West, if we were governed by the Christian ethics (another purely rhetorical device, it seems) we ostensibly esteem, their burden would have forced us to reform. Certainly Christ was no conservative!
My "dislike" of Christianity is more a dislike of its conservatism; its betrayal of its own tenets, its popularised modern (postmodernised?) modality, dispensed like ice-cream, and most importantly, its irresponsible sublimation of corporeal ills and material reality. Christianity is pure indulgence and diversion. Otherwise, I actually have quite a fondness for it; I hate the institution its become, but I love the fabric of the church, its music and some of the wonderful eccentrics its produced, mostly in my imagination, a few I've known.
I hope I don't sound "holier than thou", I realise we were discussing the moon at my request.
We're such transients here on Earth, but we should aspire, first and foremost, to leave the place better than we found it.
Oops, look at the time. I'm off to matins!

In Melbourne this week a blow will struck at last by a registered solicitor and barrister against the rise and rise of Atheism in Australia. These poor individuals, ( Atheists) got Paul Keating’s ear, and between the 7th January 1991 and the 21st January 1991, installed Atheism as the Official State Religion of Australia.

They did this by taking these words used from the first Act in 1901, until the Act no 7 of 1991, off Act no 8. The words are: Be it enacted by the Queens Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the House of Representatives and the Senate assembled: They have replaced these formal enacting words, with the words, The Parliament of Australia enacts. OOPs, there have been no Acts made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth since 1991 that are legally binding on the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.

Even though we are not Muslims, who must have everything in writing, because their God is not obliged to keep his word, we are entitled by Our Constitution to have every enactment made by any Parliament treated as a Deed. As a Deed it must have formal enacting words, or it cannot be given full faith and credit throughout the Commonwealth. In other words to be binding on any member of the Commonwealth the proper procedure to give credit to Our Protestant Christian Queen, as representative of Almighty God must be followed. All State Governments have abandoned the Commonwealth too.

KR promised to be a Constitutional Prime Minister. I head him say it and I voted for him, because JH was not. Perhaps he is a closet Muslim, and because it was not a core promise, he does not feel obliged to honor that commitment. His jolly little jaunt to Copenhagen to worship the Planet, and attempt to sell out the Commonwealth to a world order, was not the work of a Constitutional Prime Minister. The top 65% of Australians are entitled to Christian Government, and we want it now

Atheists, because they are not Christians, can accept that a society can have, like the Romans in Israel, a multifarious plethora of Gods, and every tree rock, or image can be a God. The Christian religion I know believes we are all created in God’s image, but that no one of us is able to rise to sit with unchallengable authority in judgment on another human being. They can and do in China and did in Communist Russia, but no Christian can be a Judge. The word Judge comes out of the Old Testament. It was and remains a recipe for disaster. Even Almighty God had to admit that fact.

Being the Greatest Systems Engineer of all time, Almighty God decided to send his trusted Son, to show us the error of our ways. The Old Testament is full of prophesies that tell us He was coming. When Jesus Christ started his ministry after becoming a Rabbi, and plying his trade as a carpenter, he was thirty years old. He established a system of government that within 300 years had replaced the Roman System of multifarious God’s with a system with only one God, a Trinitarian God, the Father Son and Holy Spirit. He also established an inclusive religion, that was not racist as the Old Testament was, and the Roman Catholic English adopted this as their Constitution.

That became law in 1297. They took the Gospel of Matthew 18:15-20 and enacted it as the Magna Carta. The Pope was furious, because it made twelve ordinary people the judges of the English common law. The English then went further, they took the land owned by the Roman Catholic Church in England and gave it to the English Peasants. No wonder the English have not lost a war since 1297. People fight furiously for their own land. They loved their King, as their protector from Rome. So rise up all you Aussie battlers. The Queen still represents Almighty God. Your freedom and freehold property is dependant on maintaining the integrity of the law, and tell these atheist thieves to sod off

It may be thought from some of my posts that I am anti the Roman Catholic Church. That is not true. The Roman Catholics in Australia no doubt after a lot of prayer and reflection, decided to support the formation of a Commonwealth in Australia. Lots of them were Scots or Irish, and had no trust for a Protestant Christian Queen, and would not vote in the first referendum to establish this pioneering Nation.

The Commonwealth of Australia established the Queen of England as a universal apostolic catholic Sovereign, in both England and Australia, because the Act binds the English too. It not only binds them, but the English accepted that it cannot be repealed or modified except by a referendum, under very controlled conditions. It is unique, and if it was not for Atheist Lawyers, who have tried since 1900 to subvert and undermine it, it should be a model for every country that wants to receive the blessings of Almighty God.

Ungrateful sods, these Atheists; After 100,000 Australian lives were lost defending the British Empire, the English, with their so called Sovereign Parliament turned their south sea brothers and sisters into aliens. Think of the Australian Constitution as a universal declaration of the Rule of Law, extended without discrimination, to each and every member of society and you have got it right.

For the above reason, I am bitterly disappointed that an Anglican PM has seen fit not to deliver on his promise to govern under the Constitution. I think it will be no surprise to many if a Roman Catholic with strong convictions, promises to govern under the Constitution, that he could become the man.

We have Barnaby Joyce in St George battling floods, Tony has been out back, and the green fiasco pushed upon us, and rorted mercilessly, has claimed one Minister, and could make KR the twenty first century Scullin. Perhaps Kevin will see the light, and realize that he was elected as a Christian. He still has time to deliver on that one core promise, and if he don’t, then the other fella should