Religion:
Public, Private and Esoteric
Alexander Liss
Overcoming
Limitations of Logic
Balancing
of Individual and Social Sides
Providing
Services to Community
Limited
Understanding of Religion
Transformations
of Religious Form
Religion is omnipresent, sometimes it is in
the open sometimes it is disguised in form of some supposedly not religious
ideology, sometimes it has institutions, sometimes it depends on one person,
sometimes a large group of people is involved sometimes a very small. Even in
societies with one dominant form of religion, new religious forms spontaneously
emerge and existing forms fade away.
Those
who claim that they are not religious are often fanatically religious. Following
provides a few examples of such religions. Some are ancient some are relatively
new. They often called ideologies, but they are religions, only primitive forms
of religion.
Rationalism
asserts that there is a consistent logical explanation to anything and absence
of logic in someone’s thinking or presentation of ideas is a sign of
deficiency, which should be corrected. They do not claim that such logical
explanation is immediately available or that it is available to a particular
person, they claim that it will be eventually available in context of human
society as a whole.
Many
think that Rationalism emerged with modern science, but it is a very old
phenomenon.
The
trick of putting off logical explanation into infinite future and on the
shoulders of humanity provides a comfortable escape from reality of one’s
illogical life and inability to fit in it. It does not provide tools to deal
with it, though.
This
trick is an article of faith, which makes Rationalism a primitive form of
religion and an exclusive one – rationalism does not tolerate other forms of
religion.
Communism
is a violent and intolerant form of religion. Its articles of faith are clearly
described and strongly enforced, where it is a dominant form of religion (where
communists control political power). While it emerged recently, its followers
sacrificed millions of lives to enforce its dominance.
It
keeps hold on imagination of its followers through exposing of the functioning
of the social side of a person, which is usually hidden from the person’s mind
and which usually operates subconsciously. There is an institution, which
perpetually indoctrinates followers of this religion using this exposing of
social side as a main tool.
Environmentalism
easily coexists with other forms of religion, as long they accept it. It is a
kind of polytheistic religion. In some cases, its followers even admit that
this is a form of religion, but often it is presented as ideology or movement.
Any
stable society takes care of its environment, hence any normal person as a
social being is eager to deal with environment in a sustainable way, on a small
scale of own surrounding and on a large scale of humanity as a whole. Only all
this is done subconsciously. Explicit discussions by the government of issues
environment, making issues of environment a part of political platform,
conducting scientific studies in this area – all this is normal functioning of
the society.
However
making this an everyday subject of people, who is not involved with large scale
decisions, perpetuating institutions dedicated to this subject with its priests
and indoctrination, maintaining doctrines, which are accepted on faith, all
this is a sign of a religious form.
As
Communism, it keeps hold on imagination of its followers through exposing of
the functioning of the social side of a person. What environmentalists say
sounds right, because people have similar subconscious idea. Based on this
feeling, this form of religion maintains its priests, institutions and political
power.
Simple
observation shows that usually people have religion, even when they proclaim to
be atheists.
From the other hand, when one has religion,
it is natural for one to gradually drift away from a serious religious engagement.
This is a natural phenomenon. Contrary to popular belief, even in ancient times,
religious indifference was a prevalent state of the society – the majority of
people most of the time did not think about religion and did not use explicitly
religious concepts in their decision making.
Certainly, it is in human nature to be
religious. Is religion only a compensation mechanism for deficiencies of mind,
or it is something more than that? What does one gain from being religious? Is
it possible to have a normal society, where people are not religious and where
there are no religious institutions?
Certainly, there are many forms of
religion, which should be avoided and even fought against. How does one find an
acceptable form of religion and how does one assure that it does not slip into
a horrible one?
What about not religious people? How do
they resist the temptation to become religious?
History, even recent history, shows that
religious forms undergo transformation. Religion is a human activity even in eyes
of its followers. Hence, it adjusts, when circumstances change. Developed
religious forms even have a special mechanism for such adjustment – a two
layered structure – a stable internal layer and a layer of interpretation,
which is adjusted to circumstances, community, individual, etc.
The
set of religious forms practiced in a particular society undergoes
transformation also. For example, in some societies one could observe a general
decline of influence of dominant forms of religion and emergence of numerous
minor religious forms.
