Religion as a coping mechanism

[Donnadogsoth]

Not sure what you mean wit the difference between Origin and origin. Santa Clause satisfies an intellect's desire for magic to exist but that does not mean that Santa exists. An interstellar sneeze satisfies the intellect's desire for a sufficient reason for the universe to exist. Yes there absolutely does have to be some origin to the universe, but that does not mean that origin had to be a being. It does not mean it had to be on purpose, it does not mean that if it was a being that being ever had or continues to have any concern for the universe whatsoever. All that it means is that it has some origin. Thus we have to assume that that origin is consistent with the principles we know are not contradicted or contradict-able until there is sufficient proof otherwise.

 

The "Origin" = God; "origin" = big bang or somesuch.

 

I notice  whenever objections are raise to the Origin, they always come in the form of the trivial and absurd--Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, magic ladybugs, etc., whereas the Origin is the most profound thing imaginable.  So those objections are really silly.  What caused Santa Claus?  What caused the interstellar sneeze?  Etc.  The only conclusion is the Origin.

 

Principles, yes, as the substances of the universe.  The Origin is beyond this similar to how Truth is beyond the scientific truthfulness with which we truck.  The Infinite is beyond the Temporal, yet we take the Infinite seriously, even though we take the Infinite's existence on faith.  Not a mindless or absurd faith, but a kind of faith.    So the Origin, by the principle of sufficient reason.

[Koroviev]

"Origin" = God; "origin" = big bang or somesuch.

 

I notice  whenever objections are raise to the Origin, they always come in the form of the trivial and absurd--Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, magic ladybugs, etc., whereas the Origin is the most profound thing imaginable.  So those objections are really silly.  What caused Santa Claus?  What caused the interstellar sneeze?  Etc.  The only conclusion is the Origin.

 

Principles, yes, as the substances of the universe.  The Origin is beyond this similar to how Truth is beyond the scientific truthfulness with which we truck.  The Infinite is beyond the Temporal, yet we take the Infinite seriously, even though we take the Infinite's existence on faith.  Not a mindless or absurd faith, but a kind of faith.    So the Origin, by the principle of sufficient reason.

 

Why is the only conclusion god? What makes god different from the "trivial and absurd," aside from in your mind god created the universe and santa did not? the point is that they are all nonsense because they are all fundamentally the same. 

 

I've made my case, but once again we are going to come to a standstill because I am applying principles universally whereas you are applying them to everything except god without any proof to make that exception and refusing to see the contradiction in that.

[Donnadogsoth]

Why is the only conclusion god? What makes god different from the "trivial and absurd," aside from in your mind god created the universe and santa did not? the point is that they are all nonsense because they are all fundamentally the same. 

 

I've made my case, but once again we are going to come to a standstill because I am applying principles universally whereas you are applying them to everything except god without any proof to make that exception and refusing to see the contradiction in that.

 

Ah, but where did the principles come from?  We can ignore it, we can be silly about it and say "pink unicorns," or we can be serious and say "the Origin".  That is, the Origin is that which precedes principle and therefore is outside of principled universality.

[Koroviev]

Ah, but where did the principles come from?  We can ignore it, we can be silly about it and say "pink unicorns," or we can be serious and say "the Origin".  That is, the Origin is that which precedes principle and therefore is outside of principled universality.

 

if by principles you mean the monads that make up everything then there is as much proof for them existing as there is for a god to exist. If by principles you are using the generally accepted definition (above) then those are concepts so they came from humans. And again even if there was some being (you can call it whatever you want) that started the entire process to get reality to where it is now that does not mean it is outside of principled universality, it does not mean it is not subject to the same universals everything else is, it does not mean it cares for us, it does not mean it should be worshiped, it doesn't even mean that being is still around.

[Donnadogsoth]

if by principles you mean the monads that make up everything then there is as much proof for them existing as there is for a god to exist. If by principles you are using the generally accepted definition (above) then those are concepts so they came from humans. And again even if there was some being (you can call it whatever you want) that started the entire process to get reality to where it is now that does not mean it is outside of principled universality, it does not mean it is not subject to the same universals everything else is, it does not mean it cares for us, it does not mean it should be worshiped, it doesn't even mean that being is still around.

