Tom Sawyer Painting Fences With Blinders On: Freud, Max Weber, Rev MLK Who? Another Scientific Materialist

How Hi 2 days ago Questions about the nature of the cosmos are prompted by religion, unsurprisingly since God is nominated the creator of existence. With the coming of science the question lay waiting for a realistic examination, but as an atheist who is happy to consider the nature of existence or the cosmos I have no interest in any kind of religious style answers and as far as I know there are no viable scientific ideas to explain this most profound question of all. How do we answer the question as to what existence is in scientific terms ? *** Which means that in the end it can only be a religious question, which makes it of no interest beyond the simple fact of acknowledging it is a mystery. But it is not a mystery that religion throws any light on at all, religion simply uses the unanswerable mystery to assert the validity of its assertion that God exists. Like1 Green Peacemst 1 day ago The fixation on "science" is its own ideological condition, and anthropologically, in fact religious. "Science" is a modern technophilic portrayal of scientific natural philosophy, that is, the application of philosophy to study physical objects and processes. Freud provides a trail for scientific materialists to observe the trail. He was a neurologist faced with patients suffering with no apparent organic cause of disease. Thus, he drew on some existing therapeutic forms, and asked the patients, like Anna O. for the sake of simplicity, to relax, focus their attention on the pain, and share their thoughts. Meanwhile, he took notes and encouraged them to continue. That was where Freud began analyzing their words, not studying their neurons or neuromusculature, etc under a microscope. That enters into the non-scientific philosophical, yet what is still in fact empirical philosophical, that by now can be called the psychosocial empirical philosophical (aka social sciences and humanities). Moreover, comparative religious studies and the philosophy of religion are both best used as multidiscplinary philosophical approaches, ie disciplines. If religion is merely considered anything, empirical philosophical scholarship is how University-based culture has been addressing it. I´ve had to develop my own terms, as far as I know, including spiritual-religious phenomena, practice, experience, and knowledge in the process, although I see it naturally as part of comparative religious studies and philosophy of religion. Your turning religion into a circular argument misses a basic point. "Science," which is actually scientific philosophy, is part of the full spectrum of modern empirical and philosophical forms. It helps also to take what I began to describe about Freud´s need to shift his approach, and acknowledge philosophers-psychosocial scholars like Max Weber who developed antipositivism/interpretivism. Human beings cannot be studied much like physical objects at all, but require understanding of symbolic issues, norms, values, etc. God the Creator, the Divine Transcendental Entity, can be inferred from the empirical sources since at least Abraham and Moses, shamans across cultures, and the like in their spiritual-religious experiences, that related to practices. Modern philosophy of religion works with what was originally Aristotle´s esoteric First Cause argument. The historical sociological continuity then shifts as ancient Greek culture was absorbed to neoplatonic Roman conditions, and Christian philosophers. Christian monasticism then developed, and became one major institutions of spiritual-religious practice. By the 1200s, the pivotal monk Thomas Aquinas then Christianized ancient Greek philosophy, with Aristotle´s esoteric First Cause characteristically reformulated in accordance with Jesus´ heritage and message of a loving, lawful Creator God. Modern philosophical forms in University-based culture is derived from Christian spiritual practice in the first place. Whether you understand your own obligation to study psychosocial studies, or the need to acknowledge spiritual-religious practice as a scientifically identified legitimate and unique kind of brainscan state in prayer or meditation, it is philosophy that establishes the continuity and distinctions. That is, no less, how epistemology works in philosophy. "Science" itself has been treated as a technophilic and supremacist practice of truth. It isn´t. That´s a philosophical fallacy, as well as a psychological condition, as well as a "spiritual religious revelation." Depending on the discipline being drawn on. That´s a University-based philosophical discipline, to repeat. For that reason, I´ve also had to invent the method involved that gives the overview and employment of the liberal arts and sciences with that kind of acknowledgment of literacy, Multidisciplinary Philosophy. The established churches don´t have the last word on doctrine. The Universities inspire individuals to modernize it, along with US-inspired Freedom of Religion and Civil Rights, and UN human rights, and EU equivalents. Once Universities are identified as