In
modern times, as in some ancient times, people have to cope with rapid change –
technological change, rapid accumulation of knowledge, change in economic
structure and change in social structure. When dominant forms of religion do
not adapt to this change fast enough, this causes imbalance between the form of
religion and the form of society. The result of such imbalance was either the
destruction of the society with such internal deficiency or adoption of a new
dominant form of religion (either through conquest or through elevation of some
existing form into a dominant position).
Any
religion has articles of faith – some statements that contradict experience,
available knowledge and often contradict other statements of the same religion.
This is a manifestation of the essential part of religion.
Articles
of faith are not similar to axioms of a scientific theory. Axioms are used to
evaluate applicability of the theory to particular problem at hand. Religion is
not a theory; there is no area, where it is not applicable.
Religion
guides, where logic ends.
Let’s
say, one looks at the building from two different angles. One has to reconcile
two different logically contradicting views to make a unified picture of the
building. Sometimes one needs to look from more angles and create a tree
dimensional “model” in the head using all acquired flat views. This and similar
problems one has to solve often. Hence, dealing with logical contradiction in a
constructive way is a highly important skill.
One
pattern of creative reconciliation of logically contradicting concepts was
described by Hegel as dialectics. Unfortunately, he asserted that this is the
only method and his work is a pinnacle of development in this area. Note that
communists gladly picked up on this assertion to fight all other (not
communist) religions.
While
it is possible to classify approaches to creative reconciliation of useful
logically consistent theories, there is no known way how to learn all of them,
which one needs in life. Life is broader than logic and religion helps to use a
limited tool of logic.
Hence,
religion is packed with stories and statements, which contradict logic, common
sense, experience, readily available knowledge, and even contradict each other.
Religious
forms facilitate specially organized gatherings, where a person could feel
unity with community and even unity with humanity. This experience allows
balancing of individual and social sides of the person. Such experience cannot
be substituted with intellectual activity. The experience of this kind is
important, when it is missing, people compensate by turning other types of
gathering into manifestation of unity, and this is dangerous, because it is
quickly converted into reinforcement of conformism and guided to support some
political agenda, which is not in interests of the community.
Such
balancing in a safe environment, which one could achieve in religious
gatherings, allows one to stay alert and competitive in other forms of social
activity, without jeopardizing underlying integrity of the society.
When there is religion in place, especially
when there is a dominant form of religion with institutions and specialists,
then this system id quickly overloaded with additional tasks.
One such major task is supporting stability
of society, where social transformations go without loss of life and where
unfortunate events do not cause destruction of the society.
Religious specialists are perfectly suited
for this task. They have to interpret religion to groups and individuals
according to the nature groups and individuals and according to circumstances.
They already have to think in terms of the society and speak in terms of an
individual. Hence they have skills needed to present rules supporting social
stability in terms acceptable to an individual.
Elsewhere on this site, it was shown, that
rules supporting stability of the society, are moral rules. This way, moral
rules get fused with religious form.
This fusion is so important, that when one
sees religious specialists acting or advocating against moral rules of the
society (for example advocating a violent revolution), this is a sign of decline
of the religious form, which they represent.
As it is shown above, some ideas could be
wrapped in institutions, rituals and other activities to create a religious
form. Proliferation of cults could attest to it. Religious specialists are
acutely aware of it.
One could get a hint of these ideas from
books of mystics or from studying with mystics, or from learning yoga.
In the same time, these ideas need to be
studied and experimented with. Sometimes, such experimentation could be
dangerous even on a small scale and even performed by trained specialists.
Hence, there are Esoteric forms of religion, where only few are admitted, those
who could maintain sanity being exposed to ideas and rituals, which affect a
person too deeply.
Some of this knowledge is released in a
controlled manner. This way Chasidism emerged.
Sometimes
these ideas escape, and results are often disastrous. For example, escape of
ideas of Kabala caused disastrous events in Jewish history. Escape of ideas of
Sufis causes disastrous developments inside Islam now.
Human mind is weak; it is week if one looks
at it from individual side or from social side. There are many ways how
insanity could be induced in it.
These ways, as dangerous medicine, should
be guarded by specialists. This is why there are Esoteric religious forms.
In childhood, one has a sheltered life,
because one is guided by adults. With reaching of adulthood, one perpetually
has to make important decisions, when uncertainty is high, and one has to
navigate social life and challenging circumstances. One needs skills of control
to do so – control of body, control of thought, control of social group, etc.
Religion provides such skill set.