 

We know a principle of universal gravitation exists. We can discover it, or rediscover it, and see how it affects the operation of the solar system. If we reduce that principle to a mere concept, shorn of substantiality, we beg the question of where is the real substance of the universe. You want to locate that substance in our senses, that if we see a ruler it is a straight ruler—until we put half of it into a glass of water. The senses are demonstrably not indicative of substance, they indicate the shadows of substantial interactions beyond our sensory purview. That substantial interaction is the realm of the monads which form thought-objects in the minds which discover them through the resolution of ontological paradox.

 

To the Origin, of course it's outside principled reality, for where did principled reality come from in the first place? What maintains it after it came into being? Why does it not fall into nothingness? As to the Origin as subject of care, object of worship, I will not speak to that here, for fear of over-freighting the dialogue.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Your principle that there is an origin to the origin of the universe violates two principles, which are two different ways of expressing the same thing: Occam's Razor, and the physics principle of conservation (this is so ironic because you claim knowledge of what principles truly are, and yet you cannot apply them to validate your conclusions).

 

You claimed principles are primary, but principles are communicated through sense data. Literally everything else we know of besides humans cannot reason from principles, but organisms can exist because of their capacity to sense data and react unconsciously. We derive sense data as primary to our existence - literally, at least millions of organisms (im estimating way under to be cautious) had to exist and reproduce successfully for humans to even exist in this blink of history we inhabit. If "sense data is not primary" is to mean anything at all, then it is clearly to ignore the preponderance of evidence in the evolution of the first sensing organism billions of years ago until the recent Human animal that sense data was primary and abstract principles did not exist to make sense of any of it. 

 

I believe I have learned enough about this Kantian/Plato/Religious/Msyticism group of contradictory propositions to spot it here and expose it's fallacies, but please anyone correct me if I'm making a mistake. I want to make sure I'm applying what I'm learning from Stef about epistemology correctly.

[Will Torbald]

Your principle that there is an origin to the origin of the universe violates two principles, which are two different ways of expressing the same thing: Occam's Razor, and the physics principle of conservation (this is so ironic because you claim knowledge of what principles truly are, and yet you cannot apply them to validate your conclusions). You claim principles are so primary, but principles are communicated through sense data. Literally everything else we know of besides humans cannot reason from principles, but organisms can exist because of their capacity to sense data. We derive sense data as primary to our existence - literally, at least millions of organisms (im estimating way under to be cautious) had to exist and reproduce successfully for humans to even exist in this blink of history we inhabit. If "sense data is not primary" is to mean anything at all, and I really think you are stretching it to even call that argument, then it is clearly ignore the preponderance of evidence that in the evolution of the human brain, sense data is primary. 

 

I believe I have learned enough about this Kantian/Plato/Religious/Msyticism group of contradictory propositions to spot it here and expose it's fallacies, but please anyone correct me if I'm making a mistake. I want to make sure I'm applying what I'm learning from Stef about epistemology correctly.

 

It's not only Occam's Razor, but it also creates an inifinite regression of origins. If you need something before the universe, and call it origin, you also need an origin for the origin of the origin for the origin of the origin. Then you have to use special pleading to say that there is only one origin, and it doesn't regress because this origin is very special and nice and it doesn't need another origin to exist.

[Koroviev]

We know a principle of universal gravitation exists. We can discover it, or rediscover it, and see how it affects the operation of the solar system. If we reduce that principle to a mere concept, shorn of substantiality, we beg the question of where is the real substance of the universe. You want to locate that substance in our senses, that if we see a ruler it is a straight ruler—until we put half of it into a glass of water. The senses are demonstrably not indicative of substance, they indicate the shadows of substantial interactions beyond our sensory purview. That substantial interaction is the realm of the monads which form thought-objects in the minds which discover them through the resolution of ontological paradox.

 

 

To the Origin, of course it's outside principled reality, for where did principled reality come from in the first place? What maintains it after it came into being? Why does it not fall into nothingness? As to the Origin as subject of care, object of worship, I will not speak to that here, for fear of over-freighting the dialogue.

No, I did not say that gravity only exists in our senses I said concepts are created in our minds. Gravity is an effect of mass it does not exist independently of mass. There is no substance called gravity that exists where there is no mass, just like there is no consciousness that exists without mass. The concept of gravity came from Isaac Newton, but the concept is not a substance that existed outside of Isaac Newton (yes it does now because isaac newton is not around and the concept is still around, but if no one is around thr concept is not around). Our senses give us information and our minds interpret that information. We know that our minds can interpret things incorrectly, like the ruler in the cup of water, thats why we have principles called rationally consistent and empirically supported.

