Continued from the first blog that introduced the Religion Of Truth.  This blog contains questions from #7 to 17 which ends the opening statment for the Religion Of Truth.

 

7.  What would be the ROT’s attitude towards suicide?

 

Answer:

 

Obviously we would be against it.  Whatever reason our Creator put us here for, he/she (it) didn’t give us life to throw it away.  I am reminded how Hitler became violent whenever one of his followers committed suicide, probably out of guilt.  He called them outright cowards.   Then of course when everything was lost, he committed suicide himself.

 

As I stated earlier in our discussion about homosexuality, distorted fears enter into this discussion also.  Although there are many different factors that can cause a person to choose suicide, one of them, for the person who has been diagnosed with mental illness and even those who have not, is to be experiencing a distorted fear about the feelings of fear itself.  This kind of fear is a recurring aspect of the mental anguish of anyone who is contemplating the taking of his or her own life.  In this regard, the fear of life can become greater then the fear of death.

 

For suicides near the end of life or when one is extremely ill, it is well to remember that our Creator has given us the genetic ability to live approximately 80 to 90 years or even more.  Even though it all looks hopeless and the Doctors have said you only have a short time to live, it is the capacity to live a long life that fights against death and keeps one alive longer then otherwise might be expected. 

 

Fortunately we have drugs such as morphine that will help to  deaden the pain while these last vestiges of life fight for continued existence.  At least this exit from life does not leave ones loved ones the embarrassment of having to cover up the suicide or lie about the actual cause of death.

 

I recently read about a soldier in Iraq who lost one of his legs on the battlefield.  Even before the medics arrived, he tried to end his life.   About 4 months later he did commit suicide.   Only after his death did his mother find out about the prior suicide attempt on the battlefield.

 

Our distorted fear of the truth causes many of the problems that we must endure in life.   Of course that which we understand the least causes the most fear.  At one time no one ever admitted that they had cancer, it was all hushed up because the fear of this disease was so great.

 

One of the problems with this kind of approach is simply this; how can money be raised to fight cancer if no one talks about it to begin with?   Our distorted reactions to fear are robbing us of our ability to solve our problems.  This also applies to the problem of suicide. 

 

Perhaps if this young man was able to talk about his thoughts and feelings with his mother, she could have expressed the love and devotion that would have kept the young man alive.  Yes, a well qualified Psychiatrist could also succeed in saving the young man’s life, but the love of a family member, and in this case the young man’s mother, can surpass what an insulated Psychiatrist’s skill and experience might have to offer.  At the very least, with the right kind of mother in this instance, or relative in other instances, that kind of interpersonal empathy could potentially add to the Psychiatrist’s attempts to help.

 

Those people in this story who kept the battlefield suicide attempt from the mother, probably believed that with the passage of time the young man would overcome the depression that he was feeling about his future life, and go on to live a normal lifespan.  By talking about the attempted suicide, they probably thought such talk would make it more difficult for him to overcome his problems. 

 

One psychiatrist who specializes in using anti-depressants and other pills to deal with mental issues was criticized for not talking enough to his patients.   He stated that talking is useless and it can even make things worse.  Perhaps he didn’t realize what he was saying, because by saying that talking could make things worse, he was admitting that talking could make a difference. 

 

The following comments that appear in a different format (14 instead of 16), are taken from an unpublished book called, The Human Mind.  It was written by yours truly.  In a curious turn of events, that author is threatening to sue me for copyright infringement.  I am finding him to be almost impossible to deal with.  Would it be considered to be presumptuous of me if I added an LOL right here?

 

Bio-Psychiatrists have shown that people who are considered to be mentally ill or are suffering from acute stress disorders, do not have enough of the chemical serotonin in their brain metabolism.  Prozac and other Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors have the capacity to increase the level of serotonin in the brain.

 

Although this would appear to validate the biological definition of mental illness, further examination is required.  Dr. Michael J. Norden, M.D., has authored an important book called, “Beyond Prozac.”  On page 176, the following quotation from Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz appears: --- Psychological treatments clearly produce biological effects on the brain.   My colleagues and I have recently shown that, similar to Prozac, a form of cognitive behavioral therapy is capable of correcting abnormalities in the brain metabolic rates of patients with obsessive compulsive behavior.   