Christian-based, anyway, Christian-derived democratic society has created the psychosocial mechanism for individuals to engage in spiritual religious practice and philosophical investigation to assess the empirical and philosophical issues. I was helped early on by identifying Unitarian Universalism, for example ,in the US. Like How Hi 1 day ago Green The idea that you can have religion in a university, a centre for knowledge creation, is identical to the notion that you can have a mafia police force, that is a police force dedicated to enforcing the law that openly welcomes practicing criminals within its ranks. Religion is the antithesis of science, a primary goal of religion in the modern era has been to steadfastly oppose science in order to maintain its own political authority, and your efforts are completely in line with this. For a genuine science to exist it must be based on a positive atheism that seeks a world in which religion does not exist, because this is a precondition for science to exist as an authority on knowledge of reality existing in its own right. Science done properly is nothing like religion, however many people, like yourself, wish to claim that it is. Natural philosophy faded away at the end of the eighteenth century as science came on line as a means of discovering the underpinnings of reality in a precise and demonstrable form. As an admirer of science from an early age I also considered philosophy to be as redundant as religion, and yet oddly enough I have become a philosopher myself, according to my own understanding of how my life has turned out, a life now in its twilight. Religion is the most important knowledge we possess, it created our world and it rules our world, but it is not of the same nature as knowledge created by applying a scientific method to the study of existence as it appears around us. Thus religion is part of reality, not an account of reality, and as a part of reality religion is a fit subject for science to be applied to, and indeed only by such scientific application can we discover what religion actually is as a natural phenomenon created by a natural process. The reason I had to become a philosopher is that because religion rules our world with an iron grip, as it always has, it turns out that science does not actually exist ! Ha! Who would of thought that ? But it is true. It is not possible for science to exist in a world where religion exists, as already noted. It transpires that during the war between religion and science, so called at the time by at least a couple of authors, an accommodation was worked out whereby science could exist true and free in places that did not encroach upon the ability of religion to exist, while a proclaimed science would come into being, shaped to the needs of the continuance of religious authority, in fields that could not be allowed to have a genuine scientific account of reality, thus we now have the nature of life covered by Darwinism hailed as the greatest of all sciences, the most atheistic of all sciences! When it is not science at all, it is at best science in the service of religion. If a genuine science existed it would recognise that the human species is a form of superorganic species, where the individual person has evolved to become a unit of a higher order of organic being. The core aspect of individual anatomy facilitating this biological shift of mammalian form onto the level of a superorganic species is of course the power of speech. Linguistic anatomy generates a biological flux of information that constitutes a biological programme, we know this programme as ‘knowledge’, it organises individuals causing them to bring the human animal as superorganism into being. This is where religion comes in, as a biological flux of information animating the existence of the human animal created by nature via the process of biological evolution. Hence the reason why the utter nonsense of religious spiel is so vital for our existence, even in a modern world where the ability to know reality exactly as it is, by means of science, is so well developed. This description of the control of science by religion in no way equates to a conspiracy, the creation of the biological flux of information that delivers all social form and structure ensures that this outcome will be realised, if it did not then the religious knowledge underpinning social form would be unable to achieve what we see it has achieved. Thus universities, contrary to my initial statement, are religious institutions, they exist precisely to control knowledge, not to create it. And those who attend universities must be regarded as akin to the people that train for religious orders of whatever kind, and in this sense the science that is produced by universities does indeed constitute a mode of religious formulation, but this is because academics are really priests, concerned to serve the message ruling society, not being at all interested in what reality is as it is discovered by genuine scientific investigation. This devotion to false, but authoritative ideas, is how nature made individuals to be, it is not a character