 

As to where it all came from, I don't care because it does not have an effect on my daily life. On top of that if your definition of god is only what originated the universe then sure that could possibly be true, but again there is no proof for that, and definitely not what most people say is god, not what the bible says is god, and does not mean anything else that goes along with that.

 

Also, you cannot say we know things are universal when you are arguing that things are not universal. Universal means there are no exceptions.

[Donnadogsoth]

No, I did not say that gravity only exists in our senses I said concepts are created in our minds. Gravity is an effect of mass it does not exist independently of mass. There is no substance called gravity that exists where there is no mass, just like there is no consciousness that exists without mass. The concept of gravity came from Isaac Newton, but the concept is not a substance that existed outside of Isaac Newton (yes it does now because isaac newton is not around and the concept is still around, but if no one is around thr concept is not around). Our senses give us information and our minds interpret that information. We know that our minds can interpret things incorrectly, like the ruler in the cup of water, thats why we have principles called rationally consistent and empirically supported.

 

As to where it all came from, I don't care because it does not have an effect on my daily life. On top of that if your definition of god is only what originated the universe then sure that could possibly be true, but again there is no proof for that, and definitely not what most people say is god, not what the bible says is god, and does not mean anything else that goes along with that.

 

Also, you cannot say we know things are universal when you are arguing that things are not universal. Universal means there are no exceptions.

 

The monads all operate as if they were creative minds, albeit extremely single-minded creative minds.  The orbit of Terra thinks of nothing but that orbit, as it interacts with the other relevant principles.  But the principles that are not relevant, refrain from acting.  So we have principles that act and other principles that act by not acting, similar to how an individual person can act or not act, as the case may be.  So it's this interaction that generates the "stuff" or substance of the universe, which interacts with our "stuff" to generate a sensory input.  But those senses are strictly speaking part of our minds--influenced by the interaction of the other monads or principles, but still part of our minds.  The substance per se it outside of us, or as a congregate of our minds and those principles together.

 

Universal applies to the universe, and you're right that it should apply to all things, all substances.  The problem is, the Origin is not a thing or a substance, per se.  It's weird.  God is weird.  That is the problem with lumping the Origin in with the universe, when the Origin precedes the universe and is completely unlike the universe or any of its components, which a certain qualifier which we can say, that the human mind is made in Its image.

 

That's why the Origin matters.  If humans view themselves as made in the Origin's image, then the Origin is hugely relevant, because it speaks to human potential, relation, meaning, and destiny. It magnifies man to realise he is a noble creature by this virtue. It reduces and degrades man to think that he is not, that he is the child of a pitiless void or virtual void.

[Donnadogsoth]

Your principle that there is an origin to the origin of the universe violates two principles, which are two different ways of expressing the same thing: Occam's Razor, and the physics principle of conservation (this is so ironic because you claim knowledge of what principles truly are, and yet you cannot apply them to validate your conclusions).

 

You claimed principles are primary, but principles are communicated through sense data. Literally everything else we know of besides humans cannot reason from principles, but organisms can exist because of their capacity to sense data and react unconsciously. We derive sense data as primary to our existence - literally, at least millions of organisms (im estimating way under to be cautious) had to exist and reproduce successfully for humans to even exist in this blink of history we inhabit. If "sense data is not primary" is to mean anything at all, then it is clearly to ignore the preponderance of evidence in the evolution of the first sensing organism billions of years ago until the recent Human animal that sense data was primary and abstract principles did not exist to make sense of any of it. 

 

I believe I have learned enough about this Kantian/Plato/Religious/Msyticism group of contradictory propositions to spot it here and expose it's fallacies, but please anyone correct me if I'm making a mistake. I want to make sure I'm applying what I'm learning from Stef about epistemology correctly.

 

Occam's razor and conservation of mass are rules of thumb, not principles in the same sense that universal gravitation or the principle of sufficient reason are principles.  But even if they were, it would not matter.  Where did principles come from?

 

Also, don't confuse organisms' nervous reliance on sense-data, for ontological primacy of that data.  Those animals are monads interacting with other monads (animals, principles, etc.).  What that interaction looks like is what it happens to look like, and nothing more.

