Life Consequences of Misunderstood or Only Partially Understood Laws

NYC SKYLINE WAS CHANGED BY EVENTS

We might ask who was ultimately responsible for the events of 911 in New York, and if we do we are presenting the question from the space-time world of classical physics. The tendency is to think that something was done to America, rather than to think that America attracted a negative force. The events of 911 were America's wake up call. There are those that see such damning events as arising through what is referred to as the secret. This approach suggests that American's attracted their own karma or destructive force. In a way this is true, but we do not ultimately know whether the force operated from with America or came from outside. There are some who write very interesting material on their own personal experience with the secret, the laws of attraction. In contrast, I, then proposed my ideas of 'the laws of association,' which fall within a cause-effect dynamic rather than an acausal 'quantum' or 'semi-mythological' dynamic. This was my response to the notion that your mind has to be tuned into the positive vibrations of the universe, which I think is correct. The problem still remains that the distribution of benefits is hierarchical, very uneven, because the skills of the the tuning instruments in our respective brains is distributed unevenly! In other words, even if the 'mythological' laws of attraction do work, some people are better at initiating them than others because they have brains that are more easily tuned to the positive vibrations.

The laws of attraction assume that events happen because of something that you do to attract them. The laws of association assume that events happen because of something that you do to associate yourself with the sources of events. In many ways, the laws of attraction and the laws of association are very similar, but there are subtle differences. The laws of association are closer to laws that you can research and can verify by means of the scientific method. You need science. The laws of attraction are not yet laws that you can verify by the scientific method. You need faith. The laws of attraction are not verifiable because they are based on a wonderful mythology of waves with agents at the source of the waves who are actually working with or on you for whatever reason, but mythology, nevertheless, has its value.

As an aside, when I write my blogs, I am trying to lead the reader down a pathway, a dynamic of thought, that the reader might not otherwise follow. Initially, the reader may or may not be attracted to the title of my blog page. By associating with the page, the reader will learn how to think and this will be an importance step towards independence and freer movement of thought and living. My ideas will attempt to point in directions that will give greater freedom in terms of moving towards a longer length of life. This approach emphasizes the economics of the life cycle that are often forgotten. If you extend your life by living longer, then you do the impossible. What you do not want to do is attract death by associating with those things that increase your probability of dying. If you engage in risky behaviour of any sort, you may attract forces of association, as well, as attraction. Now that's a thought, so be careful.

We forget economics at our peril for it is the economic laws that really govern our universe and not the physical laws. The beauty of the economic laws is that they include us and our dynamic in ways that we would not expect. The laws of economics are all powerful as the Fed is just now realizing as it tries to bring America back from the brink of disaster. What Americans do not realize is that terrorism has as its most effective weapons, the seeds of destruction with the agent of destruction arising from within the victim's own tendencies of excess and addiction. If America is addicted to war then planting the seeds of war will ultimately lead to its destruction. Yes, the seeds of war have been planted, but they are to be understood as coming from within the weaknesses of the US economy and its inherent social instability. Watch the series OZ about the Ozwald maximum security prison to see what I mean.

The seeds of war that are planted by terrorists aim a redirecting destructive tendency of Americans towards addictive processes that can be easily manipulated and lead to unpredictable social consequences. Inflation, debt, doubts about commercial trust, monopolization of resources, excessive ownership, excessive consumption, wasting of energy and fragile resources such as wild animals, dominance of the military sector of the economy, inward migration beyond absorptive capacity, mismanaged or misguided fiscal policy, excessive dependency on imports, and so on. Remember that how we treat our animals is a reflection of our nature. We do best to move away from a violent nature and treat our animals with the love and respect they can thrive on.

Figuring it all out, Coincidence, Fate, Luck, God, or the Source of Being

A HARE'S BREATH

by

AW LAKE

What is the true nature of our world, or is it even a world. Who or what governs it. I am never really sure whether my friends think that it is a rightful preooccupation for anyone to try to figure it all out. That has been the bane of serious speculation through the ages. "Who are you to speculate about such unknowable matters?" "What is your authority?" Even worse, people who did come up with new ideas were called heretics. They were stoned, burned at the stake, poisoned, clubbed to death, shot, to name but a few of the awful outcomes.