 

Giving someone a Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitor such as Prozac is similar to giving someone a fish for supper.  Giving someone beneficial psychological therapy, which would have to include knowledge about conglomerated fear, is similar to teaching someone how to fish.

 

If I have left you with the impression that I would like to see the use of neuroleptic drugs for the treatment of mental illness --- and/or for alleviating stress, eliminated from further use, then I have misled you.  Just as we now use anesthetics to temporarily block out pain during medical operations, so also will we use these neuroleptic drugs to temporarily block the emotional pain for those whose conglomerated fears, (which manifest themselves as excessive stress), become too severe to handle in any other way.

 

On page 167 of the above mentioned book called, “Beyond Prozac“, we find the following quote by Milton Rokeach: --- To say that a particular psychiatric condition is incurable or irreversible, is to say more about the state of our psychological ignorance, than about the state of the patients mental health.

 

The question then becomes, is the Psychiatrist or behavioral consultant that you are seeing, sufficiently knowledgeable about the effects of stress (fear about the achievements that you are involved in, or as in the suicide story above, achievements that you want to embrace in the future.) --- or not?   But in the case of the pill popping or pill prescribing Psychiatrist above, since he thinks that talking to you is useless, there is almost no chance that he would be able to help you.

 

If the drug that he gave you, helped you, then it calmed your nerves and that allowed you to do something rather than the nothing that depression and the distorted fear of failure can cause.  If then, this action resulted in success in achievements that are important to you, the drug and the Psychiatrist get credit for the cure. 

 

But if you failed in your action and remained depressed, then that proves that you have genetic or chemical damage inside your brain and must take the drugs for the rest of your life.  If you committed suicide, well, they did the best that they could and although they wish that it didn’t happen, they must, out of necessity, move on to the next person who is seeking help.        

 

I think we have to develop deeper levels of truth about all of the achievements, both positive and negative,  that we are involved in during this journey through life.  The ROT would do everything it can to promote this type of behavior, without denigrating anyone who had the courage to ask for psychological help.     

 

8.  How about euthanasia?

 

Answer:

 

Even though this is a very serious question let me start off with this silly little story.  This happened on the old Benny Hill television show many years ago.  This particular skit had Benny sitting down to interview someone for a public affairs show where he believed that the topic in question was euthanasia.  He asked a pertinent question about this subject but the guest’s answer had nothing to do with euthanasia.  They then showed Benny Hill looking at his cue card which stated that the guest was here to talk about --- Youth in Asia.

 

Some of the same considerations apply to this situation as they do for suicide.  A competent psychologist should listen to all the reasons why someone wants to choose euthanasia and make certain that any and all avenues are explored that might result in the person changing his or her mind.  

 

I think the following decision actually happens more often than we are prepared to admit, where the Doctor makes sure that the patient isn’t suffering any pain, even if that requires a level of pain killer, morphine or whatever, that presumably might result in death for the patient.  

 

When death is not as imminent as in the above example, hopefully the person doing the choosing can be convinced that his or her situation is not as hopeless as the potential suicidal person has decided that it is.  Euthanasia is an extremely complex situation and I am sure that other people with much more knowledge about this subject than myself, could answer it more competently than I can.

 

I interjected the following ideas at the start of the sixth question and I am repeating them again here because they are of the utmost importance.   I feel duty bound to reiterate that the ideas put forward in this so called “opening statement” are not some kind of absolute truth that must be upheld at all costs until the end of time.  Here then is the repeated paragraph once again.

 

There will be many questions such as this that will require skill and experience in the field of each question.   While the answers that I give will be the best that I have to offer at this time, they certainly will be open to change and improvement by others more qualified than myself, to put forward.

 

9.  What rules would the ROT follow on the subject of abortion?

 

Answer:

 

We would favor the use of the morning after pill even with all of its ramifications for possible immorality.   Abortion within the first 3 months would be accepted but after that, things should be looked upon differently.   Abortions at a late date are generally caused by procrastination about making the decision. 

 

Of course hoping that the biological father will offer to marry the woman is one of the reasons for a woman to wait and wait.  Once again these rules would have to be refined by others who have far more knowledge and experience in this area of life than I do.

 

I would like to write about abortion on a larger scale as regards to our responsibility to avoid extinction of the human race itself.  With over 6 billion people on the face of the earth, one could say that quality rather than quantity should be our first priority. 

