Philosophy Now Forum

Harry Baird wrote:So, Skip, basically, you're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

But I sense that you're unappreciative of my attempts to challenge you, so, if you'd prefer, we can end this exchange.

Given that we can't seem to find a mutually acceptable vocabulary*, that's probably best.
*What baby? What bath? Never mind: if I am unwilling to carry Gustav's dense verbiage for the glorious European tradition, I won't likely be more eager to give your phantoms lodging, just in case I may have incurred debts in a previous life.

A couple of thoughts. All narratives about religion and spirituality (one even grows sick of the words that are so often repeated that they become vacant and even ugly), and especially all *meaning* about these things, have become so intensely contested, so confused, so doubted, that it will be I think impossible to make sense of it, to determine something, anything. This is a forum in which a very small number of people read and only 5 or so write. Yet the *conversation* (LOL) is simply *impossible*. It cannot be only 'vocabulary'. I have the sense that it has everything to do with 'power in the present'. With this in view, a disconnected conversation in abstraction about 'spirit' or 'spiritual principals' or 'The Nature of God' (theological principals) is not possible. And because no definitions are possible as predicates, no 'cooperative conversation' can emerge. What occurs is that the horses don't even get out of the gate. This was clear around page three! And this is of course just as it should be. Two aspects of politics: One is a sort of Ultra Conservative decimation of the liberal opposition, and that tendency which shows itself in conservative Counter-Reformations. The other takes a stand against conservative structures of control and might be expressed in an Ultra Liberal beheading of clergy (Reign of Terror). Am I mistaken to believe that, in various different ways, similar struggles are quite real and are still going on?

Is there a 'spirituality' or a 'metaphysic' or even an abstract and reining god, God or 'God' that is outside of the determinants of human will? A grand force *beyond* or *over* or *deeply within* to which, scientifically, one could recur for resolution of political issues? Ha ha!
____________________________________________

This goes out to Harry. This to Skip. In the spirit of light humor.

All narratives about religion and spirituality (one even grows sick of the words that are so often repeated that they become vacant and even ugly), and especially all *meaning* about these things, have become so intensely contested, so confused, so doubted, that it will be I think impossible to make sense of it, to determine something, anything.

My sense is that the problem lies deeper than the people, cultures, ideologies involved, given the universality of what you describe.

You reference meaning, sense, determining something. To put it another way, you are speaking about the process of converting the real in to the symbolic.

Somebody had a compelling experience and so they try to write it down, explain it, convert it in to conceptual form. Something real happened and we hope to keep it alive by turning it in to a dead thing, a symbol, a thought, a mental photograph, which we then try to scale up and mass produce via an ideology, a religion.

If this is not a useful way of approaching this subject, then all ideologies are inherently flawed, including this one.

I have the sense that it has everything to do with 'power in the present'.

Yes. We are looking for something, some people call it God. Whatever it is we seek, we want it in the real world, not just in a book, right? And so the real world is the place to look. Very simple reasoning.

The practical person then asks, how to look in the real world? How to look very closely and carefully with great attention?

What is obstructing us from making such an examination? And the answer usually is, we are distracted from looking closely at the real world by the symbolic world. We're both doing that very thing right now, me writing the symbols, you reading them.

Symbols, thought, can be very compelling. Why?

My pet theory is that we rule over the world of symbols inside our minds like a god. We can order the symbols about, arrange them as we please, assemble any towering pile of symbols that pleases us.

Attending closely to reality involves giving up all this power, at least for a time. It's an act of surrender. Jesus said "die to be reborn", perhaps this might be some of what he meant?

While we rule like gods over the symbolic world in our mind, it's a very small second hand cardboard kind of kingdom. There just isn't enough psychic nutrition. Like how a photo of one's girlfriend will simply never be able to replace the real girlfriend, no matter how good of a photo it is.

And because no definitions are possible as predicates, no 'cooperative conversation' can emerge.

I think it can if the focus is shifted away from the meaning of all this, towards practical methods for turning down the volume of the so very distracting symbolic world.

Maybe the meaning doesn't matter at all, and the experience is enough in itself?

As example, when we're hungry, who cares what the meaning of food is, we just want to eat. When we're hungry, we want practical instructions on how to find food, not a book about theories of cellular metabolism.