One
should expect large degree of similarity in this skill set, between different
religious forms, because of parallel discoveries of ideas and extensive
exchange of ideas. From the other hand, there is substantial difference in the
form of methods used to establish control, because different groups of people
have different predispositions and hence different forms of methods emerge.
Among
such skills are abilities to meditate and focus. In some religious forms
methods of prayer are used, public prayer for meditation and some private
prayer for focus.
Theoretically,
one could bypass religion and learn these skills independently. However
practically this does not work. Learning the set of these skills in isolation
through yoga or martial arts, very often does not lead to success in life, but leads
to just the opposite – social isolation and useless experimentation.
One chooses methods according to one’s
nature, and usually it means one learns them inside one’s religion.
Essentially, there is no conflict between
Religion and Science – they operate in different areas. However there are
plenty of visible conflict between various manifestations of Religion and
Science.
When a religious form becomes closely
intertwined with political power and hence rigid, it becomes a destabilizing
factor instead of being a guardian of stability of society. This is because a
rigid society cannot adapt quickly enough to new circumstances.
Such rigidity often manifests itself as
limitations of thinking and discussion, which is a death sentence for any
intellectual exploration, especially for science. Note that quite often a novel
scientific theory could be wrong and a religious point of view could be right.
Still, science has to have freedom to generate erroneous ideas, because this is
a part of normal process of scientific development.
When a rigid religious form stands on the
way of social growth, particularly on the way of grows of knowledge and
understanding of the society, socially responsible people challenge some rigid
religious dogmas to force transformation of the religious form.
Unfortunately, such challenges acquire
notoriety and people exploit them for own benefits. In addition, scientific
theories used as challenges become exempt from critical scientific review and
this causes the science to become rigid.
Inflexibility of a religious form,
inability to adapt to new circumstances is a perpetual problem. Hence one
should expect similar challenges in the future. Hopefully, religion will be
able to respond to such challenges through achieving of better flexibility.
Hopefully, science will be able to restore its critical approach to
theories-challenges, when the challenge achieved its goal.
Religion of communists used a few
scientific theories as religious dogmas. In addition, they used scientific
terminology in their religion (without scientific substance). They use this
masquerade to fight all other religious forms. They presented this as
“scientific” proof, while there was not a whiff of science. One should not
mistake it with real science.
This Abuse of Science continues. Environmentalists
use this trick.
When one seeks money or power using
justification that something is “scientifically proven”, most likely, it is
this case of Abuse of Science.
Religion provides various views on a
subject and various interpretations. When one such view and interpretation is
taken as an absolute, then rather sooner than later it comes in conflict with
reality. Always, such conflict should be interpreted as a problem with one’s
thinking, not as a problem with religion and not a problem with some scientific
theory, which seemingly contradicts religion.
A case in point is counting of years since
Creation. This counting is obviously in conflict with geological theories and
theories of development of life forms on the Earth.
The
problem is with one’s interpretation of both sides – Religion and Science.
First, Religion is not a source of facts,
if you see the conflict between your experience and your understanding of the
Book – read the Book again and more carefully and reexamine your
preconceptions.
While it is not normal to have logical
contradiction between scientific theories (physicists still suffer from logical
contradiction between the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics), it is
absolutely normal to have logical contradiction between one religious story and
another religious store and definitely normal to have a logical contradiction
between a religious story and some scientific theory. Perpetual proper
examining of these contradictions leads to growth of understanding.
Religious forms change all the time.
Stable
religious forms usually start with release of esoteric knowledge. This creates new
stable patterns of thinking in the affected group. This even creates new stable
patterns in perception (filtering out of perceived information). Also, it
creates new stable patterns of body functioning.
Eventually
a culture is created, where this form of religion is an integral part. This
culture becomes the essence of the society.
This combination of a society with culture
and religion perpetually changes, sometimes gradually, sometimes rapidly –
flipping into new stable states. Sometimes it creates distinctive branches,
with distinctive variants of culture and religion sharing common roots.
There are many traps in on the way of such
chains of transformation, though. Healthy religious forms have embedded
safeguards to avoid these traps.
Religious form is a human creation; it is
maintained by people for people’s benefit.
To
be useful, it has to adjust to modern times. Often, religious forms emphasize their
unique status of being the same, carrying tradition, but they all change,
because everything changes.
Religious
forms have to change, but sometimes they are slow to do so, because adequate
change, where the core part is not jeopardized, is difficult.