 

However, it is also true that the more people that exist, the more achievements there are that have to be met successfully and more intelligent people are required to meet these challenges.  Since that is exactly what evolution is aiming for, one could say that the more people on the earth the better.

 

Once again we have the seemingly impersonal nature of the evolutionary processes.  More people without more knowledge will mean more people starving to death and more people choosing violence instead of starvation.  But if increased population finally forces increased knowledge then the greater becomes the chance that we will avoid extinction in the face of some catastrophic peril for the entire planet.

 

So the choice is a curb on population growth which means a lower potential for avoiding extinction, or higher population growth with its ancillary starvation or violence for a relatively speaking “few“, but higher motivation for increased knowledge to avoid extinction for the “whole” of mankind.  You already know which option evolution would choose.

 

Who knows exactly how many human beings could live on this planet that we call earth at the same time and live successful and happy lives.  Maybe 40 billion, probably less but there definitely is a limit.   As we approach that limit, the motivation to learn to live elsewhere rather than only on this planet increases dramatically if not exponentially.  What we have here is just another side of the incredibly complex debate about abortion.              

 

10..  Working towards the goal of avoiding extinction for the human race is something that might not really be needed for another million years or more.  Why not focus on the here and now?   That makes much more sense to me.

 

Answer:

 

And to me also.  Obviously I am not saying that 90% of the human population should spend their time working on this problem.  I consider Richard Dawkins to be an absolute genius.  What I am saying is that only a small proportion of the potential geniuses of his equal are given the chance to actually put that intellectual power to its best use.  I discussed that situation earlier in the book. 

 

Each time a child is born, its first cry is symbolically a cry for more achievement.  With over 6 billion people on the face of the earth, we need all of the intelligence that we can bring to bear to successfully meet the needs and desires of those over 6 billion people. 

 

There is plenty of work and fulfillment for those who are willing to embrace these necessary achievements on whatever scale they are capable of doing.  The point being that the more economic, political and educational success  that the human population is able to achieve, the more harmony we can experience between all human beings, the more brilliant people there will be to devote themselves to this long range goal.  Of course if this long range goal suddenly appears imminent, it would be too late to wish we had started earlier.                                         

 

11.  Will this religion have a Bible or Koran or some such book?

 

Answer:

 

Well, I haven’t really thought that through to be honest.  It is more important for me to get the main ideas about this new religion started than to get it all down perfectly to begin with.   Hopefully the constructive and even the unconstructive criticism that I am sure to receive will help refine the eventual wording of the message.   In that regard, one could consider this document to be the first edition of a number of editions to follow.

 

One idea that I think would be valuable, is to have 3 different books.  The ideas or accepted truths that appear in the first book would be subject to review and further evaluation once every 5 years.   The second book would be every 10 years and the third book every 25 years. 

 

Of course there would be special provisions for a speed up of this process if fundamental change appeared to be necessary in any of the 3 books.  Obviously the greater the level of proof is for the statements in the first two books, the more potential there is for that statement to find itself in the “25 year book.”

 

I think I would also like to see many of the ideas that appear in Richard Dawkins book, “The Greatest Show On Earth, or even the entire book itself as part of the special texts of this religion.  Both while reading the book and as I look back upon the experience, it seems as if I was viewing, through his book, the miracle that one man could acquire so much knowledge that seemed to be beyond the human limitations of knowledge.

 

That impression on my part, is probably an indication of my lack of confidence in the human condition.  I like the following expression that I would like to see in front of a library:  “Join me in the mental exercise of the human mind, whose physical structure is restricted, but whose creative dimensions remain unknown.”

 

Of course Richard Dawkins is certainly not alone in the majesty of his knowledge.  We are lucky to have a significant number of geniuses in various disciplines spread out across the whole spectrum of challenges that we are mounting against the unknown.

 

12.  What comments would you like to make about the 911 attack against the United States Of America?

 

Answer:

 

I think that it provided part of the motivation for putting forth this new Religion Of Truth.  The 911 attacks are a perfect example of how the human mind can be convinced to do something horrendous such as this and then have others of similar beliefs conclude that the individuals that did it are some kind of martyrs to their cause.  

 

How would you like to be the Creator and (symbolically) hear these men praising you as they killed themselves and thousands of others also?  Incidentally, the above idea or example is only for emphasis.  My concept of a Creator does not include that identity listening in to every word that we say.  My concept of a Creator would be one that involves itself in deeper and deeper generalizations concerning the manner in which reality is brought into existence.  