The fact is, however, that normal people can't help wondering, and even those like Richard Dawkins, the evolutionist biologist, who preaches the notion of God 'the delusion.' Well, he seems to protest too much! I wonder at his keen interest in this greatest of mysteries. Certainly, the world is moved by the forces of evolution, and most of us, but not all, are now outside of the denial of that. Visits by children to websites that tell us lots about dinosaurs. They prove in a verifiable way that there is a longer earthly history than the Bible allows. Those that think otherwise need to 'Wake up!' as Jesus Christ said. The issue is not whether the Bible is the word of God, but whether we recognize Jesus as evolution, and evidence of evolution as Dr. RM Bucke, of the London, Ontario in the late 1800s, insane assylum would have us believe.

The fact is that Walt Whitman, who lived in Dr. Bucke's time believed in human evolution and believed that he was, himself, part of human evolution. Whitman did things on the battlefield of the American civil war that no humans would normally do. He actually went out onto the battle field and saved lives without fear for his own personal death. Would that the arab terrorists were more like him, and went about saving lives. They would give their cause a tremendous boost if they did.

It is interesting that terrorists take lives rather than saving them. They damage the causes that they are fighting for because they give others the urge to destroy the civilizations from which they have come. If bin Ladin's plan is to destroy Saudi Arabia then he is succeeding. He would do much better giving medicine to dying children.

I am keenly interested in learning about human evolution.

People often ask me, "Do you believe in God?" I find this question often reflects a bias on the part of the questioner. It would not be appropriate to answer, "Whether or not I believe in God is my personal matter. Go mind your own business." My answer is "Yes! I believe in God, and God believes in me!"

Without some form of personal experience no one believes in God. It is important that a person know that they have been visited by God in some meaningful way. If someone said that they had been visited by God, who in some way opened up a communication channel, I would want to know more about the nature of that visit was and more about the nature of the communication channel.

I would not dismiss anyone's claims outright.

Through history, people have claimed that God has opened up communication channels for them. Such people ended frequently up in insane insylums or were killed by others because they were outspoken about something extraordinary that they could not understand. What we have is a failure to communicate. One has to wonder why God fails to communicate more effectively and we can only speculate about the methods that would be used if ever.

In the period recorded by the Bible, Abraham came down from the mountain with the ten commandments written on tablets of stone. The strength of the Bible is that it is the collection of very ancient writings. Many communities may have have had similar experiences, but they did not have writing and could not communicate their experiences for later generations. The Romans did what they could to destroy competing civilizations and any written materials that these civilizations possessed.

The Romans destroyed the civilization based from Carthage; they destroyed the civilization based from Alexandria; they destroyed the civilization based from Mona, Britain; they destroyed the civilization based from Jerusalem. They absorbed the civilization based from Athens. Because the Romans were so destrucive of other civilizations, they impoverished the world in ways that we can only begin to imagine. What we have received down the ages is a very narrow Roman slant on history and civilization. We know too little about the Carthagean, Alexandrian, Monian, and Jewish civilizations and experiences. Western culture, based dominantly on the Roman civilization, is a fragment of what it could have been. Our potential Western heritage was destroyed by the aggressive war like Roman culture.

The crusades helped to regained some culture that perculated through from North Africa into Spain, eventually, to spawn the Renaissance several hundred years later. That was a very slow process and did nothing to redress the losses, for example, to replace the pharmacopea of the Alexandrian civilization that would have given us medicine and would have resulted in more rapid population growth and possibily the escape from the spread of disease that wiped out so many people. Some of the worst of the great plagues might have been avoided! We might have had a knowledge of microbes and germs many generations earlier.

In any event the improverishment of knowledge, that the Roman dominance of the continent caused, resulted in its own declining influence and eventually in the crusades which were the first serious and well financed attempts to recover lost knowledge.

The crusaders may have been the one's to rediscover penicillin, but how was that information lost.