Felasco wrote:You reference meaning, sense, determining something. To put it another way, you are speaking about the process of converting the real in to the symbolic.

Somebody had a compelling experience and so they try to write it down, explain it, convert it in to conceptual form. Something real happened and we hope to keep it alive by turning it in to a dead thing, a symbol, a thought, a mental photograph, which we then try to scale up and mass produce via an ideology, a religion.

If this is not a useful way of approaching this subject, then all ideologies are inherently flawed, including this one.

As I understand things, and let's speak of something relatively simple and 'spiritual' (as an activity of man) such as shamanism, and let's locate that shaman in his tribe 8000 years ago in the Amazon basin. Prehistoric. That man knows very well his 'context', his place. He has all the skills to defend himself in that place and to get from it what he needs. One of his 'tools', if you will, is his shamanic skills (to put it so). I am thinking of one ethnographic tract I read some years back where these men use a potent jungle drug that opens them up to a vision of the jungle spirit, the god of the forest as it were: Anaconda. This god is the great teacher, the mysterious power that knows all the deepest possible secrets about navigation in the forest. It is essential to develop a relationship with that spirit in order to be a successful person within that context. That god-spirit teaches a man specific things---about hunting, about tracking, about plants---through the revelatory experience.

I suppose that you (and Skip too who has spoken in defense of 'primitive animism' as against his declared enemy: Judeo-Christianity with its Giant Penis God Yahweh, but this is not an accurate description since, to be factual, Jesus has no penis) might see that this shaman's world is 'the real world', and if his knowledge-base didn't jibe with that Real World it would be 'mal-adaptive knowledge' and in any case it wouldn't 'function' in that world. Following the Anaconda Spirit would lead to his perdition in all relevant senses. It is a curious endeavor to find 'real contexts' in which the 'spiritual' and the 'visionary' can be seen as directly related to 'context'.

Is there or is there not a 'conversion' of the 'real' into symbolic representations even in the context mentioned? Or is it that it is more connected to the Real and thusly less unreal? All stories told to avid ears around the campfire and all the cultural 'mythologies' are symbolic representations of what is a 'real world', but they are totally symbolic.

A compelling experience, as you put it, is an experience that gives one 'power' to deal with his context, to handle power, to clarify decisions, and in a basic sense to navigate through the various treacheries of the place itself. A 'compelling experience' is not simply any old experience but one that reveals specific aspects of the 'place' or methods and even 'tricks' for making one's way through it. Yet it seems to me that there is no way for that 'experience' not to come to one in dense symbols. Paradigms? 'General laws'? Principals?

I would suggest that what we call 'Christianity' is also a navigation-system, a 'chart' if you will, the 'mapping of a territory', the location of bad places and dangerous places, and bad persons and entities, and is also a revelation by 'the Anaconda Spirit' for one who seeks certain powers and 'blessings' in order to 'navigate reality'.

'All ideologies are inherently flawed' must be a truism, since every ideology that you will name arises in specificity, and carries all its 'specific logics'. If the 'specific logics' of a given organizational system no longer 'functions' in a given context it will fall out of practice. One will have to cobble together another ideological set to guide one over the treacherous waters of life.

When a given reining System falls away there will arise conditions of mass confusion and disorientation. If a man no longer trusts the very ground under his feet (if he cannot define where and why he is) he will literally be lost in his world. Who can live in such confusion and disorientation? [I submit: the being that arises in that context will be a distorted, disoriented being, and possibly even a 'danger'. Well, there is no way around it: dangers indeed lurk.]

But when former reining Systems disintegrate, a few things seem to happen: One is that, inside of ourselves, 'in one way or another', 'to one degree or another', we still hold to an 'old metaphysic' even if it doesn't quite jibe with reality. Reality, to put it colloquially, 'does its own thing' (and by this I mean 'the whole world', and 'the modern world' and 'the world of our present') and we will see countless pockets of people who live in their own private little worlds, their systems of organization of perception. I think this is why people are so bizarrely separate from each other. We lack a connecting 'understructure'.

There is a great deal that one can say about 'all this'...

PS: You are also not considering another possibility: That it is necessary and desirable for man to have and to hold utterly unreal and thoroughly invented and purely tendentious Fantasy Projections about 'reality' and to live in accord with his Fantasy.