 

I don’t like the idea of forcing children to memorize a religion’s book (the Koran) in school, rather than using that precious time to provide the necessary education that would help the followers of such a religion compete more successfully in the economic world.  This in turn would reduce the belief that other societies, namely the Americans, are the root cause of most, if not all of the problems in the Muslim or Islamic world.

 

Believing in Heaven and Hell is distorted enough, but believing that 23 virgins will be waiting for you in heaven if you give your life up as a martyr to the cause, is bordering on psychiatric delusion.  Sorry, I used the wrong words there, it isn’t anywhere near the border, it is without the slightest doubt, full fledged psychiatric delusion.

 

The most important idea to remember in this situation is that it is all negotiable.  The German people have put together a decent society in spite of it being captured in the past by a delusional monster like Hitler.  The Japanese people were forcibly rescued from the clutches of a militaristic society and they are now a peaceful  and prosperous nation.

 

The continent of Australia was treated as a penal colony by Great Britain.  If indeed human character was not negotiable, but was definitively determined by genetic causes, then a large majority to people living in Australia right now should be criminals.   In reality, their approach to life is just as rational as any other country and in many cases even better.

 

Our responsibility is to gradually increase our ability to look after an ever increasing population.  If a society fails to do this, rather than starve to death, that society or nation will choose to fight for life.   If two people are stranded on an island with only enough food for one, they probably will start their own private war.

 

I remember walking through the park one day and a number of pigeons were gathered around a piece of food that someone must have thrown away.  One pigeon was eating and preventing any of the other pigeons from joining in.   I decided to intervene and introduce some democracy into the situation.

 

As I walked towards the “bully pigeon” he flew away.  Of course I was acting like the new bully pigeon wasn’t I?  I guess its easy to tell that I am the proverbial city slicker who didn’t understand nature, because as soon as I left, the next bully pigeon in the group took over and prevented everyone else from joining in.

 

The human race has been given enough intelligence so that if we successfully achieve what we are capable of, we can show empathy to our fellow travelers through life and share the bounty fairly with each other.

 

I have already mentioned this point earlier, but as difficult as it might seem to be to accept it, even destructive events such as the 911 attack have the potential to motivate others to help bring to an end the psychological reasons behind the distorted and superstitious religious beliefs  that caused the catastrophe to happen in the first place.

 

13.  What is your attitude about capitalism?

 

Answer:

 

Capitalism:

 

Perhaps there is a correlation between what Winston Churchill said about democracy that applies to capitalism also:  “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything else.”

 

As the USSR eventually found out, in order to successfully meet the necessary achievements to keep a society fed and relatively happy, one must be willing to pay those who shoulder the most responsibility the most money.   Of course this can only be achieved in a partial manner.  How are we to understand a baseball player making $30 million dollars a year while a brain surgeon makes much, much less?   One answer could be that a large majority of people want to be entertained, not just be successful  in obtaining the basic necessities of life.

 

But the downfall of capitalism is, in my opinion, (I am not as educated as I should be in this area), is the belief that capitalism itself will correct its own short comings.  I believe that the government must step in, in the form of taxes and other measures also to bring about a more level playing field for the general population at large, in whatever country the capitalist system is being employed.

 

Flat out true capitalism would see those who fail in the market place, either find success or starve to death.  Expecting a person to voluntarily starve to death peacefully, with no inconvenience to the successful capitalist would be a study in delusion.  Such a person would resort to theft or even murder if the situation deteriorated into choosing such violence or the violence of starvation.  

 

Indeed, even though the ultra capitalist distains socialism, he nevertheless accepts many socialist measures as a defense against the succeed or die syndrome listed in the previous paragraph.  Without question, practicing capitalist societies must include significant governmental checks and balances and the trick is to determine exactly what those checks and balances should be.

 

I suspect that the future will see the capitalist system mutated by evolutionary processes into something better than what the practice of capitalism is providing for the necessary continued improvement of the human condition in today’s world.  Unfortunately, I have no clue as to what those mutations might look like, or how, or when, they might come into existence.          

    

14.  What is your attitude towards psychology and psychiatry?

 

Answer:

 

Perhaps I should start with the following story.   A middle aged man goes to see a Psychiatrist and after several sessions the Psychiatrist throws his hands up in despair.  I’ve tried everything I know to help you but nothing seems to be working.  I’ve got a ticket to see the circus on Saturday night but my wife wants me to go to the opera with her. 