flaw, however much it sounds like one. Your prophets or seers, those who conjure up religious mythology, are communing with God in the sense that they are developing ideas that reflect the nature of the object that exists in reality that the word ‘God’ relates to, the human superorganism. The resulting mythical ideas have social power because they represent the real attributes of empowerment that relate to the formation of human superorganic physiology based upon the cellular somatic units that we are ourselves. &&& (The extended version reply) Listen to yourself. Tsk, tsk, and shame on you. You have dug yourself into “'Science´s' fancy hole in the ground” fantasizing that it looks like the whole Universe and squashes the big bad wolf that isn´t just fundamentalist religion, but Religion itself. Shameless, just shameless. Was Barack Hussein Obama just a “scientific” phenomena? Are you that blind? Was Ralph Nader a lab technician? Are you só naive? Was Rev Martin Luther King working at a hospital clinic to address the deep roots of racist inequality, even as he perceived its socioeconomic roots, as sociologist CW Mills did in his work like The Power Elite? That all appears like material you see through a thick fog, in your deep hole. In addition to the points I already made, scholar Huston Smith points out that Jesus´ own roots in Hebrew-Jewish prophetic culture begin with the prophet Elijah. He was inspired by God to stand up to the religiously wayward King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, and protected in the process. Jesus had his own teachings and demonstrations that have been widely neglected. The pioneering social movement to end slavery was sparked by the dissenting denomination Quaker-Friend Christians who ignited University-based activity that led T Clarkson to join the Q-Fs and lead the grassroots campaign. Scientific philosophy itself is originally and in principle part of Christian University spiritual philosophical practice, or do you fantasize that Newton was identified by the British East India Co. And fed from their corporate mammaries, like any common contemporary American consumer? Like Dawkins who has no clue about his own affiliation with Oxford University and its meaning. Atheists conspiring? Well, England might be approaching such appearances, and certainly have shown limited ability to forcefully communicate Dawkins´ kind of crass fallacies. His colleagues have called him “an embarrassment” and others have referred to jokingly “varieties of irreligious experience.” That´s a joke based on William James´ balanced, but pro-theist Varieties of Religious Experience. And in a world facing the threats of unsustainability and human rights abuses at the hands of profiteering businesspeople. I even covered Freud and Max Weber, and a range of the psychosocial historical issues. You have the gall to equate me to any other pro-theist speaker on the subject. Meanwhile, you say that you became a philosopher, after all your continuing stereotyped-oriented ideological scientific materialism, and like Alexander Rosenberg, show no knowledge of the meaning and significance of the empirical psychosocial studies disciplines, also essential philosophical developments, like was is in fact scientific philosophy. “Science” is a crass and conceited technophile name, catastrophically overvalued, and part of the very problem of your kind of ideological religious fundamentalism. There you are, subverted by your own stereotypes and held accountable. It´s like religious fundamentalists try to hijack scientific philosophy and philosophy on the whole. Tsk, tsk, again. Shame on you. And that´s how deep the hole is that you´ve jumped into and dug deeper for yourself and others. And in the twilight of your life, no less. Well, I´m no spring chicken, and have seen passed the limitations that you keep painting like a Tom Sawyer at the picket fence wearing horseblinders as if FD Roosevelt, Eleanor, and Gandhi never showed up at all. John Muir, the eco-theist post-Presbyterian founder of the environmental Sierra Club, has a story in his life of digging a deep well as a youth in which he almost died. That would make a nice metaphor along with that Sawyer formulation of mine. Meanwhile, I am grateful for my dad´s well-balanced emphasis on education, with him having left a church as an atheist humanist, stating his straightforward disappointment with church historical violence once, valuing education, psychology, and focused, with anger, on the problem of multinational corporations. And then his limited psychological spiritual resources left him exposed to his unresolved issues and surrounding stresses. His cancer diagnosis was followed by a massive heart attack that killed him and required a defibrillator, delay of techno-cancer treatment, his own indulging in self-reinforcing atheism interpreting his failure to experience the afterlife at death, devastating radiation treatment, cancer elimination, and his rushing his recovery by returning to work in international politics, then getting pneumonia four months later and dying from that in his weakened state. Jesus taught, “seek first the Kingdom of Heaven.” Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths including the need for Right Meditation. Herb Benson MD had labeled the Relaxation Response. OC Simonton MD had written Getting Well Again about psychosomatic approaches to healing cancer. Christian Science had thrived for a long time, and still has a sustained presence based on its powerful transpersonal healing approach, with thousands of testimonies. Carl Jung had promoted a spiritually oriented therapeutic psychology. Thus, I had a good balance to my introspection and overall interest in education and into going to an excellent college at a renowned University for liberal arts and sciences, and getting an undergraduate degree in Biological Anthropology. I switched from sociology to that, and carried my social interests and concerns dynamically with me. It makes me sad at first, that you are like many scientific materialists, and many involved in these discussions, who are simply unconcerned with informing yourself adequately about the subjects involved. I have long had a sense of my responsibility. I focused on the evolution and dynamics of speech, symbolic behavior, interpersonal interaction, and religious ritual with Bio Anthro´s Terrence Deacon one frequent advisor professor. I had also found Eliot D Chapple´s amazing and widely neglected work on anthropology and emotional-interaction patterns that he identified as rhythmic in nature. He derived it from Pavlov´s basic insights on symbolic conditioning. JB Watson´s work is also revealing, with anthropologist Mel Konner relating Watson´s famous work with a child using a gong and a cute little harmless white lab rat. Gong´s cause fear, and fearful associations when a rat is the “guinea pig.” So to speak for humorous effect. Thus, symbols are almost physical in nature. Yet, that is the interface with the non-physical and human realm of symbolic meaning. It is in fact energetic and neural. No less, the complexity of the neural is in circuits and networks. The relevance of the Holographic model was recognized by neurophysiologist Karl Pribram. Wave interference and reflection off an object/subject projected onto a photographic plate resulted in the image´s 3D information being captured, non-locally and distributed. Now, Chapple et al published his Principles of Anthropology with his behavioral interaction patterns-based treatment, also building on Malinowski´s biological need based approach, among others. And the implications clear to someone with active musician-drummer interests like myself. Chapple identified religious ritual for Rites of Intensification and Rites of Passage, building on Van Gennep´s work and the like. He also identified the need of a leader, an “originator.” Which is all fun in its details. But, Greg Bateson and Joseph Campbell later came along and publicized work on schizophrenia, with the double-bind theory psychotherapeutic, and Campbell citing J Silverman MD, I think, on how tribal shamans train “schizophrenics” who actually have a talent. Not as crazy people, but in holistic intelligence. Lord knows I am one of them, among others. But back to basics. Your kind of stereotyping ideological scientific materialism gives you know understanding of the multidisciplinary importance of all University-based liberal arts and sciences in evaluating the significance of scientific philosophy itself. Like I mentioned. I discussed Freud and to Max Weber et al´s crucial work. It reflects how FD Roosevelt and Gandhi didn´t consult Einstein. Einstein was fascinated by Gandhi´s “experiments with truth,” however. Gandhi, a secular law student in London who went to a vegetarian club (?) where he met interfaith Theosophists. Apparently they gave him a new modern spin on Hinduism, and interfaith practice. Gandhi went on to study the Gita and the Bible for Jesus regularly, as his inspiration. Personal conduct, and in fact, the kind of spiritual religious principles that underlie the scientific community and its origins, and nature. A lawful Universe? Where do you think that notion comes from? Aristotle was looking for purpose, not laws, as historian James Hannam points out. And Harry Harlow, studying monkeys, fought the psychological establishment by modern scientific materialistic times, to get the term “love” approved in describing the effects of deprivation. You, an empirical observer like myself observes, demonstrate a related complex, in trying to reduce all to materialist objectivity. As Marshall Rosenberg pointed out in his popular technique Non-Violent Communication, we have feelings and needs that need to be acknowledged. John Bradshaw´s brilliant work on the Crisis in the Family and the wounded inner child did more brilliant work. Empirical, but not scientific. Standardized, but not objectifying. Compassionate, empathetic, in honor of Jesus´ living legacy of loving integrity for Moses and God´s love, and standardized pluralism that makes such declarations as “all religions have one God” worth assessing. UN human rights and sustainability make that standard broadcast around the world. Not scientific reductionism and its