Harry: OK, but if He is both nice and naughty at the same time, then He is *not* omnibenevolent, is He, since omnibenevolence entails being nice all the time, and naughty none of the time?

Felasco: Yes, if god is bound by logic, this would be a contradiction, agreed. If he's not bound by logic, then contradictions are irrelevant.

Well, if he's not bound by logic, such that he is both nice and naughty at the same time, then the definition "omnibenevolent" is false, wouldn't you say (in which case the contradiction very much *is* relevant)?

Felasco wrote:Why is a god who is all powerful and thus unbound by logic not a rational definition? All powerful is a pretty straightforward concept, is it not?

Sure, it's rational. If, though, you stipulated that at the same time as being all powerful, He is not all powerful, as you suggested might be possible with omnibenevolence, then that rational definition would stop being applicable.

Harry: In other words, what I'm saying is that I think that logical analysis is valid *assuming a correct definition of God* (and that logical analysis can, through contradiction, be used to cast doubt upon or even disprove the correctness of a definition),

Felasco: Wouldn't any such analysis depend upon the target of the analysis being subject to the rules of the analysis system? You know, we can do a meaningfully study of astronomy only because the heavens follow the laws of physics. What if there were no laws of physics, no natural law of any kind? Then the heavens would be utterly unpredictable, and any observation we made would be anecdotal only, revealing nothing about a larger pattern.

Sure, but then we couldn't make firm "definitions" about the heavens, could we (other than something basic like "the heavens are unpredictable")? Just so: if God is trans-rational, then no firm definition can capture His nature (other than something basic like "God is trans-rational and beyond our understanding"). So, in answer to your question in the first sentence of that quote: no, I don't think so - if the target of the analysis is not subject to the rules of the analysis system, then, simply, nothing can be said about the target (no definitions apply), in which case, if definitions *are* supplied, then they can (theoretically) be shown to be false (inapplicable).

Felasco wrote:Birds and mammals do appear to have emotions, but I don't see morality, the good and evil concept.

Good and evil appear to be yet another dualistic product of the inherently divisive nature of thought.

Is nature good or evil? The question seems nonsensical, as nature is really another word for everything.

It does seem "peculiar" that a loving God would design a world where creatures must prey on one another to survive, doesn't it? In that sense, one might suggest some element of "evil" in the design of nature - another reason why I am skeptical of the standard Christian definition of God.

As for morality in animals, I'd suggest that some animals actually deliberately "do good", yes - but whether they're consciously thinking (without words, of course) something like "This is the right thing to do, so I will do it", or whether it is simply their nature to do it, I don't know. House cats in their tormenting of mice when they have sufficient food to eat have always seemed a little "wicked" to me - again, whether it's conscious or simply their nature I don't know. Perhaps, going with Gustav's idea that we are drawn to this plane, we are likewise drawn to the incarnated form that most matches our nature?

Felasco wrote:Perhaps god is a conceptualized personalization of nature? If yes, then perhaps god might be thought of not as a this or a that, but like nature, encompassing all things.

Well, that's not my view, but I know others who take it.

Felasco wrote:Why do you think there is an objective truth?

Because I can't imagine any alternative. Is this a failure of imagination? :-)

I mean, seriously, what would it look like? In the physical world, if you look outside, it is either raining or it is not (perhaps it is cloudless and sunny instead) - there is an objective truth as to the weather conditions. In the spiritual world, it is either the case that a heaven realm exists or it is not, and likewise with a hell realm, etc. Whatever the truth is with respect to either of those, one or the other (its existence or non-existence) is the case. What would it mean for there *not* to be an objective truth about these things? I mean, seriously - would it mean that there simultaneously is and is-not a heaven? I just can't fathom such a thing. But in any case, even if there simultaneously were and were-not a heaven, then *that* would be the objective truth - I just can't see how truth can be avoided. I think that as long as a thing has an existence of some sort, then its existence can be described truthfully.

Felasco wrote:Do you have a sense of what that truth might be?

I've tried to describe some of it in this thread, but really, I'm kind of floundering. It's a difficult place to work out, this world. I have had frightening experiences that have revealed that all is not as it ordinarily seems, but then, somehow, they change back and I return to the ordinary illusion, caught in the spell again.

Skip: as you wish. I could explain the baby and bathwater metaphor, but if we're to terminate this exchange, then I won't.