Explaining the Wu of Wooh

As readers are undoubtedly aware, the author of this blog, AW Lake, is also the author of the very successful book "Wuh Lax and the Cosmic Lantern." The leading character of the book, which is the first of a series of books featuring a large cast of characters, is Wuh Lax, who is a mythological character. I say mythological, but the irony of it is that Wuh is an archetypal hero with a very great presence. As my stories unfold, the devoted readers of the series will become aware that Wuh, the mythological individual, really does exist on an ethereal plane. This is why the books are aimed at the ethereally challenged. But, I should explained a bit about what is meant by the ethereally challenged?

Most of us are ethereally challenged. Wu-wu is a pre-Taoist state in which there is absolutely nothing. Out of the state of wu-wu comes the Tao. The Cosmic Lantern is a story about the new physics. The ethereally challenged include all those reading in the area of the new physics. Scientists are on the threshold of discovering that the cosmic concept of the big bang has to be re-written through revelation coming from both science and inspiration. In reality the concept of the big bang is as much a mythology of science as it is of religion. In the beginning, God did not create our universe. There is very good reason.

The state of wu, of complete nothingness, is a myth, Similarly while Christian creationism spells the mythology of God creating the universe, the Taoists spell out their mythology which results in Ying and Yang. Both are inspired by man's quest to unveil the mysteries of the universe. I say this knowing that my father was a Christian minister, a missionary, and a devout believer in a personal relationship with Christ. His reality was based on an inner transformation that he very successfully documented in a series of daily writings and readings. He insisted that one could come to know God through inner transformation arising from what one saw and read.

It was the ethereal departure of my father, that brought me to create Wuh and to explore those regions of our existence that are rarely explored because our mythologies about truth get in the way. My father was also a devout student of human nature and knew the secret of dancing with God. This is what wu is all about, dancing with the truth. Our fate is that we will never know the truth of what has happened or what is going to happen. That does not stop us from creating our mythology of what the truth is all about and then believing our mythology, and indeed experiencing it as our reality.

God exists, but God exists in the wu, and is the all pervading essense of being, fullness or emptiness depending on whether your glass is half full or half empty. Wu is all about attitude, about dancing with God, about dancing with the unknowable truth. From where do I get my knowledge?

For many years at Cambridge University in England, I studied the nature of invention and knowledge, how it arose and what happened with it. My studies were focused on knowledge creation as it applied to the science of economics, but that did not stop me from understanding the bigger picture. While a student at Cambridge in the early 1970s , some of my fellow students had a little red book that they carried around with them all the time. They constantly spoke to me about Mao and his words, how important they made them feel. They had purpose and direction. To them Chairman Mao spoke the truth and they were not going to listen to anything that I said concerning that truth. Instead my response was to give them a book about the Tao, which I said contained more truth than Mao's little red book. Gary Zukav in his book, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, wrote that science and religion are only dances, and that those involved in these enterprises might claim to be seeking the truth but their reality is that they as dancers and love to dance.

I invented Wuh, but wu is a magician and a worker of miracles. My task was to let him perform those miracles in the minds of my readers. Aloha and Uweeeee!

The Science in Religion

All religion contains science, and surprisingly enough even those religions that deny the role of science probably contain a hefty amount of science hidden within them. To determine what the science is within a given religion one has to ask very specific questions. The first is to ask what the purpose of the religion really is. If the religion has no real purpose then it is not a religion. All religions have a purpose. You just have to identify what that purpose is.

The Purpose of a Religion

Generally, a religion has a story about the world that it wishes its participants to understand and to use as a guide for future actions and thought. The story is generally not verifiable in the sense of being scientifically identifiable as some shared peer tested law, but that does not rule out such stories. There may be many stories in a religion. The purpose of a religion is to use its stories as guides for the adherents of the religion in their future thoughts and actions.

Some religions adapt so that the stories can be updated, questioned, peer reviewed, and reshaped in all sorts of ways. Other religions do not allow the story to be revised and strictly forbid a liberalization of the story in light of what is seen and understood by its adherents. In such religions, the story is not open to interpretation, but must be used in a way that continues the methods of the past very specifically.

Why and How Dawkin's Misses the Point about the Existence of Religion

Some writers, such as Richard Dawkins, have the mistaken impression that religion in their lives can be somehow avoided or not used. This is a great misconception of what religion is all about and why everyone uses religion whether they realise it or not. What Dawkins is really saying is that he does not like the story of previous religions, listen to my story and use it as your new religion.

