SCIENCE AS A RELIGION::: Unfortunately science also has become a religion. This is usually in conflict with the TRUE scientific method, which encourages keeping an open mind, skepticism, and examination of facts, observations.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD:: Scientific Method  consists of three major parts: Observation, Rationalization (thinking about it),  and Correction of errors, perhaps “skepticism”

FIRST: OBSERVATION.You see, touch, taste, smell, or hear or some combination of the above, you observe some phenomena, and you may do it with senses  extended via instrumentation, such as a yard stick or a microscope, or a laser 10 digit interferometer, etc. .   You should measure with as much precision as necessary for you purpose - measure time, length, or what ever,  so that you can be as accurate as necessary, and always try to state the expected error in the measurement.

            REALITY is what we observe or potentially can observe.  It is “real” so long as it can be observed, whether we have done so or not yet done so.  If something is irrational that implies we can not ever directly observe it.

            Sub point: ERRORS:: try to specify the accuracy of the measurements, so that you know the probable error.  Few people do this properly,  and it is very important. You need to know what you do NOT know as well as what you do know.  If you eyeball a distance, of say 50 feet (how long is 50 feet- can you guess it??)  that is quite different from taking a steel tape and measuring 50 feet 1 and 1/8 inches. the latter probably plus or minus 1/8 inch the former probably plus or minus at least 5 feet error, and both are quite different from use of a laser interferometer to measure 80,073.234 Meters plus or minus 0.001 meter.

Second Phase “RATIONALIZATION” - translation thinking about what you observed.(IRONY::the rest of this discussion, most of it, will be about rationalization, yet observation is more important!)

            a) Assumptions - you always have numerous of hidden assumptions in most thinking,  and these can completely upset your mental processing of the data.  Finding bad assumptions is probably the most difficult part of correcting an error in science.  It is even more difficult if they are hidden assumptions, and not at all obvious, clearly stated.

            b) Abstraction - selecting what you think is important form all the data, and discarding what you think is unimportant - simplifying the observation to the basic minimal information content. If you know you do this - then when (note not if but when) you throw out something important you can go back and try to recover the missing data).

            c) Selection of descriptors;  what variables, terms or concepts will we use to describe the event?

            d) INDUCTION :: Induction is very difficult.  Few people can do this at all;  let alone know what they are doing, forming a:

                                                hypothesis

                                                theory

                                                or law

            All inductions are mental constructs, which hopefully explain the data.  All are mental constructs, mental pictures, and the words hypothesis theory or law just signify the degree of testing and thus probable reliability of the mental construct. The words tell the confidence level of the mental construct.

                        Hypothesis - means limited data and testing.  to be viewed with considerable skepticism, lower confidence level.

                        Theory means much more testing- pretty reliable, we are getting confident of this mental construct, and reserve less skepticism..

                        and LAW  means  a LOT of testing and very reliable- everyone gets a big surprise if it is wrong.

            Induction takes the form of finding a pattern - some A is B - we observe this many times- so you assume (the induction) all A is B , and see where that takes you.  Then you try to correct the statement to remove exceptions and errors and to make it always correct.  You are finding a pattern,  particularly a simple pattern which may be “hidden” because we were looking at some other pattern that obscured the one  for which we were looking.

            e) William of OCCAM’s Razor - Take the simplest hypothesis - nature operates on simple concepts, and if it is too complex it is virtually certain to be in error. William of Occam was the barber who shaved their bald heads in a monastery ca 1260 AD who made (in Latin) two major contributions to scientific thinking. Thus the name “razor” to cut fog (obfustication) and solve the problem.

            f) Corollary Completeness:: Take the Complete theory, discard any hypothesis that does not explain everything you observed,  or at least note the errors until you can reformulate a better hypothesis.  When the number of exceptions exceeds the number of direct observations, then you are better off just memorizing the data, and there is no savings in mental energy in using such a fouled up theory - it is worse than nothing!  The purpose of any hypothesis is to simplify memories and predictions, to allow us to be mentally lazy.!!!

             AN EXAMPLE OF ERROR IN INDUCTION using a bad hidden assumption::

            Example: gravity.  We all assume that the Earth beneath our feet   - so stable, and unmoving - is a valid plane of reference.  Then we note that the proverbial apple falls relative to the earth,   and if you are Sir Isaac Newton you postulate Gravity - a force that makes the apple fall.