Gustav: a thought occurred to me. You have described salvation in Eastern terms, yet this thread started as a *Christian* apology. I wonder what you make of the Christian version of salvation, how it differs from the Eastern one, and why you preference the version that you do.

Let us suppose that 'salvation' is a Real Thing. Will there be a Christian, an Indian, and a Buddhist version? If you wish to speak about 'salvation' it seems a definition, even if rather loose, is needed. How do you define Salvation? And what is Christian salvation?

In my case, as you note, I speak from different vantage points but always with 'the main thing(s)' in view.

Predicate: We do not have a 'working definition' of salvation. And you most particularly...

Sure, it's rational. If, though, you stipulated that at the same time as being all powerful, He is not all powerful, as you suggested might be possible with omnibenevolence, then that rational definition would stop being applicable.

Ha, yes, you got me. If a god is all powerful, then it does seem to follow the system of definition starts to fall apart.

Our system of definitions would seem to be a product of the inherently divisive nature of thought, which seeks to conceptually divide a single unified reality in to a collection of separate this and that. This ability of a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies is the lens through which we make our observation of god.

Just so: if God is trans-rational, then no firm definition can capture His nature (other than something basic like "God is trans-rational and beyond our understanding").

Understanding would seem to refer to the process of converting the real to the symbolic, yes? Creating the symbol is a process of definition, that is of division, a separation of this from that.

If we're referring to some factor which is the fundamental essence of everything, then this division process would seem to fall apart, along with our language on this topic, which is rooted in the division process too.

This brings forth a vision of the process of philosophy collapsing around us in chaos as we consider this question. It could be that it is at this point that in desperation we abandon the symbol world, and thus are thrust back in to the real world, which is after all, where we claim to be looking for this god, right?

Seen this way, the incomprehendable nature of god could be seen as a gift from god. Perhaps by being inscrutable a god would be saying, "Don't look in the symbol world you dummies, cause I'm not there, I'm in the real world."

It does seem "peculiar" that a loving God would design a world where creatures must prey on one another to survive, doesn't it? In that sense, one might suggest some element of "evil" in the design of nature - another reason why I am skeptical of the standard Christian definition of God.

Speaking of skeptical, it seems to me Christian beliefs are really a statement that love isn't enough, which would seem to be an argument with the very best part of their own religion.

Felasco wrote:Perhaps god is a conceptualized personalization of nature? If yes, then perhaps god might be thought of not as a this or a that, but like nature, encompassing all things.

Well, that's not my view, but I know others who take it.

Ok, what is your view?

Felasco wrote:Why do you think there is an objective truth?

Because I can't imagine any alternative. Is this a failure of imagination?

It's perhaps helpful here to recall how very small we are in relation to the reality we are discussing.

I mean, seriously, what would it look like? In the physical world, if you look outside, it is either raining or it is not (perhaps it is cloudless and sunny instead) - there is an objective truth as to the weather conditions.

Ok, right.

In the spiritual world, it is either the case that a heaven realm exists or it is not, and likewise with a hell realm, etc. Whatever the truth is with respect to either of those, one or the other (its existence or non-existence) is the case.

Do I exist, or not? It seems we could make an argument either way. The concept "exist" relies on separation, yes? I exist as something separate from something else.

What if this notion of separation (and thus existence) is really a by-product of the inherently divisive nature of thought, the tool we are using to make our observation, and not a quality of reality itself? You know, if we are wearing pink tinted sunglasses, all of reality is going to look a shade of pink.

To me, this brings us back to the importance of understanding the nature of thought itself, as opposed to an exclusive focus on the content of thought (this idea vs. that idea). Like any tool, thought will be limited and will introduce distortions in to the observation. It would probably be helpful to try to understand what those distortions are.

What would it mean for there *not* to be an objective truth about these things? I mean, seriously - would it mean that there simultaneously is and is-not a heaven? I just can't fathom such a thing.

Perhaps we can't fathom such a thing because of the limitations of the equipment we are using? You know, we are after all only a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, a species only recently living in caves, a species with thousands of nuclear weapons aimed down it's own throat, a subject no longer of much interest to us. Who says we're rational?

By what reasoning would we assume ourselves capable of all these infinite scale calculations we are attempting to do?

I think that as long as a thing has an existence of some sort, then its existence can be described truthfully.