When
a religious form falls behind in its catching up with time, people start
looking for something more useful. Often, they create inadequate transformations
of a religious form, which either goes against the core of the religious form,
or contradict culture of the society, or simply unstable.
Hence,
a useful religious form cannot afford to stay still, it has to adapt.
Because
religion assures stability of the society, there is always temptation on the
part of holders of political power to deploy it to support this power. It looks
as a logical thing to do – with support of religion this particular form of
society, which this particular power structure becomes more stable.
This
takes many forms.
One
is theocratic society, where religion and political power are closely
integrated. Communist societies are such or modern
One
could observe lower level of integration of the religion and political power,
when religious organizations own productive resources. In this case, religious
organizations are forced by their position to be a part of the political power.
Some
level of integration is observed when political power subsidizers religious
organizations. Driven by the need to maintain its organizations religion bends
its message in favor of the political power.
The
problem with such integration of religion and political power becomes obvious,
when one considers some violent societies, which derive their living from
destroying and plundering of neighboring societies. These marauding herds could
stable and religious. Only their religion is not supporting of stability of
human society as a whole, but supporting stability of this sick group. This is
like a cancer in the body of humanity, where internal mechanisms which supposed
to harmonize this group with the rest of humanity support its separate and
destructive functioning.
Every
time there is integration of religion and political power there is danger of
shifting of religion from humanizing influence into dehumanizing influence.
Religious
law is an integral part of many forms of religion. One should not confuse it
with familiar legal system though.
Invention
of laws and associated system of their modification, interpretation,
enforcement and familiarization of the society with them, was a remarkable
invention, which was replicated with variations in many societies.
The
goal of this social structure is facilitation of social cohesiveness, balancing
society in spite of its self-destructive imperfections, and in the end
increasing stability of the society.
There
are a few situations, when the legal system works well.
Usually
people have a consistent logical view on events and circumstances. Different
people have different views, which logically contradict each other. This is not
a sign of someone’s deficiency of thinking; this is a normal state of events.
With such conflict, people could disagree about subjects, which they care about
and ready fight for. In such case, uninterested third party facilitation allows
finding some solution, which is outside of logical system of either of
quarrying parties. If they accept it, the peace is preserved and all parties
involved learn something important about life from the incident.
There
are people with underdeveloped social side; they run in conflicts with other
members of society. When the legal stem is involved and its decisions are
enforced, the person learns and the peace is preserved.
There
are sociopaths; the legal system allows their separation and protection of the
society from them.
Some
other social structures could play role of the legal system. For example, heads
of extended family, tribal elderly, and rulers provide similar services to
society. However, when the society is large or heterogeneous, the distributed
decision-making system as “the rule of law” is much more efficient and less
susceptible to corruption.
Creation
and modification of the system of laws is a difficult process. Instilling
respect for law even more difficult and requires perpetual effort. Hence, it is
tempting to attach religious significance to law. This happened before and this
is happening in modern times.
While
religion successfully plays role of guardian of morality and while it is very
helpful when parties to legal proceedings share same religious views, the
consequences of such fusion of the legal system and religion are negative. Both
sides are damage through such fusion – the legal system and the religion.
The
legal system needs freedom of modification and interpretation of law to be in
touch with times and social situation. Laws reinforced with religious backing
are not modifiable, their interpretation is limited. Hence the entire system
becomes inflexible and counterproductive – instead of being useful to the
society it makes the society inflexible and reduces its stability.
Even
when the law of land is derived verbatim from religious sources, it should be
possible to drop it from the legal canon or interpret it by members of legal
community, not clergy.
From
religious point of view, perpetual narrow interpretation of religious laws in
the way, which is needed for assuring peace and stability of the community,
practically eliminates numerous other subtle uses of the part of religion
represented by religious laws.
In
many cases, this causes even more damage to religion. It becomes rigid; its
interpretations do not adjust to situation or to an individual and it becomes
detrimental to the success of members of society and to the stability of the
society as a whole.
It is obvious that mentality and perception
of religious people is “restricted” – adheres to some form, limited in some
way. It is especially visible, when one observes someone, who follows a
different religion.
It is tempting to think, that life without
religion should provide freedom from such limitations. However in practice, an
attempt to live such life usually leads either to falling into some other
religion or cult (usually a primitive one), or to some other state, where
thought and behavior is caged.