[Koroviev]

The monads all operate as if they were creative minds, albeit extremely single-minded creative minds.  The orbit of Terra thinks of nothing but that orbit, as it interacts with the other relevant principles.  But the principles that are not relevant, refrain from acting.  So we have principles that act and other principles that act by not acting, similar to how an individual person can act or not act, as the case may be.  So it's this interaction that generates the "stuff" or substance of the universe, which interacts with our "stuff" to generate a sensory input.  But those senses are strictly speaking part of our minds--influenced by the interaction of the other monads or principles, but still part of our minds.  The substance per se it outside of us, or as a congregate of our minds and those principles together.

 

Universal applies to the universe, and you're right that it should apply to all things, all substances.  The problem is, the Origin is not a thing or a substance, per se.  It's weird.  God is weird.  That is the problem with lumping the Origin in with the universe, when the Origin precedes the universe and is completely unlike the universe or any of its components, which a certain qualifier which we can say, that the human mind is made in Its image.

 

That's why the Origin matters.  If humans view themselves as made in the Origin's image, then the Origin is hugely relevant, because it speaks to human potential, relation, meaning, and destiny. It magnifies man to realise he is a noble creature by this virtue. It reduces and degrades man to think that he is not, that he is the child of a pitiless void or virtual void.

 

None of that is an argument. you are just making up special categories for monads and for gods without any proof or rationality and labeling it truth.

 

How would you know if monads did not exist?

How would you know if god did not exist (and saying because we would not be here is not proof, we would not be here if there wasn't oxygen but that's not how we know there is oxygen)?

Show me a monad.

Show me any effect that a god has had on the universe (also here you can't just say a god created the universe for the same reasons as above).

 

If you can do none of the  above it falls in the realm of belief not truth.

[Donnadogsoth]

None of that is an argument. you are just making up special categories for monads and for gods without any proof or rationality and labeling it truth.

 

How would you know if monads did not exist?

How would you know if god did not exist (and saying because we would not be here is not proof, we would not be here if there wasn't oxygen but that's not how we know there is oxygen)?

Show me a monad.

Show me any effect that a god has had on the universe (also here you can't just say a god created the universe for the same reasons as above).

 

If you can do none of the  above it falls in the realm of belief not truth.

 

A monad? You. You affect the sensory world, and from that example of yourself you can see that that which affects the sensory world is non-sensory in nature. So you can move from yourself to other humans, and from the human race to the race of non-human principles with which you interact, which are proven to exist by science. And that is substance, efficient cause. Without principle as substance, we face a void behind the sense-data, akin to solipsism.

 

The Origin, however, is not a thing. It cannot exist as we exist. Neither can it not exist. It's altogether different, being the Absolute. As such it is alienating, recondite, and remote, but its affect on humanity is impressive, through the medium of Christ. Christ was the overlap between man and Absolute, and that life lived, snapped history in two like a dry twig into BC and AD, and salvaged human potential to reach the stars from base Rome.

[Koroviev]

A monad? You. You affect the sensory world, and from that example of yourself you can see that that which affects the sensory world is non-sensory in nature. So you can move from yourself to other humans, and from the human race to the race of non-human principles with which you interact, which are proven to exist by science. And that is substance, efficient cause. Without principle as substance, we face a void behind the sense-data, akin to solipsism.

 

I am a monad but also made up of monads as is everything else? You can't just make a claim that a "race of principles are proven to exist by science" that doesn't mean anything and you are redefining terms again (which is getting really annoying). What is a race of principles? What science proves that there are races of principles? Are there different races of principles competing for resources? Principles are concepts and concepts do not exist independently of the mind. Concepts explain reality. How do you not see the circularity in your statement?

 

The rest of that is more non arguments, and neither statements answer the questions of what is the null hypothesis and show me proof, you simply said that they exist because they exist exactly like i said you would.

[Donnadogsoth]

I am a monad but also made up of monads as is everything else? You can't just make a claim that a "race of principles are proven to exist by science" that doesn't mean anything and you are redefining terms again (which is getting really annoying). What is a race of principles? What science proves that there are races of principles? Are there different races of principles competing for resources? Principles are concepts and concepts do not exist independently of the mind. Concepts explain reality. How do you not see the circularity in your statement?