Unless maybe if this whole idea of existence/non-existence is an invention of our own minds?

I've tried to describe some of it in this thread, but really, I'm kind of floundering. It's a difficult place to work out, this world. I have had frightening experiences that have revealed that all is not as it ordinarily seems, but then, somehow, they change back and I return to the ordinary illusion, caught in the spell again.

I hear ya. Well, Ben Franklin said there will be plenty of time for sleep in the grave. Perhaps the same can be said of "Truth"? I'm 61, and am increasingly finding that's a good enough plan for me, a blessing really.

I've discovered that floundering exists only in the symbolic world, not in the real world. And like you I journey back and forth all the time, swept up in the illusion and chaos of the symbolic world, then freed, then caught again.

Gustav wrote:Let us suppose that 'salvation' is a Real Thing. Will there be a Christian, an Indian, and a Buddhist version?

There might well be different versions of (ideas of, notions of, definitions of) salvation, but if it *is* a Real Thing, then at most only one of them will be correct (will correspond with the Real Thing); the others will be off by some greater or lesser margin.

Gustav wrote:How do you define Salvation?

I explained that earlier in the thread. Salvation in my view is the release through Divine gift (sacrifice) from the (negative) consequences of offences (sins) we've committed.

Gustav wrote:And what is Christian salvation?

I think my view pretty much coincides with the Christian view, except that in my view, God is not the one meting out negative consequences as He is in the Christian view.

Gustav wrote:We do not have a 'working definition' of salvation. And you most particularly...

Nope, you just haven't been paying attention... not that I blame you - my writing is kind of narrowly focussed, it's probably pretty boring to someone who prefers to write expansively.

----------

Hi Felasco,

You seem to be big on the distinction between the symbolic world and the real world. I wonder whether you could write a little more about this. For example, do you think we would be better served as a species to "return to the real world"? What would this entail? Would we keep our languages? How would our civilisation be affected? That kind of thing.

You also ask what my view on God is. I'm not very clear on this, but my best understanding is that He is:
1. A conscious, willing agent.
2. The supreme example for us to emulate.

Beyond that I don't really want to speculate. Of course, this view is problematic, because if He *is* conscious, then one might question why He reveals Himself to so few people. I wrote a little about this earlier in the thread, suffice it to say here that my answer is only speculative.

Hi Felasco, You seem to be big on the distinction between the symbolic world and the real world.

Yes, that's a good summary of my main interest.

For example, do you think we would be better served as a species to "return to the real world"? What would this entail? Would we keep our languages? How would our civilisation be affected? That kind of thing.

Well, thought is the tool nature has given us to survive, so we don't have the option to discard it. It is the human condition that we will always be spending some of our life in the symbolic world. And of course a great many benefits arise from the symbolic world, so we shouldn't be declaring it the enemy.

That said, I do think our personal and social sanity would be enhanced by adjusting the balance between our relationship with the symbolic and real worlds.

As example, let's imagine I've taken a photo (symbolic world) of a friend. There's nothing wrong with photos and they certainly have their uses. But if I find I'm spending almost all my time with the photo and not my friend, my personal life is a bit of a mess.
That seems roughly analogous to where we are as people and a culture today.

The biggest story of the last century is that humanity is making a historic move out of nature in to huge cities. And now we've created the world's largest city, the Internet, a totally symbolic realm. We're getting sucked ever deeper in to a symbolic experience ever more remote from the real world.

We can observe this on the personal level too. We need thought to do things like type this post, and that's fine. But then we typically leave thought going, going, going, all day long doing nothing more important than cycling through an endless series of random symbolic imagery. The problem here is that this near endless immersion in the symbolic seriously distracts us from the real world.

Bottom line, thought can't deliver what we most want, an experience of unity with reality. It can't deliver this unity simply because it is a tool that is inherently divisive in nature.

I hope this little sermon meets at least some of what you were requesting.

You also ask what my view on God is. I'm not very clear on this, but my best understanding is that He is:
1. A conscious, willing agent.
2. The supreme example for us to emulate.

Ok, thank you. I was going to ask more but then I read...

Beyond that I don't really want to speculate.

Ok, that's probably wise.

Of course, this view is problematic, because if He *is* conscious, then one might question why He reveals Himself to so few people.

I suppose we could reflect on what consciousness is?