            And if you are a typical student you got taught that theory in school, and it does provides an useful, simple pattern to describe most events, in fact almost all common events, but not quite ALL events. It fails for example with “light”. And if it is wrong in any case it is totally wrong.

It is useful for most observations::   But it is dead wrong.

If you are Albert Einstein you start out realizing that only a NON ACCELERATED system may be used for a reference plane... and the surface of the Earth is accelerated.  I can feel the acceleration on my posterior - pressing it to the chair. 

            Thus Sir Isaac Newton had built in a hidden assumption that was wrong.

            Aristotle did that a lot. Of his 23 assumptions (principiea) only 4 or 5 survived second close experimental examination.  For example  Aristotle stated “it is obvious that a heavy body falls faster than a light body.” He did not observe it. He had observed a feather and a rock, but then he generalized from too few observations.  And he made a mental construct which was false to reality / observation which no one had the “guts”  to challenge for almost 2000 years.  {Or they did not have guts for too long as they tended to remove them prior to cooking the Heretic for contradicting Aristotle or any other “church dogma”} This sorry situation got worse with time and lasted from 300 BC to 1500 AD - - up until Gallileo did some things with balls of assorted shapes and densities and concluded (observed) that things of the same density and shape pretty well fell at the same speed no matter what the weight.

            Sir Isaac Newton is / was another “Aristotle” and the law of gravity is a LAW which one just does not question.   (Meaning you probably should question it! ) I did. - I do.  and Sir Isaac,   like it or not,   was incorrect.  His equation is indeed useful for most cases. Our science of physics needed it to grow to where it is, but the fundamental basis he assumed was in error.

            The apple was in zero g (i.e not accelerated ) while it fell, so we can use that reference plane.    OR  The only practical zero acceleration point I can find on Earth is dead in the center of the (more or less) sphere that is the Earth.  So let us use that point for reference.  And with that point, I find that the correct statement of the phenomena must agree from both the point of view of the apple and the center point.

            AND I conclude that the correct statement was that the Earth expanded to meet where the apple had been and still was... it did not appreciably move - the surface of the Earth did. It did not “fall”, but the Earth expanded.  Gravity is no more or no less than the local expression of the expansion of the universe. If you look at it properly you do not really need a separate force of gravity, but you can write only the equations for the expansion of the universe, and it subsumes gravity.   Oh I do not propose to discard Newton’s equations.  They are too useful for many cases.   And they can be derived for the motion of the apple RELATIVE to the Earth’s surface.... But they are no longer fundamental at all - they instead are  DEDUCED - and the induction “The Universe is Expanding”  is sufficient without making the more complicated second gravitational assumption.  The last is a better (simpler) hypothesis.  It has fewer total assumptions.

            POINT the hidden assumption was the one that “bit” that apple. We still are stuck with it,  and I doubt we ever will get rid of it until we have people living for generations in zero G; which may not be ever as it appears that our bodies do not take kindly to zero G and need acceleration to function well. - We may ditch it after centuries of living in space colonies,  but I have my doubts... the Earth people almost always will keep that bad reference point and thus the assumption. 

            Clearing out the Philostogen and Calors may well be virtually impossible. Heat flow vintage 1880 was based on flow of invisible energy called calors which - it was explained. was why metals expanded a bit as they were heated, and it is imbedded into “specific heat”, “Latent heat” and all sorts of other terms we still use. Those are fossils of an error in theory,  now disproven, no longer taught,  but the ghost of which  still haunt us,  we still suffer from them.

 

            g)  Deduction  application of “Aristotelian” logic to the inductions to make predictions. You make predictions from data and mental constructs  MOST people do deduction.  It is relatively easy. People use syllogism built into the language, Aristotelian logic, and they almost all make the error of thinking this is the scientific method. Most people don’t know about induction. They can’t do it.

            Even more amusing is the number of fools who can not do precise deduction those who use language incorrectly and can not use clear logic.   Oh they BELIEVE that they use logic,  but do stupid things like:  a implies b  then conclude b implies a :: Or they ::(assumption  all fire engines are red. All fire engines have a siren.   I have a red vehicle with a siren what may I conclude? answer - it MAY be a fire engine --  but you can not make the conclusion it IS since the terms were logical in only implication not equality, (logic a implies b     c implies b  I have c and I have b implies -?? note wrong way implication.