There is an ancient Greek myth about young
fellow, who saw own reflection and could not take his yes away in admiration,
eventually he was turned into a flower. Applying this myth to people
preoccupied with their appearances would be a waste of time, also they often
benefit mightily from this attention to their appearances. More interesting
application comes from an analogy with some people afflicted with a peculiar
psychological defect.
Some people to stay free of influences
developed the way of listening to their thoughts and their feeling in
evaluation of the situation and in decision making with efficient filtering out
opinions of other people. They hung out with likewise minded people and avoid
all, who has different opinions. This is a peculiar form of sociopath. This
kind of approach is functioning, but like Narcissus, the person of this type is
like a plant, someone with atrophied social side. In the end, this is not
freedom, but extreme limitation.
An attempt to stick to logically consistent
picture of the world leads to extreme self-limitation, because it leads to
rejection of benefits of communication with others, who are obviously not
logical, and inability to grab an opportunity, which does not fit in a logical
picture.
Constructions of mind as literature,
theater, music, etc. are used for entertainment and some learning. However,
they are often used as a substitute for reality. They are not threatening and
immersing in them, especially collective immersing in them provides illusion of
freedom and control. In fact, it leads to detachment from reality, and living
in limited environment, in a kind of self-constructed and self-guarded cage.
Slavery is first of all a state of mind. In
ancient times, the will of a person captured during the war had to be broken to
convert the person into a slave. External circumstances alone did not do the
trick.
In communist religion, a special principle
occupies a prominent place. This principle states that there is a so called
“necessity”, which could be understood logically and which usually reflects
needs of one’s society. It is claimed that this “necessity” has to take
priority over needs of an individual and has to define one’s behavior.
Communists insist that when a person understands this “necessity” and acts in
accordance with it, the person is free.
Who
formulate this “necessity”? Communist leaders do. Not only they formulate it,
they perpetually indoctrinate people to not deviate from a prescribed behavior.
The
substitute of decision making made by individuals with decision making of their
masters is slavery. This is not freedom. The willing participation in such
decision-making process through “understanding” of “necessity” is deeply
engrained slavery.
Some individuals in pursuit of personal
power and other personal benefits position themselves as religious leaders in a
group, which they carefully cultivate. With skill, with use of group dynamic to
their advantage, playing on weaknesses of members of the group, sometimes they
acquire remarkable influences. Some of them even start believing their stories
and believing that they are outstanding individuals with the purpose, when the
group responds well.
Members of the group willingly submit to
the will of these leaders, effectively become slaves of these leaders. Degree
of control of leaders over these slaves could be so great, that sometimes they
could overcome their instinct of self-preservation.
The
ancient text of the Bible is an example of the Core part of religion for many
religious forms. The text does not change, but its interpretations change all
the time.
This is a text, which meaning is hidden in a
unique way.
Everyone
interprets experience, including texts according to filters of one’s
perception. Sometimes, the experience or the text is so subtle, that what is
influenced by the filters overshadows it.
The
Bible is an ultimate text of this kind of subtlety. The more rigid are filters,
the less one understands the text.
For
a rigid person the Book serves as a mirror – it sees imperfect mechanisms of
own perception and nothing else, and this infuriates the person. If the person
is self-destructive, which is often the case with rigid inadequate people, then the person dismisses the Book with anger.
A
person, who is open to growth, the Book is an opportunity to challenge own
rigid ideas and rigid filters of perception. When such person sees a logical
contradiction between a story in the Book and own
experience, the person challenges own theories, points of view and finds new
approaches, which have been not accessible before. When such person sees a
logical contradiction inside the text of the Book, he uses this as an
opportunity to explore the versatility of the language, where words have
multiple meanings, and explore multiple meanings of the text.
This
way, the Book gradually opens up, as the person sheds layers of own
limitations.
Even
works of literature are perceived differently, when one rereads them years
later. New experiences, new hopes and worries let person to see the text from a
different point of view.
This
is even more so with the Book. Each time a person reads the Book, something new
should be discovered.
The
discovery is caused by person’s growth during such reading. This growth should
be the purpose of reading of the Book.
When
one reads or listens to something new, it is natural to supplement the stream
of information with preexisting internal images and organize the new
information using these images. It is inevitable that culture induced images
pop-up in one’s head, when one reads this Book. Some images come from
paintings, some from commentaries, etc. One wants to think that there is some
passed alone knowledge from ancient times, which one absorbed and which is
should help to put in a logically coherent schema the information which one
receives through reading the book.