As I see it, it's yet another product of the inherently divisive nature of thought. Thought divides itself in to "the thought" and "the thinker". As the thinker (one thought stream) observes the thought (another thought stream) consciousness is born.

This perhaps raises the question of whether consciousness as we experience it is just a property of the human experience. You know, a feature of a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies.

If there is intelligence which doesn't rely on this process of division, it would probably be inscrutable to us?

Thanks again for the exchanges!

Harry wrote:Nope, you just haven't been paying attention...not that I blame you - my writing is kind of narrowly focussed, it's probably pretty boring to someone who prefers to write expansively.

Actually, in my way (albeit idiosyncratic) I have definitely been paying attention. With 'working definition' (there was a there too) I was attempting some infamous and unwelcome Bjornstrandian irony. Pathetic, I know. Greasy and green-eyed also. I am always inclined on these forums to press questions. It is related naturally to the 'aggressiveness' we spoke of at another time. I am beginning to conclude I must be a Child of Satan because I definitely am not an appropriate son of the Purely Good God. The God I worship has a bit of the Devil in him. Maybe they have a 12-Step Program for people like me? I'll tell you where I was going (with my irony) if you are inclined to hear it.

Felasco wrote:We need thought to do things like type this post, and that's fine. But then we typically leave thought going, going, going, all day long doing nothing more important than cycling through an endless series of random symbolic imagery. The problem here is that this near endless immersion in the symbolic seriously distracts us from the real world.

I love this quote, Felasco! Because I have certainly "left thought going, going, going". And I don't know whether to crow or to cry about it! I have met new people through my "symbols", but then, have I tied myself to my computer (laptop) *also* through my symbols. What if (and what if not) "symbolising" brings one into contact with (sympathetic) "symbolisers"? And what if the (sympathetic) "symbolisers" *are* the best route to the "real world". All totally hypothetical, of course, you know. I have no idea. For all I know, the "real world" is what I hear about on SBS News.

Gustav wrote:Actually, in my way (albeit idiosyncratic) I have definitely been paying attention. With 'working definition' (there was a there too) I was attempting some infamous and unwelcome Bjornstrandian irony. Pathetic, I know. Greasy and green-eyed also. I am always inclined on these forums to press questions. It is related naturally to the 'aggressiveness' we spoke of at another time. I am beginning to conclude I must be a Child of Satan because I definitely am not an appropriate son of the Purely Good God. The God I worship has a bit of the Devil in him. Maybe they have a 12-Step Program for people like me? I'll tell you where I was going (with my irony) if you are inclined to hear it.

The "Purely Good God" has naturally a spirit of *play*, but not a spirit of *misdirection*. But please, share your irony, so long as it is playful and not misdirected.

I love this quote, Felasco! Because I have certainly "left thought going, going, going". And I don't know whether to crow or to cry about it!

Well, I may have more thoughts about stepping out of thought than anybody you'll ever meet. I find nurturing a sense of humor about such a predicament comes in handy.

The is the Philosophy Of Religion section so here's a god related observation that I hope fits here.

We may say we're looking for God. And we don't mean just in holy books or our imagination, but in the real world. Ok, fair enough, but....

Are we actually looking in the real world?

We may look in religious stories and holy books etc. These all reference the past. What is the past exactly? A collection of images in our mind. So the past is really the symbolic world, not the real world.

We may take these images of the past, and project them in to the future. We say, some guy in the Bible saw God, maybe I will too. What is the future exactly? It's a collection of images in our mind, so it's also the symbolic world, and not the real world.

So if our project is looking for God in the real world, we can rule out the past and future, as they are the symbolic world. This would seem to go a long way in focusing the search, yes?

Hmm. Felasco, I'm reluctant to post contrararian remarks, but... just because something is "a collection of images" doesn't (necessarily) make it an *inaccurate* collection of images.

That's all I have to say, really. Sorry, I'm not very eloquent right now.

Harry Baird wrote:Hmm. Felasco, I'm reluctant to post contrararian remarks, but... just because something is "a collection of images" doesn't (necessarily) make it an *inaccurate* collection of images.

I agree, no problem. A photo might be a perfect representation of the subject, but it's still a photo, not the subject.

You know, the word Felasco is not Felasco. The word God is not God, even if we all agreed completely on what the definition of "God" should be.