associated 3 major forms of materialism: secular, scientific, and economic, and their related misdirections. Economic materialist businesspeople fund Christian fundamentalists, which fuels scientific materialists misguided stereotypes. Congratulations! &&& How H 5 days ago Green I was about to kickoff and have a go at you because your response adopts an aggressive manner at the outset, but I appreciate you taking the trouble to set out some of the more substantial aspects of your life’s work, and I respect that. Clearly we are set at odds along the fracture lines of religion versus atheism, but dealing with that can only come down to an exchange of abusive criticism, and I am as good at that as you are, and I feel sure neither of us are interested in such exchanges just for the fun of it. You do attack a love of science as being blind materialism, and you defend religion on a simplistic basis, but your extended reply provides substance to respond to more constructively. Accordingly, I have looked at various psychological ideas of the kind you talk about with interest, some of the best for me have been where the suggestibility of people is tested so that they can be made to deny the evidence of their own eyes under peer pressure, or susceptibility to authority where a willingness to inflict harsh torture is demonstrated under pressure from an authority figure. From childhood I became a passionate atheist, it has been all that has interested me all my life, spurred on by the fact that we are so oppressed by religion in every detail of our lives, so that I set about my life with two questions fixed in my mind; Why does religion exist, and what would science say the human animal is, if it could say ? And that is it, that has been my life. In my mid forties I hit upon the idea that individuals did not exist as ends in themselves, but in such a manner that I felt the reality of this idea sufficiently to pursue it. Since then this has been my life. That the human animal is a superorganism exactly identical to the insect superorganisms in its nature, is utterly obvious, from a scientific viewpoint, it is completely undeniable, except by way of mere verbal denial, but it is also an idea that cannot be known without destroying society as we know it, because this idea is the key to giving a totally scientific, materialistic if you insist, account of every detail of our existence, which is currently based upon mythological representations of myriad kinds. In order for any account of human existence to have any validity it must recognise this alternative reality, otherwise however clever, however well formulated or tested, it can only be erroneous, just as science based on the earth being at the centre of the universe could only ever be erroneous no matter how exacting and clever its presentation was. I began by writing ripostes to various elements of what you said, but there is nothing to be gained by exchanging insults or simplistic criticisms. But I ought to try and address the specific criticism you make of my dismissal of universities as institutions dedicated to the control of knowledge, not its creation. I am only concerned with religion, and that is because science cannot exist where religion exists, this is a simple fact, our world proves it over and over again. No one is talking about the liberal arts, though I guess I could do, but there is no need, religion, that is all that matters, if there were no religion then liberal arts could do little harm by way of aiding and abetting mental subjugation to an identity implant. Your father, you say, rejected Christianity because of its betrayal of its true nature revealed in its history, that is something worthy of congratulations, shame there are so few Christians who know anything about this, or who care. A crucial attribute of science is that there should be no value judgements, obviously, but you appear to be insisting that because we are all about value judgements in our daily lives then science must follow this course too. In that case you may as well not have science, this is indeed what sociology is like. But that is not science, and I want to know what the human animal is, as it is revealed to be by science! I do not give a fig for anything stemming from that insight, good or bad, I just want to know the correct answer. And of course I do. With that correct answer now obtained, we can address the consequences. Difficult to do briefly. All I would say for now on this, is that I do not see a bright future ahead for us on this planet carrying on the way we have been that has brought us to the position we find ourselves in today. Any ideas I would conjure up about the kind of world I would want to live in would probably read like a H. G. Wells novel, utopian, unreal. But knowing what is real, is itself real, I have proved that, and I hold the believe that knowing what is real is the highest value attainable in the pursuit of knowledge, it is an idealistic belief, but you can congratulate me for that if you like. Like Green Peacemst < 1 min ago Your conceit as an ideological scientific materialist is as noteworthy as it is