However,
this is a sure way to blind oneself.
A
normal person wants to extend control over circumstances, social interactions,
improve stability of own existence, reduce uncertainty of the future. A normal
person wants to be able to make decisions, when the person is ready for that.
Essentially,
freedom means exactly that – the ability to make decisions in one’s area, when
one is mentally prepared to take control and a normal person wants to be free.
There
are some external limitations to such extension of control, but the most severe
limitations are internal. In many cases there are ways around external
limitations if only a person is not trapped by own filters of perceptions,
twisted system of values, undeveloped feelings and emotions, undeveloped
ability to think logically, etc.
Because
of these internal limitations the person usually falls in some form of
religion, which resonates with them and reinforces them. They become double
trapped by their deficiencies and by deficiencies of the religious form and
religious community.
In
addition, these internal limitations invite predators, who reinforce these
limitations and enslave the person. Escaping from this trap becomes double
difficult.
Such
reinforced deficiencies are the cause of twisted perception, perpetually wrong
decision-making and suffering as a consequence.
Some
people could find the way out of this trap acting alone, maybe with some
minimal help, but without any supporting community, supporting culture or
supporting religion. In some cases, as in the case when one lives in a very
sick society, it could be the only available way. However, for the majority of
people it is too difficult and too dangerous – too many pitfalls and too few
tools available.
It
should be the easier way to grow out of own limitations, should be easier way
to Liberation. The easier way exists, thanks to many people who went through
for many generations it and cleared it for consequent generations.
Many
religious forms are dead-ends, they provide some benefits, but reinforce
internal limitations. Remembering benefits, the person stays trapped by own
reinforced limitations.
One
could argue, that any form of religion, which does not have built-in mechanism
of stimulation of those who adhere to it to grow out of own limitations,
inevitable becomes such trap.
From
the other hand, people are notoriously prone to falling into religion. If they
do not have one, they either find it or invent it. If they are averse to the
idea of religion, they will find a primitive form of religion, which bills
itself as something else.
One
needs perpetual support to be able to avoid this trap. If one is so weak, that
one inevitably falls into a religion, then one has to find a suitable religion,
which is kind of anti-religion. One has to find a form of religion and a
community of religious people, which rejects all other forms of religion and
helps one stay clear from these other forms of religion.
It
is insufficient to have a jealous form of religion, which protects from falling
into traps of other forms of religion. This form of religion could be a trap
itself. One could find examples in history, when a political ruler elevated a
particular form of polytheistic religion into an exclusive one for political
reasons.
One
needs a form of religion, which would induce one’s growth and liberation from
own deficiencies.
Religious
law is ideally suited to support growth, individual growth and growth of the
society. It is different from law of the land, which serves as a fence
protecting members of the society from venturing into destructive to their
social sides areas. Religious law works when one gets in touch with it.
If
one lived the day and did not steal anything, one fit into the boundaries of
the law of the land. However, to benefit from the religious law prohibiting
stealing, one has to encounter some desire to act in the suspicious manner, one
has to examine this desire and realize that satisfying it would be a variant of
stealing and one has to block this desire and not act on it. Only then one
makes the step beyond boundaries of own understanding, beyond boundaries
created by own filters of perception, beyond boundaries limiting ones ability
to control the situation.
One
has to find a religious form, which supports this use of religious law and does
not impose the religious law as an additional boundary to fit in.
Learning
how to advance a logical system, as a branch of science, practically always
requires intensive interaction with those who do it. Creative activity cannot
be learnt from observation of its results.
Intense
interaction with an appropriate community is needed even in large degree in the
case of learning to grow and in the process of growing.
This
interaction is often not conscious, it could be supported with reading of texts
written long ago by members of such community, but it cannot be replaced with
studying. Live interaction is crucial.
When
a person runs in conflict resolution based on legal system, one could and
possibly should learn new things about reality. In a healthy community, this
could be facilitated with the system of arbitrage, where arbiters-judges are
selected from the same community. This way something that is not religious law
acquires qualities of such law, it becomes a tool helping to grow.
The
community as a whole could establish some form of religious low as a law of
land, as a part of legal system. However, this should be done only as a will of
people, not as a religious law imposed on people. As a will of people it is a
subject of discussion and could be repealed.