            If I say I have a green vehicle I know it is not a fire engine.  (if  a implies b,     then “not b” implies “not a”),  or if it does not have a siren I also know it is not a fire engine.  but the arrow for the logic confuses many people.

 

PREDICTION:: Value Judgement-  we apply judgements (values) (knowledge of good and evil, worth) to predictions to select what we want or do not want.

            It is highly improper to allow judgement - values - wishes  --to influence the formation of the hypothesis. This is the major problem with “fundamentalism” - they restrict hypotheses to what they wish them to be, not to what is really observed.  This is just plain foolish, as the errors in thinking will sooner or later create  contradiction.

            a) Contradiction a conflict between predictions,  expectations , and what is observed.  The observation is always correct- the error lies in the mental picture- the contradiction lies in the MENTAL area, and it is up to you to find the error - either in logic (easiest) - in theory (not too hard - well sort of at least for me - ) or in hidden assumptions (virtually impossible for many people). 

            NOTE most people confuse mental and written (abstract) concepts with reality- i.e. observations.  Just because we put the symbols down on paper does not make them any more reliable than spoken word.  Some fools assume that if it appears in print is is correct. (WARNING:: NOT!!! FALSE!!!)  The written word is still an abstraction of reality - it is itself IN and part of reality- we can observe the book and the written word.  But do not confuse that with the abstract content being reality.               The map is NOT the territory.

            Neither reality nor human abstractions including words are perfect, so anything expressed in human words also can not be perfect.

            The BIBLE is - (like it or not)- just words.  It may or may not describe reality (present or past) - it is an abstraction and mental concept, a hypothesis, set down on paper which almost all religious fools assume is absolutely true.

            “I KNOW THIS IS” ..... TRUE - is a virtual 100% guarantee that the fool is lying, and thus the following statement is subject to more than usual skepticism.  The word “Know” should mean that you got it from reality and observation and that you can demonstrate the reality. Misuse of that word to mean “believe” where they really should say “I believe” (meaning you can not demonstrate it) makes them a
liars, (who is the father of all lies??) and places the whole statement into doubt.  The rest of the statement may or may not be true - you have no way of knowing. - but you do know that the person is “wishing” so strongly that they are hallucinating reality and so their words and observations are all subject to being discarded as irrational.

            A key Heinleinism (from “Time Enough for Love”)notebook Lazerus Long

“You must”  means you don’t have to

“Everyone knows “means you better check it out, and odds are it is not so.

A Lawlerism  “I know” misapplied means he does not really know it at all and is trying to convince you of his lie.

 

AUTHORITY -Authoritarianism - This is diametrically opposed to science, and not part of the scientific method.  The Scientific method demands we keep an open unprejudiced mind. It demands use of experimentation, and observation to decide credibility, not the “authority” of people. There is a problem of credibility. People do lie.  Scientist seeking future financial support wish to establish their “track record” and from that to have people predict the expected quality and reliability of future work. This then requires people to establish a reputation for not lying. Yet basing the credibility of one theory or experiment on past work is fallacious. Each work, mental or experimental, must stand on its own merits. We must reject carrying credence from one work to another. This rejection particularly includes use of numerous citations or “referees” and references to their work to create the impression of credibility which is politics to obtain acceptance and funding and it is  opposed to science!  So called “scientists” all tend to do this, and by so doing cease to be scientists. It is proper to cite references so people can go look up data or prior theory, what someone else says. To do so for the motive of becoming an authority is reprehensible. Albert Einstein said that “I have been punished for my contempt of authority by being quoted as the ultimate authority,,..” which I find amusing.  You will note that I rarely quote any authority,  other than to let you know where to go to look for more of the same or contradictory wisdom. 

            A scientist is concerned with WHAT you know, a politician is concerned with WHO you know.  The dependence on “codes” and “standards” does allow engineers who are not familiar with the basic concepts to combine old work in new ways, and thus even a third rate engineer can do valuable work.  They lean on the second rate minds who built the codes, or standards and who understand what is behind the rules.  These second and third raters who lack primary ability and are the people who are concerned with “who” and “references.” Their work does not stand on its own merits. The do depend on someone else’s ability, not their own.

            In the past I have made a collection of major references - more of a bibliography - again not quoted to bolster my arguments,  but to let you know where to look in case you want to check up on some topic.  I personally would like to see authoritarianism listed as a major a crime punishable by prohibition of payment from public funds for working in that field ever again.  But then I have neither the power nor the need to enforce my tyrannical proposed abuse of power.

