On Religion

1. God

It is quite well understood that there is a difference between the laws of
physics as we know them, and the laws of physics as they truly are.

For example, we once thought that there was something called "the force of
gravity", but a man named Einstein convinced us that gravity isn't actually
a force. Instead, the space and time that objects move around in is warped,
and the curved paths that objects travel along is really what we once
considered to be the force of gravity. Whether this will be our final notion
of gravity or not remains to be seen, though if history is any indication it
is quite unlikely.

What is important about this realization is that there is nothing about our
understanding of the laws of physics that should be taken as being equal to
the true construction of our nature. It should not be unexpected that
concepts that we take for granted, such as energy, or time, may one day be
thrown away and completely replaced in our attempts to decipher the world
about us.

It seems reasonable then that we should make a clear distinction between the
unknowable construction of nature and the conjectured laws that exist as
scientific knowledge. We can do this in the most simplest of ways: give them
different names.

The man-made laws, theories, hypotheses, and assumptions may as well retain
their current names. We understand a theory to be a hypothesis, the product
of imagination, that has been accepted as quite good by a community of
knowledge seekers; there is no reason to redesign the scientific method and
its system of terms.

That leaves the true design and makeup of Nature that is inaccessible to us.
What name shall we give such an elusive entity? I suggest God.

We accept God as the governor of all natural things, and we accept that God
is unknowable to us.

As we can say nothing further about God, by definition of this term, we
shall say nothing further about God and move on.

2. Afterlife

I have recently been told the story of a successful lawyer, a man with many
great conquests to speak of. This man also claims to have no beliefs in the
supernatural.

In his retirement speech, after decades of achieving much for himself, he
has revealed his final desire to be remembered for morality and compassion.

To some it seemed odd, that a man who once denied the thought of passing
into an afterlife where he would be judged by a creator, has now professed
regret that he be remembered for a life devoted to his own worldly triumphs.

But, how peculiar is that really? Does not the memory of our lives live on
in the hearts and minds of those we've left behind after our deaths? Does
not our life take on a new form, as its judgment by others, once our
conscious being has ceased to exist?

Just as a theist lives an entire life following a moral code in order to
gain the acceptance of a gate keeper to a divine plane of existence, is it
not reasonable to suggest that all men and women face the acceptance of
their fellow human beings based on the virtues of the life that has come to
an end?

In this way we all face an afterlife that is determined by the decisions we
make during the trials and tribulations of our natural lives.

3. The Soul

I have come to believe that what many religious beliefs designate as the
soul is rather more accurately understood as consciousness. In order to
wholly understand my belief you must completely understand my ideas about
consciousness. Those ideas are rather lengthy and difficult to understand
and will not be mentioned here, instead you will have to read and understand
the Multiple Natures Conjecture. However, I will simply say here that the
soul as consciousness in my view retains the theistic property of serving as
the link between a natural existence and a deeper, supreme existence.

4. Conclusion

Some would argue that this discourse On Religion is incomplete; I have not
mentioned morality or the purpose and meaning of our lives. However I do not
agree that these important discussions fall exclusively in the domain of
religion and thus are covered elsewhere.

I think the topics I have discussed are primarily of interest to religion
and that my arguments give an adequate defense of my chosen world-view of
deism.