This is a perfectly normal response to hearing a story that you do not believe and you then try to invent your own story. In reality, we all, everyone has their own stories that they extract from their religions and they use a subset of the book of stories as their own religion. Thus, a Christian is not just a Christain, but someone who has looked into the books of Christianity and has selected those stories that form the basis of personal religion. This is human and natural because we have only limited capacity. In fact, for the Christians, it is almost expected. There is only one story that needs to be believed and the others can be used or discarded at will. The Christian story is 'love thy neighbour as thyself.' The other stories are discardable. Thus it is that a youngster can understand Christianity. It is too simple to forget. All the other stories one can dispose of. They are unnecessary to the religion.

Using Science to Create a New Religion

The relevance of Richard Dawkins as a scientist creating a new religion is that he is saying that his religion does not believe in war. It sounds like a great religion to me. Perhaps, if Dawkins told the story a bit better, he might do a lot of good. For example, were he to say that he had a law that would prevent wars for all time, we could all adopt this story as part of our religion and we would be enhanced by it. The problem with scientists that study biology or physics is that they are often not trained in religion and have no idea what religion is. More often they are not trained very well in history either, and is that not the lot of most of us. If Dawkins seems to flounder in his ideas, it is because they are stories that he has yet to develop into a religion that we can admire and add to our own. Why you ask should we?

Anything About the Future is Mythology

If you were able to hold all things constant except for the things that you wish to project into the future and then make a projection about the future, you may came pretty close. Nevertheless, the process of projection is what prophets do. Prophesy is the art of telling a story or stories about the future. All communities have prophets, myth spinners. The best politicians are prophets because they communicate well, the spin a story about the future, and they are credible, at least for now, because they are the best stories in town. When there is huge uncertainty about the stories that the politicians spin, we lose faith and we don't vote for them. We abandon their temporary religion.

This is why some religions are temporary. Many stories or myths arise during extremely uncertain times and in such times the stories are very hard to believe. To believe the mythology of the politician in uncertain times requires a huge amount of faith. Thus, it is that religions rely on faith. That faith may be temporary or long lasting. Faith in the Christian message of 'love thy neighbour' has been more long lasting than many other faiths.

Religions, forecasting, prophesizing, projecting, guiding are all about having a story on which people have faith. The amount of faith that they grant is partially due to their not having alternatives to chose from.

In the modern world, religion is likely to grow by leaps and bounds as life becomes more and more uncertain as more and more alternative stories guiding people into the future about. Out of all this confusion however, the single story of love thy neighbour as much as thyself will survive. Perhaps, man will add to that mythology and ask that one love ones neighbourhood and neighbours and much as one loves oneself and home. The bigger the neighbourhood the better since man needs to love his own world in order to guide and build worlds in the future that take into account the ecology of his environment and the guidence needed to preserve that ecology.

Timelines in Volcanic Ash and Confabulation

Dorothy and Colin, you would have been proud of me. I am not sitting idle while I am on vacation. You are such wonderful role s for healthier living, being as you are so very fit at the age of 70 plus. Its because you are doing all the exercise and eating things that retired people should do, play tennis, golf, walk up and down hills, exercise and eat quality food.

I do not have your keen sense duty for doing all of what is healthy, but at least I recognize the need and have a willingness emerging from within my weak being. Staying healthy throughout one's entire life is quite a feat, but I suspect that most can achieve it with a little help and loads of common sense. Needless, to say, if you are healthy, you owe a lot to your parents. Indeed, parents, the greatest gift that you can give your children is a means of staying healthy, and it won't be by confabulating.

Common sense is all you need also to see that the volcanos of the Pacific Islands are telling us loud and clear that the earth is many billions of years old. I believe that the number is in the rocks of Greenland and South Africa that are over 3.4 billion years old. Humans have been around for a fraction of this time, if you think time exists as a flow of events and change resulting from processes. To say something is such and such an age is making all sorts of assumptions, but we are prepared to live within a range of error. To say that something did not exist when we have verification that it did, is, needless to say, potentially harmful and the grossest form of confabulation, people's imaginations running wild!