            There inherently are relatively few fist rate minds,  perhaps ten times more second rate and 100 times more third rate minds.  Thus the “majority opinion” will always be toward authoritarianism, and “who you know.”  The “democratic vote”  does not make it correct, in fact it virtually assures it is wrong. :”Can you name ANY case where the majority was right?” (R.A. Heinlein).  But it also does make it politically correct, and so long as it is “good enough” to get by it may be “good engineering” meaning maximal return for minimal effort.

            In religion the ultimate in “authority” or “authoritarianism” is to quote God, or “God’s Word” and since one must not argue with God one can not argue with or contradict the person quoting such high authority.  The catch almost always is that we can not prove the quote is correct, and in fact not a lie. To the contrary we can usually prove the quote IS a lie.  If the quote is in any man made language you know that at the very best it is a distortion of the truth, since all man made languages are demonstrably flawed. In most cases,  the quote (misquote) also can be shown to have gone through several translations, each of which will introduce to a greater or lessor extent a degree of error.  Taking the King James Bible as example, the original Old testament was in Hebrew, and that was translated into Greek. The Greek version then was re-copied several times, and one of the third level copies with several copy errors was then translated into English. But the translators also introduced further deliberate translation errors because they wished to create a Bible which agreed with and supported their preconceived theology. The original Hebrew to Greek translation almost certainly contained the same flaw.  The perfectionists who wish for “divine revelation” to spare them the work of thinking for themselves,  claim “divine revelation” for these works of men. And they insist on that despite proof of flaws, - one single flaw is sufficient to prove that these men were just men - doing the best that they could do, and deserving credit and praise for their efforts, but still fallible men, creating a work of men which is NOT perfect.  Perfection does NOT to my best knowledge exist in this world, and in fact my physics says it can not exist.  Thus we must just try to state the probable error margin,  and get by within that accuracy (inaccuracy band) Let me state this another way::

            PERFECTION IS IMPOSSIBLE,  both in observation and rationalization. We must state the inaccuracy expected,  and try to operate successfully within that tolerance.  This is philosophically true of both Science and religion, and there should be no difference between the two. Quoting “ultimate authority” only makes you into the ultimate liar,  so don’t do it,  and do not respect anyone who does it. Any time you hear or see anyone claiming infallibility in any form this is just a neon sign saying “I AM A LIAR NOT TO BE TRUSTED.”  Once you understand the sign it is a very useful tool - it gives you a list of people to avoid and who are NOT to be believed.  If a person tries to tell you his inaccuracy, then you at least can begin to believe what he says within those limits.

            IRRELEVANCE:: Every variable or concept has a domain over which it is valid. Outside that domain they are irrelevant and we must seek other concepts or variables with which to describe phenomena. There is a limit to all concepts- the “words” we use have a limit. We should strive to understand the bounds - the domain over which they are valid, and not to misuses them outside that domain.

            This irrelevance means that every word we use has a limitation, which we need to understand, and to specify.  This is an exact analogy to stating the accuracy or probable error in the observations of reality.  We here are stating the error and bounds of application for mental concepts.  By knowing that a bound exists, we can look for it, and by specifying it we can avoid the absurdity of using a concept where it is irrelevant.

            Usually The domain ends at the lower end with the “quantum” of the concept. There usually is an smallest irreducible unit of each concept, and below that quantum the concept becomes irrelevant. So we may specify the lower domain by “quanta”

            Let me use the domain of size, and the concepts of  animal, molecule, atom and  electron/ proton/ neutron to demonstrate this.  The concept of animal is valid for many polycellular creatures. But as we go down in size we get to the quantum of a cell, the smallest unit of “animal,” and below that we do not have the DNA information content needed to specify a complete animal. The cell is made up of many molecules,  and I can ask how many molecules are in a cell, but the reverse question “how many cells are in a molecule?” is an absurdity since we have passed outside the domain of “animal or cell” and are into the domain where the concept of molecule is valid but cell is irrelevant.  I may describe a molecule of being made up of atoms.  and the atom of being made up of  electrons, protons, and neutrons.  In absolute units the cell domain stops somewhere near the size of a micron (10^-6 meters) ,  and the domain of the molecule stops being valid near perhaps a nanometer (10^-9 meter) or 10 angstroms. The Atoms are near 1 angstrom (10^-10 meter), and  the other particles such as proton and neutron are closer to a fermi, (10^-15 meter). I may ask how many atoms are in a molecule and expect a chemistry answer, but asking how many molecules are in an atom is irrelevant.  Similarly I may describe the number of electrons and protons etc. in an atom,  but not how many atoms or molecules are in a proton.