 

I’m going to give the circus ticket to you.   I want you to pay particular attention to the clown in the center ring.  He is absolutely hilarious.  Whenever I am feeling down or depressed, he never fails to get me laughing and it changes my whole outlook on life.  Here is the ticket, hopefully he can do the same for you.   That sounds like a great idea, said the patient, except for one thing,  --- I ‘m the clown.

 

There is a lot of truth and knowledge contained in this story.  One is left with the quandary, “who is helping who?”  Of course humor is a very important element in combating the effects of stress.  Humor says that you are enjoying life and that leaves you with a feeling of success rather than failure.  Of course like most things, humor can be negative also. 

 

If you are laughing with someone its considered positive but if you are laughing at someone it is considered to be negative.  Just to complicate things further, of course if it is a Hitler or some other kind of dictator that you are laughing at then that might be the most damaging tactic of all against such a dictator.  It is said that Hitler went ballistic when he was portrayed negatively and humorously by Charlie Chaplin. 

 

Stress is just a more acceptable way of saying that we are feeling the effects of fear regarding the achievements that we are involved in.  If you react correctly to the emotion of fear, it will motivate you to increase your knowledge about the achievement in question.

 

Actually what is life all about other than a conglomeration of achievements all tied in together.  If you are failing at achievements that are important to you, or even the achievements that you wish to become involved in, you will be feeling the effects of stress.

 

It is of the utmost importance that we realize that fear is not some horrible weakness that a cruel and callous Creator has inflicted upon his unsuspecting children, which of course includes you and I.  On the contrary, fear is our most prized possession when we must face the unknown and try to transfer that unknown into the plus side of our accumulating storehouse of knowledge.  If you react to the emotion of fear correctly, it will motivate you to increase your knowledge.

 

It is said that our nervous systems were constructed at a time when we were threatened by wild beasts that could easily kill us and now in our modern world, this outdated nervous system is causing all of our psychic problems.  THIS IS NONSENSE.

 

Let us say that our ancestor from long ago was walking down a jungle trail and a huge lion came into view.  The fear reactions would invoke either fight or flight and because of the fear of death,  these feelings would be acutely felt. 

 

If the lion had recently eaten a large meal and was not hungry, but instead he was hunting down the scent of a female lion, he might not bother with our hunter at all but instead hurry on by.   The hunters nervous system would be over sensitive or even shaking, just like our nerves do in the modern world.

 

We have different achievements to embrace than our ancestors did but if those achievements could cause you to fail at the work that allows you to make a living and provide food for your family, the fear that you feel could be just as acute as what the ancestor in the above story felt.  This reaction of course is personal, where one individual would be mildly stressed, another might be at the edge of emotional disaster.

 

More importantly, these feelings of failure can become persistent whereas with the lion, they end rather suddenly either with death or escape.  Of course the apprehension of fear for such encounters in the future, can either add to the stress that you are experiencing, or it can help to motivate the individual to increase his knowledge so as to avoid this threat to his continued existence as much as humanly possible.    

 

The feelings of fear and its effects on the body are supposed to provide you with the extra  physical strength to meet a physical threat.  But the adrenaline rush inside your body from a fear reaction is also accompanied by the manufacture of nor adrenaline whose job it is to bring your brain to full focus and awareness to help you meet the threat with the appropriate actions or words.    

 

One very important difference is that our ancestors were involved in far more physical activity than we are today.  That extra physical activity burned up some of the excess adrenaline that the fear reaction pours into our ancestors bloodstream.  We have to make sure that we get enough physical activity because of the rather sedentary lifestyle we now live, at least compared to our ancestors.

 

In summary, I strongly believe that the fear response in our nervous system and its capacity to motivate a person to increase his or her knowledge was perfectly tailored to the lifestyle of our ancestors, is similarly tailored for those of us who are alive today and will continue to be essential to those who have yet to be born. 

 

15.  You have stated that the Christian lifestyle is a good one and many of its guidelines for living will be included in the ROT.  Under those terms of reference, why would I want to change?  Why should I give up Christianity for the Religion Of Truth?