Its also very sensible to see forms of civilization as existing in full swing before the Egyptians decided to send Abraham's people on their way East. Putting a date on Biblical events is largely confabulation. How does all they all jive with the aging of the earth as put forward in the extreme interpretation of the Bible. Well anyone one with a little sense can see that they do not, if it is assume the time span of the earth is much shorted that it really is. Unfortunaely, much of the dating in the Bible does not really stand up to close scrutiny. What are we to make of that?

Well, nothing much. Its hardly surprising given that it is human nature to ability to confabulate. Confabulate? What's that? Well, put very simply, it is a revision of history by following our preferences and inclinations of what history actual was with what we think it should be or want it to be. It's very much like wishful day-dreaming about the past. We block out all the nasties, if we feel good about ourselves. Or, we can block out of the wonderful events, if we feel bad about ourselves. What we remember about history is thus very selective because of our wonderful abilities to confabulate. Everyone does it, without even realizing, we are doing it. Often the results are very harmful as they create barriers betwen people getting along rather than bridges.

In the short term, we can notice how children will confabulate about their parents, or parents about their children. Will the person who remembers the truth stand up. Oops, there is no one! No, there is no one who remembers the truth because the truth is confabulation. Thus, the Russian newspaper or the religions magazine that has as its mantra, the 'truth', don't really. They are confabulating the truth to suit their mood and the tone they want to set for their readers. Reality is that those that say they speak the truth probably confabulate the most. Hense, this is what you need to do.

If some one says they have or speeak the tructh, you need to verify that they have or speak the truth. Too many witnesses go before the juries of this world with confabulations of the truth which give very slanted views. To verify the truth seek it from as many sources as you can and take into consideration mood swings and that it is normal human behaviour to confabulating. Speak to your priest or minister and ask for the un-confabulted version of their doctrine and see or hear what you get as a response. Remember that monasteries will say one thing and the centralized priests will say another. For my money, I would go with those in the monasteries. They may be closer to earth!

The Richard Dawkins' Viewpoint of God as Delusion as a Phenomena

Some people like to be at the center of controversy. Posit one absurdity and someone will refute it with another absurdity. Take the extreme of an argument and the response against that argument will probably be extreme. Develop an extreme science that posits an extreme view of reality and others will posit alternative extremes.

Going to the Edge

It is a very human pattern of behaviour that we tend to want to see an ultimate manifestation of something or other. If there is a volcano, it is very human to want to see into the heart of the volcano. This is a very human activity and we call it exploration. Take a concept and one wants to go as far as that concept will lead even to the edge of reason.

What may happen is that the science or reality that creates an invitation for exploration may be a trap, a total waste of time, a place that has nothing of real interest. The journey to that place, nevertheless, takes its toll on those that would journey to it and those that observe the exploration taking place and make judgements.

What is the Direction of your Science or Technology

My experience is that few people understand the notion of direction when it comes to something as complex as the abstraction we call science. If science is a field, there are areas of that field that we can explore. What science is not connected to is technology.

Technology has fields like science has, but technology is not the same as science. We can have lots and lots of science, but very little technology, or vice verse. It is a mistake to confuse technology with science.

Creation of Science and Technology have Different Agendas

Some people, like Richard Hawkins may be exploring technologies and confusing such explorations with science. Rather than being judgemental, I would just throw that out as a proposition. Its a lovely abstraction that can distinguish between different stages of a cycle of activity.

For example, Darwin's discovery was new science, but Dawkins' discovery was new technology. The difference arises because of the motivation behind the exploration. Science that is technology invention has a direction which is orchestrated in ways that science as science is not. We think of science as being basic or developmental. Basic science is one thing. Fundamental science is another.

I realize that English limits my selection of words to describe the processes, but I think my message is clear. It is quite one thing to receive a prize for new science that is basic to promoting the interests of all mankind, but quite another to receive a prize to promoting a development or technology that biases the value towards a specific interest group promoting an agenda.

Exploration may, however, bring about a major explosion of activity and interest. Richard Dawkins may discover something that is valuable to those promoting religion, or he may stimulate a response from the religious community quite unlike anything he expects. What his explorations of dangerous ideas do, however, is produce a notion that such exploration is safe for society rather than destructive.