            The domain may be space- linear, area or volume as in the above illustration. The domain may be in time. A discussion of the life of a person usually is relevant only from a time starting with his birth and ending at his death.  The body may be discussed at later dates, but in terms of being a person he is not alive and thus lacks that spirit to be a living “Soul” (soul = spirit + body) that makes a living being. There are many other such domains,  in energy, in momentum, or potentials, in physics.  The domains in philosophy and word logic are much less well defined, and that is at least part of the problem with religion.  No one has bothered to define where religion stops, and business begins,  or where belief stops and knowledge begins. It is that sort of sloppy thinking that has allowed the proliferation of charlatans hiding under the guise of freedom of religion. Someone pointed out that a religion is anything that calls itself a religion.  It is time we defined the domain of religion,  and stopped tolerating irrelevant behavior.

           
PERFECTION,  PREACHERS and  PROSELYTING 

            Almost all present religions claim to be THE one TRUE religion, and since they are “perfect” they also are exclusive.  There can be only ONE “True” religion. The word “true means perfect, without flaw, and also means it must be unchanging. Thus it also would be a dead religion.  No “church” (a church is a group of people, a congregation) can be “True” since people inherently are imperfect. Thus a “true” “church” is an oxymoron, an impossible pair of words. Thus any religion of men who are imperfect, can not be true. The absurdity of using the word “true” in conjunction with a church or religion is really amusing since by the logic and definitions of the words it means that they have lied, and in so doing have proven that it is NOT “true”. They have used a pair of self contradictory words which always contradicts their “good” intention and prove the reverse of what was said. Any religion of men must admit it is and always will be imperfect and must provide a means of toleration of imperfection just seeking to be good enough for the followers purposes. It also must provide  a means for correction of errors which are severe enough to move out of the “good enough” range. The people who follow this belief system must be willing to reconsider all mental operations and to change them as needed.

            PROSELYTING::Any religion which does not actively seek new members is doomed from the start. Every religion must grow,  or it will die out.  There is no static condition, all living things either are growing or declining, dying. The growth should initially be exponential, (geometric expansion) to the limit of population potential. Who should do the proselytizing and how should the religion obtain new members? 

            Let us consider church officers, and paid priests in general.  Virtually every religion starts out with a few “true believers” who support themselves by some other regular occupation while they “spread” THE word, the “good news”.  Paul (Psaul) of Tarsus for example was a sail and tent maker, sewing heavy material such as canvas, and would not charge “for that which he himself freely received”.  But it was customary in the early Christian church for example to provide room and board for visiting evangelists.  They were considered “part of the family” so to speak.  As time passed the most active evangelists usually were given or asked for help with their traveling and other expenses.  This was “volunteered” by other members who “want to help” with the good work. They noted that the evangelists could spend more time “working for The Lord” that way,  and this indeed is true.

            From this “help with expenses” it is a short step to asking / receiving full time support to allow specialization and thus even more “effective” use of limited resources. The final step is when the help becomes “customary” and there are standard fees charged for example for weddings and other such rituals.  This long erosion of self responsible ethics from full self support to full time preacher can be seen in numerous cases.  The Catholic priest today nominally owns nothing but his clothing (if even that).  But in practice he has the use of a habitation, he is fed each day, he gets a vacation (retreat) and in return he provides not only “spiritual” but usually psychological and educational services for his “flock”.  He certainly rarely grows food for himself or buys it from fees paid for services rendered,  “so much per hour for psychological counseling” . but he IS paid.

            In recent history the larger urban Catholic churches have had a standard fee for each “service” such as a marriage. Thus the religion has become a business.  The priests or pastors or shamans by what ever name they are called have become “professional”  men, earning their living by teaching others, and providing rituals for them for payment.  And like any other professional, for example the women selling sexual favors,  the prostitutes, they should be judged by their competence.  Did he give full value for money received? Was the client happy with the quantity and quality of service and likely to be a repeat customer?  Was the service rendered what was promised (truth in advertising)?  To quote Gilbert & Sullivan- a lawyer speaking “In other professions in which men engage, the Army, the Navy, the Church or the Stage.  Professional license if carried too far, your chance of promotion will certainly mar,- and I fancy the rule might apply to the bar!  Said I to myself said I.”...