characteristic of the type. Your noting my stance as "aggressive" is certainly not undue, but your posturing is exposed as you call my attitude "abusive criticism." Oh because I asked if you could be "so naive"? Your mischaracterization is more of an indication of your misguided ideology. In fact, I am presenting you in direct address with positions that refute your ideological assumptions. Your conceit comes from the widespread sociological context of society in which "scientific materialism" has become embedded with the even more toxic economic version of business profiteers, and the "sandwich" form of secular materialism that is unfortunately just as dangerous as it is vulnerable to the other versions´ misdirections. You propose that I am characterizing your "love of science" as "blind materialism." No, although that also reveals how you manipulate terms to shift empirical references. Your blind materialism is what failed to acknowledge key points that I´ll have to address in a moment briefly. Your personal account leads you to share your fixation with equating humans as a "superorganism" IN THE SAME SENSE as insects. I recall that my professor for a class, Harvard´s EO Wilson, was at least held to hold a similar view at one time, in relation to Sociobiology. He was always pretty sophisticated, and when I was presenting him with my Levels of Analysis with anthropological and psychological learning perspectives, he called my views "clinical." The point being in your case that any human condition is only ANALOGOUS to the insects in some respects. Individual human "Ant Queens" demonstrate how symbolic material gets manipulated to create cultural or subcultural ideologies. Barack Obama´s and Bernie Sanders excellent characters and abilites to get elected as President or Senator of Vermont only were no match for GOP maneuvers based on business profiteering funding and scheming that got both Bush and Trump elected with popular minority votes. As Obama spoke more progressively than his modest accomplishments derived from his community organizing background. Individual innovators, or just personalities expressing archetypal positions, in symbolic human behavior can emerge in politics like Obama and Sanders on the good progressive side or the reactionary profiteering side. That reflects conduct, and a crucial angle of spiritual-religious meaning. The human being is no superorganism from the "scientific viewpoint." Your "blind materialism" indeed is exposed, as you say what? "except by way of mere verbal denial, but it is also an idea that cannot be known without destroying society as we know it." These aren´t careful empirical ideas, but your projection of your fears of your stereotypes of spiritual-religious phenomena, blurred with religion. You seek a "scientific" account of humanity, and even are prepared to concede "materialistic", but that´s not a concession. That´s a mistake, a false equivalence. A scientific account of humanity is limited to the physical. That´s what "science" does, ie what is actually scientific philosophy. "Science´s" wheels come off, one might say, outside of physical objects. A good simple example in this subject area is medically attested, medically impossible healings with spiritual religious testimony. Among countless cases in various sources, are Marlene Klepees and Bill Owen. Marlene Klepees went to the Mayo Clinic at age 20 suffering agonizingly from her cerebral palsy and surgical interventions that tried to adjust her skeleto-musculature. Her prayers since age 12 were finally answered, however. She had a prayer-vision-church sequential experience, left the clinic for an afternoon, and returned without the symptoms of her cerebral palsy (childhood brain damage) and the surgical interventions from some years earlier. Bill Owen was hiking with his son, got ill, and returned to Florida, and got hospitalized. His liver was identified as failing, and doctors stumped. Owens´ minister organized a prayer circle, and the next day, Owens began to recover. A University hospital confirmed the reversal. Studying this context draws on the empirical psychosocial studies that study human symbolic behavior, and even form a limited continuity. The reality of "mind" however, is symbolic-energetic and a shift from its own bio-neurological circuit system substrate. Mind over matter identifies how a motivated person in studies, business, sports, or whatever can push beyond their tiredness to complete a deadline overnight or the like. The insights I began to mention to you are fundamental in undersanding what Fritjof Capra´s work in Systems Theory lays out for what is in fact multidisciplinary philosophical epistemology, . You, however, falsely equate "science" with the complete approach. Multidisiciplinary philosophy does include "science," but it understands the basic insight of philosophers and scholars like Max Weber et al who formulated the term antipositivism and interpretivism. Human psychosocial symbolic norms and values require understanding. Your frame of reference as "scientific materialist-anti-religionist" has you, having alleged that I`m simplistic, shows