The North West Passage

Being in Canada, I am awed by the explorations that sought the North West passage, but I am also aware of the injunctions by the then managers of the Hudson Bay Company not to invite people to undertake the exploration into the North West. There are risks for society of exploration, especially in the world of competitive ideas. The North West of Canada and the United States, Denmark, France, Russia and the Netherlands, is now being opened up in ways that environmentalists really do find scary.

The rewards of exploring the North West passage today are so enormous that we could end up in a war situation. Man has had a history of secret competitive alliances and agreements that produce absolute destruction in their wake. Is this what we want from science or is it science at all?

Its not hard to see how the technological or informational results of science are potentially more socially divisive in many more ways than religion.

Activities of exploring, such as science and invention, that create new knowledge or technology may be socially destabilizing, and in science as in economics, as any central banker knows, one should maintain 'economic' stability above all else otherwise you are like to get instability, social upheaval, irrationality and war. Change and new science is wonderful stuff if the organism that seeks it and the society that must sustain it are sufficiently mature to cope with the results.

This is of course where uncertainty begins, but again to use the central banker analogy, it is not good economic or scientific management to create instability to quickly otherwise one just gets a big confrontation and destructive change, the Hegelian process of explosive change rather than the more gradual process of evolutionary change.

So, Richard Hawkins' exploration of the frontiers of dangerous ideas promotes rationalization, we must become aware that the results are not so predictable as to lead to gradual improvement in religion or science. They might just result in explosive confrontation and a badly managed exchange of respectable opinions and well worn positions.

At the Edge

One has to wonder what being at the frontier of religion or science actually means. To some there is the idea that creationism is an activity that seeks to provide a mythology for religion, a vehicle for completing with the strengths they see in science.

As an alternative to the notion of religion as being evolutionary, it might better be described that religion is at the edge of risk taking. That seems strange, but possibly religion is a group response to being burned by exploration in technology that goes bad and the change brought about by such exploration.

Hawkins dangerous ideas really do destroy valuable and important aspects of our beautiful world until the science and technology and religious fervour are redirected towards stabilizing solutions. It's as though, the first attempts at coping with new social problems are catastrophic and society as a whole has to learn from its really bad mistakes, its monstrous errors of judgment that destroy people and the beauty in the world.

Much, but not all religion, may arise as a result of the mass trauma produced by war and the individual trauma at the realization of death and destruction. The rational exploration for solutions arises as a method of coping with overwhelming change. What emerges as a social solution in the form often of religious fervour and commitment is not rational in the long term, even though at the time it seems rational.

Religion as a Means for Groups Coping with Massive Irrationality in the Living Environment

Seen in this way, religion is a method of groups coping with trauma and the inevitability of uncontrollable destructive change, such as the slaughter of innocents whether as a consequence of destructive forces of nature or the acts of competing warlike peoples. Judaism arose in a period of extreme trauma. Christianity arose in a period of extreme trauma.

For example, consider the rise of religious fervour during the New Deal period of the 1930's in which the socially destructive forces of bad economics and lack of stability resulted in a search for comfort and solutions in the immediate. For some groups, there was no time for considered solutions. In the USA, while Harvard academics went crazy for the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, they ignored the more relevant but long term science of their own local professor Joseph Schumpeter in favour of short term technology to find an immediate solution.

The Economics of Religion and Science Stimulated in Periods of Trauma

Both Keynes and Schumpeter realized that an ineffective banking system was at the heart of the economic dilemmas that faced all societies at the time. Peace required a new technology. The problem was that the new technology was not put in place soon enough and the world sank into war and the Jews were trapped within a monstrous period of irrational so called 'problem' solving.

In Canada, Major Douglas, a deeply religious engineer in Alberta, came up with a new religious economics and the idea of the A plus B theorem. Douglas's science was flawed but the direction of his technology was correct. Why should there be poverty in the midst of plenty. His society grappled with the destructive forces of starvation in a time when it was obviously unnecessary.

Keynes technology for the short term was better than that of Major Douglas, but both were going in the same direction, and if Alberta had been a country, Douglas's ideas might have worked better and longer. Schumpeter's science explained what the real underlying problem was while Keynes methods provided a means to grapple with the dynamics in a meaningful way.