            Well intentioned titles such as Rabbi, originally given to show earned status and respect, tend over time to degenerate into designations for the status in profession/business.  They in some cases indicate the status in the hierarchy, and thus may indicate the type of service, the quality of work that might be expected from that individual. This would be true as one went for example from Parishioner, to Deacon, to Priest, to Parish Priest, to Bishop, to Archbishop, to Cardinal, to Pope. This is Authoritarianism (8 levels between God and man!) applied to the business.

            The Quakers  and numerous other religions have quite correctly rejected all forms of authoritarianism and insisted on self responsibility. Yet even in the case of the Quakers they found some sort of mild organization of “elders” necessary to “govern” their local “churches”.  The “Presbyters” were quickly persuaded to give up their self responsibility to paid pastors. This wish to shrug off self control followed by the convenience of paying someone else to assume the religious duties which actually belong at the individual level has been endlessly repeated,  time after time. The Quakers perhaps have resisted this better than any other group, and we need to take a page out of that book.  They quite correctly teach self responsibility and answerable to conscience. Yet I must conclude that mankind as a whole is not capable of this level of self control. Most people WANT to be told within limits what is right or wrong, and what to do. They do NOT want to answer to their own conscience.  They much prefer to go to confessional and have a priest forgive them their “sins”,  pay with a few “Hail Marys” or “Our Fathers” and go on their way,  usually to do it again next week, or next month.  They really do not want to be self responsible,  but prefer the freedom of action allowed by the looser connection of a paid conscience present only when one goes to church.  Realism probably is not for these people.  They do not want to think, or abide in reality, and seek refuge in myth and illusion {the opiate of the masses}. I suggest that titles indicating authority be rejected, and that each person must answer to himself in a mature religion.

            Yet children (of all ages) need to be under control since they do not yet know “right and wrong” - A provision for teaching at all levels of understanding must be made.  Perhaps the Chinese letting the 6th graders teach the 5th grader may be one answer, but then that requires titles to let everyone know which levels have been attained,  what grade each person has attained. 

            Thus titles of EARNED status appears to be necessary.  However; these titles must never be allowed to be converted into control or power.  Each student must be working toward passing the “examination” to the next higher level, and once there they should expect to teach those in the next lower level.  In turn they can expect to continue their studies for the next degree of understanding.  One would hope that better and better self refinement could be attained, and that the process would never reach an end.  There may come a time,  like I found myself to be in,  when there were no people I could turn to. I was forced to strike out on my own, and to try to teach myself, to make progress for myself on my own.  Even if there are others who are ahead of the student somewhere else it is probable that they may not be available to the student, so self education sooner or later must be proposed for those near the top of the well defined pyramid of knowledge. That is true of every possible field of study. Sooner or later one runs out of text books and has to start writing one’s own “texts”.

            With any religion what are the obligations of the “student” or the “convert”?  He is receiving value from someone else,  and thus is obligated to “repay” that value. But he can not pay this debt directly to the person from whom he received his thought process in general.  He indeed can say “Thank You” - a rare form of payment in today’s world.  Thank You also acknowledges a debt; which often can not really be repaid other than by recognition. In Japanese there are several forms of “thank you” each showing  a varying form of resentment- English should be so honest!  Thus the exact same ethics apply here as the child parent chain. Each child is raised by his parents, and returns that obligation not to the parents directly, but by having and raising their own children.  The care given to elderly parents also is repaid by the children, not by the parents; a balanced form of ethics where obligations and rewards balance, but where they are not actually paid directly but indirectly. It is a form of SOCIAL balance.  Thus the student or convert owes his “tutor” or mentor at least the effort to teach one more person to pass on the religion, and if possible two.  One to one on a lifetime basis will be “stagnant” in numbers but will actually decline with time because of failures in the chain. Two will expand by doubling each 25 years on the average.  In reality if the religion is of value,  it will spread by word of mouth, and the people will find themselves being asked for instruction, and it will double with a rate much greater than this,  up to the available population limit. Thus the real obligation is to help others as you yourself were helped. You must decide how much time you can afford to take away from other obligations,  and you must not allow this to interfere with self responsibility.  This  sort of teaching must never become a “a paid” profession.  In fact the financial aid must never exceed reimbursement of actual out of pocket expenses.  Any more than that and the religion has become a businesses.  Accepting even a good will donation steps over the line into that path leads to a profession, and conflicts with self responsibility.