 

The rest of that is more non arguments, and neither statements answer the questions of what is the null hypothesis and show me proof, you simply said that they exist because they exist exactly like i said you would.

 

We face the Void.  What is substance?  Don't say sense-data, sense-data is not substance and is demonstrably untrue, in the same way that the shadows cast by fire behind multiple overlapping objects are untrue.

[Koroviev]

We face the Void.  What is substance?  Don't say sense-data, sense-data is not substance and is demonstrably untrue, in the same way that the shadows cast by fire behind multiple overlapping objects are untrue.

 

I'm not sure what your definition of substance is, you seem to have been using it in a different way than it is normally used. Also, we aren't talking about whether or not substances exist.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm not sure what your definition of substance is, you seem to have been using it in a different way than it is normally used. Also, we aren't talking about whether or not substances exist.

 

We have been talking about knowledge of principle, but have shifted to substance.  What are principles principles of?  Either they are descriptions of substance, of substantiality, of actual interactive, event-generating "stuff" as opposed to the merely conceptual, or they are substance or efficient cause.  You seem to be opposed to the idea that principle are anything other than descriptions, but to this I put you, if principles are not really substantial, are not the "gold" backing the interactions we find with our senses, then what is?  The Kantian Noumenon?

[Koroviev]

We have been talking about knowledge of principle, but have shifted to substance.  What are principles principles of?  Either they are descriptions of substance, of substantiality, of actual interactive, event-generating "stuff" as opposed to the merely conceptual, or they are substance or efficient cause.  You seem to be opposed to the idea that principle are anything other than descriptions, but to this I put you, if principles are not really substantial, are not the "gold" backing the interactions we find with our senses, then what is?  The Kantian Noumenon?

 

I feel like you're going further and further away from my above questions, which is Ok I supposed because I asked them knowing that there are no answers to them (i.e. the entire point of this discussion). 

 

Principles are concepts that explain reality. The principle of gravity explains why things fall. The principle itself does not exist independently of gravity or independently of human thought, simply an explanation of how things are in reality. Just as the square-cube principle explains that as a shape grows in size it's volume grows faster than it's surface area. It is an explanation of reality not some "substance" that exists independently. 

 

As I said before in philosophy and math and science we apply those explanations universally (meaning in all cases as opposed to just inside this universe). Outside of that is beliefs.

[Donnadogsoth]

I feel like you're going further and further away from my above questions, which is Ok I supposed because I asked them knowing that there are no answers to them (i.e. the entire point of this discussion). 

 

Principles are concepts that explain reality. The principle of gravity explains why things fall. The principle itself does not exist independently of gravity or independently of human thought, simply an explanation of how things are in reality. Just as the square-cube principle explains that as a shape grows in size it's volume grows faster than it's surface area. It is an explanation of reality not some "substance" that exists independently. 

 

As I said before in philosophy and math and science we apply those explanations universally (meaning in all cases as opposed to just inside this universe). Outside of that is beliefs.

 

You say "why things fall" but what "things" are you talking about, really?  A red delicious falling from its tree is something you observe, but as you can easily determine by closing your eyes, the redness, the contours, the shininess, the stem, and so forth are all sensory qualities that have no existence outside of the senses.  So outside those senses' reports, what is the apple?  What is behind the velvet curtain of the senses that causes these things to happen inside our sensoria?

 

The answer is that the principle in the mind, and the principle outside of the mind, are the same thing.  That the concept, when grasped, puts us in direct contact with the substance or efficient cause of that principle.  We can add a third layer and say there is a description of that principle which we can transmit to others, but that's just a description.  The discovery of the principle or the principle discovered, is the human mind contacting truth, or a shard of truth.

 

Without this there is really nothingness, because there is no substance to the universe, just an inexplicable and ever-changing sensory pattern which disappears whenever we close our eyes or stop our ears.

[Koroviev]

You say "why things fall" but what "things" are you talking about, really?  A red delicious falling from its tree is something you observe, but as you can easily determine by closing your eyes, the redness, the contours, the shininess, the stem, and so forth are all sensory qualities that have no existence outside of the senses.  So outside those senses' reports, what is the apple?  What is behind the velvet curtain of the senses that causes these things to happen inside our sensoria?