 

Answer:

 

The best possible reason is that the ROT will mirror the realities of life more closely than Christianity.  That is, the questions --- how did we get here and why are we here, are more realistically addressed in the ROT than in Christianity.   You could tell a child to continue to believe in Santa Claus because it won’t do you any harm.  But that would be rejecting completely the Creator given capacity for intelligent thought that the human race has the potential to possess.

 

On page 5, which is part of the Preface for the book called, A Walk Through Time, the following words appear:  “Regardless of one’s beliefs regarding the origins (of life), the future of life on earth will be substantially determined by the extent to which humanity unites within the next few years in commitment to the future.”

 

It is my unequivocal belief that the origination of the Religion Of Truth, as I am putting it forward in this document, is the first small step in the evolution of the current religious belief systems in acceptance throughout the world today, into a more universally accepted religion for the future  

 

Contained within the seeds of this rudimentary version of the ROT is the potential to achieve the unity among all or most people that the above quotation states is absolutely necessary for our continued existence. 

 

I do not believe that there will ever be one belief system.  But I do believe that the systems in competition with each other in the future will not be enveloped by superstitious and/or mythical beliefs to the same extent as is the case with those in existence today.   

 

It would be unrealistic to assume that the existing religions would simply disappear almost overnight.  Remember my story about the “clutch pedal” being removed when they invented automatic transmissions?  Evolution is not able to remove such a “clutch pedal” but it either watches it wither away to nothing or evolves it into something else that is useful in a different way.  Well, that is what I see in the future for the existing mythical religious belief systems.

 

Obviously I’m repeating myself here, but the endless discrepancies between Christian teaching about the realities of life and reality itself are overwhelming.   They have now been made even more self-evident by our understanding about evolution.  While in the past, a Christian might say that in spite of the discrepancies referred to above, and because I wish to believe in, and honor a Creator, and still further, because I have no viable option, I am going to stay with Christianity.

 

I believe that the Religion Of Truth is the viable option that such a person is looking for and that in itself should be sufficient reason to change ones belief system.   In effect, one could say that the ROT is a consequence of the evolutionary forces behind our desire to increase our knowledge. 

 

While the Christian belief system may have been perfectly tailored for the time when it came into existence, the ROT will fill that niche in the very near future.  I am persuaded that the search for the truth will never end.  Accordingly, the ROT itself will change and be refined in accordance with the higher levels of knowledge that those who have yet to be born will bring into existence.                                   

 

16.  You started the Religion Of Truth on the beliefnet.com internet site about 10 years ago and eventually they gave you your own site, which quickly deteriorated into a veritable ghost town.  Why are you trying to resurrect it now and what makes you think that your religion will not remain a “ghost town” inhabited by only you --- yourself?

 

Answer:

 

Even if you are correct, that it will remain a ghost town, I will still be glad I put forward all of this effort to make it happen.  I believe that the ideas that I am putting forward in this religion, mirror reality, and whether they are accepted in the very near future  or not, will not dissuade me from trying my very best to make it happen.

 

This new impetus on my part is a result of reading Richard Dawkin’s book called, “The Greatest Show On Earth.”  The purpose of the book was to provide an all inclusive defense of evolution and he certainly achieved that goal with flying colors.  However, whereas he believes that his ideas prove that no “God or Creator” is necessary  to bring forth life, instead; I believe that he showed that such a Creator is far more intelligent than we previously imagined him/her/it to be.

 

I refer specifically to the following quote from his book on page  416:  “We know a great deal about how evolution (through natural selection) has worked ever since it got started, but we have no evidence bearing upon the momentous event that was the start of evolution on this planet.” 

 

As an example, if you visited an automobile assembly line of robots, and if you were from some other planet, you might conclude that human beings were not involved in the creation of that car.  Evolution could be represented as the robots on the assembly line and our Creator as the humans behind the building of the car.   In the case of the car, the so-called aliens from another planet would eventually conclude that the humans were much more intelligent than they were previously thought to be.  The same applies to our Creator and his method of using evolution to  bring new life entities into existence.  

 

It should also be clearly understood that in all probability, there are multitudinous levels of deeper knowledge that we must still obtain.  It is not as if understanding evolution has placed us one step away from the ultimate truth.  Reality itself dictates that it should be considered self-evident that --- it has not.