            In fact the religion should always cost the teacher some small amount over and above time. That way one can be certain that the ethics are “giving” not taking,  and that the incentive for proselyting is not “business” reasons, but love. Similarly if power and control are avoided, and status / recognition “by occupying the chief seats” is not allowed, the motive also will not be recognition or power.

            What of large buildings?  I strongly suggest that large buildings be avoided. Social activities are necessary to humans- we are gregarious people. But we also can see the results of “Building mania” in the thousands of man years spent in construction of the Cathedrals for example in medieval Europe.  Every past religion virtually has cluttered up the landscape with monuments to vanity. These range from the most grandiose of all- the Pyramids of Egypt which were a monument to The “God” on Earth who built them, to the Taj Mahal or the various mosques of Islam.  While they did serve social and educational functions, the cost was far greater than the functionality attained. They were, to say the least, not very cost effective. The mass media phenomena of Televangilism, and filling amphitheaters with people like Billy Graham does, is not really serving education.  Those events appeal to the reptilian dinosaur part of the brain through emotions.  The optimum class size appears to be larger than 10 and less than 20 students, call it 15 or so at optimum, based upon studies of 6 to 12 year old children. With less than 6 or so there is insufficient interaction of the students who help each other.  With larger than 20 there is insufficient individual attention and time for each student.  I am not sure this fully pertains to adults, but from my University experience I also would suggest that this is about correct. The larger “lecture hall” classes with 60 to 300 students is an efficient use of the time of a particularly good lecturer, but those need to be supplemented with individual contact time, perhaps using “graduate student” tutors. Individual contact for personal help seems to be mandatory.  I suspect that with recent advances in television recording, most knowledge will be learned from high quality recordings from now on The present university lecture system is doomed.  There still must be individual instruction. It is needed to work out individual problems,  but I expect to see dramatic, change in how things are learned in the near distant future. The new rationalism will no doubt take advantage of this. There is good reason not to revert to archaic methods.  Thus I suggest that each person may dedicate some time and house space for learning  religion,  and time and space for helping in propagation of it.  Thus the religion becomes a totally personal, totally self responsible, diffuse controlled institution as opposed to centralized authoritarian, etc. religions.  The exact same list comparing wiccia to the catholic religion would apply.  This does avoid the ills of mature religions.  It also does not cover the mindless masses who want the other forms.

            Exclusivity- Realism is NOT exclusive and one can be a realist and enjoy any other ritual which makes you happy.  This comes under the heading of being “good enough”. Sooner or later the realist will reject, (at least mentally) the irrationalities of for example Islam or Christianity,  but that does not prohibit them from being both a Realist an a Muslim or a Realist and a Christian. 

            The reverse statement is not necessarily true. Islam or Christianity or any organized church may reject Realism, and declare no Mohammedan or Christian can be a Realist.  That deliberate attempt at monopoly and conflict between mental options can have only one final result;  the extinction of the group trying to assert monopolistic power control.  I do not have to judge them to know that their own judgment will reflect upon them with the exact consequences that they tried to apply to others.

Emotional traps to limit thinking, a form of Mental Stagnation, Brainwashing

            There is a normal sequence of development in all individuals; we all “grow up”. It is possible to injure a child, a teenager, or a young adult person, or even an unwary adult and to damage them mentally by trapping them in a lower state of mental, emotional, and psychological development, by inhibiting their thinking. This entrapment is usually done by getting them to accept one or more false assumptions at an emotional level.  This damage is usually done as part of a devout religious “experience” and is an agreement made with one’s self not to proceed normally, but to stop at some specific stage. This self restriction usually is coaxed or obtained by some evangelist proselyting for some sect, using leading questions to reach a conclusion he wished the potential convert to reach.

            The “convert” is talked into accepting some specified set of  “facts” or assumptions as truth without further examination, specifically usually including hidden assumptions in definitions of terms used.   The trapper tries to promote the words he uses as “The Word of God” and His (God’s) Word being absolute and True the convert need not apply skepticism to them. Thus these words are not subject to critical examination, and thus the convert will not be free to find the truth which is in conflict with those assumptions. Warning::- When anyone claims something is “The Word of God” it is virtually certainly an untruth, and the god in question is Satan, the father of all lies.  Truths, particularly well known and easily accepted truths may be mixed with lies; but the sum total is a lie. 