 

The answer is that the principle in the mind, and the principle outside of the mind, are the same thing.  That the concept, when grasped, puts us in direct contact with the substance or efficient cause of that principle.  We can add a third layer and say there is a description of that principle which we can transmit to others, but that's just a description.  The discovery of the principle or the principle discovered, is the human mind contacting truth, or a shard of truth.

 

Without this there is really nothingness, because there is no substance to the universe, just an inexplicable and ever-changing sensory pattern which disappears whenever we close our eyes or stop our ears.

Ah, gotcha so when i stop talking to you you will cease to exist.

[Will Torbald]

Ah, gotcha so when i stop talking to you you will cease to exist.

 

This is exactly why I stopped talking to him.

[Donnadogsoth]

Ah, gotcha so when i stop talking to you you will cease to exist.

 

Now you've got it.  If you have no theory of substance, of what substance actually is, and are navigating life purely on the belief that your sense-impressions are all there is, then you have no reason to believe I am a monad like yourself, and you've locked yourself into a prison of solipsism, bereft of all principle-as-substance.

[Koroviev]

This is exactly why I stopped talking to him.

Yeah, and I knew this going into it, although i still hoped it would be different on this board. It did really help me, and I hope others as well, to grasp the concept that you can't rationalize with someone about that which they did not come to rationally.

[Koroviev]

Now you've got it.  If you have no theory of substance, of what substance actually is, and are navigating life purely on the belief that your sense-impressions are all there is, then you have no reason to believe I am a monad like yourself, and you've locked yourself into a prison of solipsism, bereft of all principle-as-substance.

 

What? Because I know that concepts are not material substances means that I don't think there are any material substances? Don't you think that's a false dichotomy...

[Donnadogsoth]

What? Because I know that concepts are not material substances means that I don't think there are any material substances? Don't you think that's a false dichotomy...

 

If sense-data aren't substances, what is?  If principles aren't substances, what is?

[dsayers]

Yeah, and I knew this going into it, although i still hoped it would be different on this board. It did really help me, and I hope others as well, to grasp the concept that you can't rationalize with someone about that which they did not come to rationally.

I didn't want to chime in since "I can't believe this conversation is still going" is not an argument. But I have admired your commitment to it.

[Koroviev]

If sense-data aren't substances, what is?  If principles aren't substances, what is?

 

Principles are concepts, you are not a concept you would be a substance. The computer you are using is not a concept it would be a substance by your definition.

[Donnadogsoth]

Principles are concepts, you are not a concept you would be a substance. The computer you are using is not a concept it would be a substance by your definition.

 

Really, the sense-datum I get I call "computer" is substance?  What if I take my hands off the keyboard, so I can't feel it, and I close my eyes, so I can't see it?  Where is its substance then?

 

In other words, how is it our senses are telling us reality, when all we know from our senses is sense-data?  The "real" apple behind the subjective sense-impressions is not red, is it?  What would such a trait of "redness" mean outside of a subjective perception of redness?  When we're not looking at the red apple, and therefore not registering redness, what colour is the apple?  Does it have a redness to it that transcends sense-data?  What would that even mean?  If a bee looks at the apple and sees it a different colour in the UV range, does that mean the apple is ultraviolet?  And if I and the bee look at the apple at the same time, is the apple both red and ultraviolet at the same time?

[rlholden]

When I saw the title of this thread, I initially believed it would be why I personally think religion is used as a coping mechanism, and was way off the intended topic.

 

IMO, it's a coping mechanism as well for dealing with loss.  A loved one is not permanently lost, only moved to another place where, assuming one follows all the rules, they can later be reconnected.  I say this because I have a fear of heights , and years ago when i wore a younger man's clothes and I signed up with the Army, I did so as a paratrooper, believing it would help me overcome my fear of heights.  Ultimately, it didn't but I learned to trust in my equipment and that my parachute would take me beyond the heart-in-in-my-throat feeling and carry me safely back to normality.

 

I, personally, wouldn't care if folks want to worship one god, or a pantheon so long as it's not forced upon me in any way, and I am free to have my own beliefs.  If the guy next door wants to worship the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, so be it.., so long as neither has a mandate to convert or kill all unbelievers.  They all fall into the same realm of fictional characters for me, but having spoken with many Christians, family included, I believe that religion is a sort of parachute or safety net.., that all we are does not simply cease to exist at the end of the specific biochemical process responsible for  what we call life.