no psychosocial understanding of science and religion. You untenably oppose them, showing no understanding of the History of Science and Religion, and how you are stereotyping with poorly informed functional lack of literacy. Thomas Aquinas shifted Aristotle´s esoteric First Cause philosophy of a co-eternal god-Universe, to the Christian lawful Creator God´s lawful Creation. James Hannam has done excellent work, with popular books like The Genesis of Science/God´s Philosophers. Thus, all the early scientists were Christians in one way or another, up to the spectacular story of Michael Faraday with no University education. You miss all the distinctions because of your primary fallacy. What was the difference between the Vatican team that convicted Galileo and all the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Quakers et al surrounding Lister, Pasteur, and Koch et al? You have no clue. What was the effect of the non-scientific rise of the Industrial Revolution after Watt´s technicological insights with his steam engine? What was the nature of Darwin´s insight about evolution and its impacts? At the levels of complexity going on, Darwin participated in his local church, but never resolved his assertion "What is the relevance of Christ for 'science'?" He was a kind guy with AR Wallace, for example, and aware of Rich Owens the 'dinosaur' guy´s frequent dishonest conduct. Moreover, Darwin never studied spiritual-religious phenomena like the Quakers had, as Julian of Norwich had healed in the 1300s, as was beginning to rise at Lourdes in the Catholic Church, with many other aspects. "Science" was racing ahead as a human activity capable of technological fireworks. Religion has faced the very much more complex issues of its foundational role in society and underlying science itself. Why has the UK, with its Church of England, never gotten rid of its aristocracy? The US got rid of its aristocracy, but not the problem of greed generating oligarchy. The US led with Freedom of Religion, and that led to the 1893 Chicago Parliament of Religions in the US, not Europe, it is worth noting. You snarl about religious mythology, and make no reference to the range of progressive religious efforts that include the Quaker-Friends, Unitarians (where Darwin started), Emerson´s own leaving the Unitarians, but proposing the Oversoul as a Hindu influenced philosophical religious concept. Unitarian Universalism´s wide open structure encouraging spiritual exploration according to set principles. And so I inform you about a range of material that is very much necessary to understand "reality," empirical reality that goes beyond the scientific study of physical objects. The empirical reality that has emerged with various efforts including the study of symbols, starting with Pavolv´s dog and sign to symbol conditioning. Behavioral psychologist JB Watson gave a famous demonstration of a child and a white lab rat. The well-fed rat was just a cute little furry creature with the child, until the gong was rung to scare the child. A few sessions later, the child was scared of the fluffy sniffing rat. Anthropologist Mel Konner tells the account well in his rather materialist book The Tangled Wing. Anthropologist ED Chapple took Pavlov´s work to establish a very coherent behavioral anthropology, no less, drawing on the likes of Malinowski´s field studies. Chapple identified religious rituals as two main kinds: intensification and initiation. You don´t know what´s real by a long shot. You stop at scientific materialism, and your anti-religious stereotyping, all without adequate multidisciplinary knowledge which makes Multidisciplinary Philosophy possible. That includes science, and knowledge of the broader foundations and applicability of empiricism, especially around symbolic behavior and systems. That´s where Emerson´s Oversoul, William James´ Varieties, AN Whitehead´s Process and Reality, Jung´s archetypes, Piaget´s learning, in addition to what I´ve mentioned above, far outstrip your ideological arena. Technically you have a good start. Your ideology, however, makes you as mistaken about religion as a Dawkins calling "God a delusion." Your victimizing comments attempting to characterize my strong and critical forms of personal address like your being "naive" aren´t abusive, except to a conceited ideologue. That´s something I not only am not, in any sense, but have just gone even further in showing how much is missing from your view. Congratulate you? Congratulations on being able to pronounce "superorganism." Congratulations also on having me devote so much effort in this additional comment. Now, wake up and read some OC Simonton MD´s The Healing Journey for a powerful view of how medically attested, medically impossible healing with spiritual-religious testimony justifies the transpersonal philosophy of Emerson, William James, and the rest beyond whom I´ve mentioned. People very unlike ants, and very capable with symbolic language and empiricism, indeed. Until you can engage with their talk, you know very little about what´s real, except in the methodological naturalism of scientific philosophy.