            This is usually done by asking someone to accept some unprovable or questionable assumption as a working basis, and to “pray” about it.  They are told “You will get a good feeling if it is true”.  But the instructor then makes sure that the person gets a good feeling about their contacts.  The potential converts are the object of attention,  and “fellowship”.  They are flattered with this attention.  This works best with people who have just had an emotional trauma such as a divorce, or family disagreement where they feel rejected.  Humans are gregarious and need other people. They need acceptance, and get it this way. Thus they accept the erroneous assumptions, and usually can not later be convinced even to examine the false basis and consequences of those erroneous assumptions.  The net sum of assumptions almost always gives the leaders considerable power over the convert. As “God’s Anointed” they also now become “right” beyond question.  It would be sacrilege against God to question their correctness as well. The usual claim involves some title, being God’s anointed, his servant, or even a prophet. Beware titles, and authoritarian structures.  The leaders start out to assert control with one small and obvious “improvement” for the convert and add more and more, an insidious process that eventually leads to full conversion, mental domination, and turning over a major part of the decisions which were possible to the leaders of the sect.  This is the religious programming or brainwashing technique. It limits choices,  and thus strain on the brain.  The brain is occupied with memorization of endless trivia, and interlocking details, usually a meaningless mish mash without practical utility, all of which are circular in reasoning.  The key assumptions upon which the circular pattern was built were really the fallacious starting point. This technique is unethical since it violates freedom of choice,  and restricts possible life experiences.  These must be avoided.

            Yet there also must be a place for everyone.  Most “average” or “normal” people do not wish to burdened with too much thinking.  They actually want someone to take over responsibility for their decisions, and thus wish limited enslavement.  They wish the mental bonds to be well padded,  so as not to chafe or be to obvious, and  they also will violate the “rules” and need forgiveness, for shame and guilt/  - we utterly can not teach these people to run mentally until we teach them to stand on their own two feet first. 

            Thus realism must not insist on perfection.  It must tolerate all stages of development, and recognize that the lower stages exist,  clearly label them, and accommodate them.  In this portion realism must “complete” with all other religions, or as suggested simply use them as stepping stones to the higher ethic, higher philosophy, the higher religion,  and subsume them. 

            NONINTERFERENCE:  As stated Belief 9 was that we should take extreme care not to interfere with the normal progression of other people.  Perhaps I should have stated that as allowing others the freedom to go to hell after their own fashion. While it seems ethically permissible to help others,  that help should not be such that it hinders initiative, or development. There is a fine balance between helping that allows others to develop a fuller potential, and “help” with the best of intentions that allows them to stop trying and not suffer the consequences of bad behavior. If you take all the load from someone who needs to learn to carry his burden,  they will not develop the muscles which are needed to carry the load alone when eventually they must do so.  That applies to the “muscles between the ears” as well as arms and legs.  Thus there is a balance between total noninterference, and some help to maximize the results of someone else’s efforts 

            This subtle difference is why welfare historically never has worked.  It is soon looked upon by the recipient as a “right” and eventually they conclude “the world owes me a living”. They become very adept at complaining and whining, while avoiding any real work in the dirty hands, sweaty labor sense. The optimize reward for effort. Thus any charity must be considered at best a one time windfall, and in such a way that the recipient does not just go out and squander it. That is one very normal result of winners of million dollar lotteries, the win ruins them, as they squander the winnings. They did not earn that value,  thus do not understand it, and can not handle it. It is a form of ethical balance - either you control your wealth, or it  will control you.  Values can easily ruin anyone not smart enough to have created the wealth. It is a two edged sword.

            Perfectly good intentions motivated the missionaries to go out and try to convert the “heathen” Polynesian islanders to their religion  I the process they stuffed the poor natives into “mother hubbard” dresses, and generally destroyed their culture,  leaving them with a second rate second hand “Europeans” culture with little pride in their heritage or their own culture.  This was repeated with the American Indians too m any times to count, with the Natives of Peru, Brazil, Mexico, and just about every culture with which they came into contact.  They destroyed the good in their culture along with the bad, without being able to replace the good with something of equal value. Their value systems were warped - they tried to substitute intangible beliefs for ethical practices. allowing the unseen and unprovable to dominate the observed behavior codes.