In the end, Schumpeter provided the real long term science, but Keynes provided the immediate and necessary technology. Economists lost sight of the Schumpeterian vision of the creative destructive forces built into capitalism because of new technology and went for the religion of absolute truth as presented by John Maynard Keynes, the rationalist speculator.

Alternatively, consider the strength of the rise of Nazism after the great inflation in Germany. The religious fervour of Nazism is easily explained as a consequence of trauma as people sought irrational solutions to what seemed an irrational situation. Nazism as a religious response is not so easily digested unless one considers that religion is often a result of traumatic experience. It was not that Jewish people were the source of the trauma, but that people incorrectly thought that they were.

The real problem was the bad economics of the peace settlement of the first World War. Had France, at the end of World War one, not demanded that Germany pay for the war destruction and had the world reconstructed Germany and France into thriving economies, then the second war may not have happened nor would the Jewish people have suffered as much as they did. Isreal would probably never have been created and the mess in the middle east that we see now would probably not have been initiated. What is the Arab-Isreali war but a flawed solution to an old problem that was the result of a flawed solution to an earlier older problem? The science of peace has been terribly exploratory and the technology employed by France to create peace at the end of World War One was seriously flawed, so flawed that it destroyed much of the world as a result. Its both the science, the technology and the religion that are flawed. When and where will this madness end!

What Context for Religion and Science

Placing religion and science within a social context is not easy, but it is necessary for understanding. Religion is not so much an evolutionary process as a reasoned and rational response to trauma. Reason and religion have common social and natural roots and are not all that different in consequence.

Why Religion and Science are Different Disciplines

Ever wonder what the fundamental difference between science and religion is? It is that to make a religion requires only one, while to make science requires two. When religion tries to become science, it fails miserably, and when science tries to be religion, it fails miserably. The reason is simple and is because they are mutually exclusive disciplines depending on whether one or two people are involved at the same time.

If you have two people experience something at the same time and then talk about it, the subject becomes science. Have the same two individuals experience something at different times and it becomes religion. Some times science tries to become religion by having two people experience the same thing at different times and then calling it science. Ever wonder why science is continually revised! Some times religion tries to become a science by telling people how to have religion with more than one person involved. Ever wonder why all religions need to be revised continuously. Both science and religion, when they are occupy the 'wrong turf,' end up needing revision.

The solution is of course for those that want to have science recognize that that it is more like a religion than science, and for those that want to have religion recognize that is more like a science than religion. What is completely absurd is to have a religion define what is good science. Equally, preposterous is to have someone scientifically try to define what is good religion. Thus, for a religious advocate to say that a certain religion is more scientific than another is an amazing non-sequitor, it does not follow. In like manner, for some one who has no religion to say that all religion is nonsense, is also a montrous non-sequitor.

Because of their basis, scientists tend to be loners that have to put up with groups. On the other hand, those that are religious needing group really have to put up ultimately with being alone. Why do the science groupies and the religious loners have such different life experiences you might ask? The reason is that scientists really want to be alone, but have to tolerate being in groups, while the religious really want to be in groups but must tolerate being alone.

Should science prolong life, religion will achieve a complementary goal of prolonging life after death. Does it figure?

Why does religion become distorted? It has to do with groupies thinking everyone needs to belong to the group. Why does science become distorted? It has to do with loners wanting to define what is reight without really beonging to the group. It's probably like the difference between crows, ravens, and jackdaws.

Equally absurd is for advocates of religion to flash around symbols of their religion or for scientists to do the same. I suppose it is possible that scientists need symbols to actually think scientifically. Does religion need symbols for people to think religiously? Symbols are not really needed to be very religious, and probably add confusion and need to be continuously revised. Religious people should stick to simplicity of being alone with their religion. Symbols are always a problem because they are neither religious nor scientific and should be just experienced as images of something interesting.

Since there is no past present nor future without the other is science capable of getting two people together symultaneously enough to define good science or are we always left with every thought we make being religious in nature and requiring continuous enlightenment while we are alone. Yes, when we are alone. Maybe good science is very religious. No that would be a non-sequitor and a vain aspiration of science.