 

Under no circumstances am I invoking the “old saw” that when we approach the unknown we fill in such blanks by believing in a Creator.  What I am saying is that evolution simply shows us that our Creator is using this system to achieve his deeper goal of pushing us towards more knowledge and a better chance to avoid extinction of the human race and through our intelligence, other forms of life on this planet may also avoid extinction also.

 

I used the expression deeper goal rather than ultimate goal because we certainly are unable to even guess as to what our Creator’s ultimate goal is.   What I wish to infer is that unless we avoid extinction, the pursuit of the necessary knowledge to allow us to come closer to understanding our Creator’s ultimate goal, will obviously never occur.

 

The ideas that I put forth in the --- Other Beliefs --- StephenK.Adams site on beliefnet, which can now only be accessed from the Archives of beliefnet.com, --- are valid, but those who took the trouble to read them, for the most part, belittled their value.  It was as if they were saying, these ideas are just his personal opinion, why should I believe him or give up my belief system for one that has failed to attract any members to speak of?

 

As a result of Richard Dawkins book, “The Greatest Show On Earth”, I became aware that the ideas that I was putting forward in the beliefnet.com website, are relatively identical to the very goals to which evolution is directed. 

 

I consider Richard Dawkin’s book and the ideas put forward in it, especially about evolutions goal to produce an ever more intelligent living entity (us), is the definitive proof that any reader of these words is looking for to convince him or her that the Religion Of Truth is the belief system that he or she should embrace.

 

17.  If you are right, that our Creator has programmed us, by using  evolution, to constantly increase our knowledge, then it appears as if we are destined to be successful.  Is that in keeping with what you believe?

 

Answer:

 

No, not really.  If there are billions of other planets that have some form of life entity and evolution is pushing all of them towards greater levels of knowledge, then we may be in competition with all of those other living entities on these other planets.   Out of a billion possible life entities throughout the Universe, perhaps only one or just a few, will be successful.  The others may fail to increase their knowledge sufficiently and as a result become extinct.

 

I think it would be wrong to believe that we have some kind of guarantee.  That our destiny is already “written in the stars.”  It would be far more realistic to believe that it is up to us to avoid extinction.  Act as if we are the highest form of intelligent life in the Universe, and fully realize that our destiny is up to us.

 

From a somewhat indifferent Creator, (that type of attitude on the part of our Creator seems to be self evident in the kill or be killed animal world), it would be like having a billion life entities trying to avoid extinction and as long as one or more succeed, it really doesn’t matter if the other billion, less a few, become extinct. 

 

With a billion experiments going on under evolutionary processes, perhaps the mathematical odds favor one or more successful life entities.  Will we be one of those successful entities?  And if by chance, we are alone in this Universe,  then, under those terms of reference,  it’s either us or --- nobody.                                     

 

If it were possible to bring back one of our ancestors from 300 years ago,  that person would look at the progress we have made over that time and wonder if he was actually on a different planet all together than the one that he inhabited 300 years ago. 

 

I believe that the human race has been given a sufficient level of mental acuity to allow us to live harmoniously with each other on a much greater scale than we are doing today.  I believe that such harmony will allow more of the geniuses that are born each year to reach their full potential; and in the process, elevate the sum total of human knowledge exponentially so that those who are born after them will have an even better world to live in also. 

 

If we ourselves were brought back to life 300 years into the future, who is to say that we wouldn’t be even more astonished at what the human race has accomplished at that time, than the imaginary person from 300 years ago would be astonished at what we have achieved today.

 

I believe a deeper level of understanding about how the emotion of fear affects human behavior will find the human race being able to shoulder more responsibility and more achievements without unduly endangering our physical, emotional and mental well being.

 

I believe that when those of us who are so inclined, ask ourselves what can we do to thank our Creator for the incredible miracle of life that he/she/it has given us, our answer will be much closer to being: --- “everything I possible could with the experience and knowledge that I have accumulated during my lifetime.”

 

Are these goals that I have listed above an indication that I have adopted an unrealistic and Polyannic approach to the future?  Absolutely not!  “We should strive to be, --- not better than anyone else is, but rather, --- to be better than we ever thought we could be.”  The above delightful quotation belongs to none other than the professional golfer, Ken Ventura.         

 

It is said that if you believe that you will be successful, your chances of success increase dramatically.   Let us therefore believe that with increased knowledge and experience, we will overcome the possibility of extinction for the human race itself and in the process, move inexorably --- closer and closer --- to our Creator. 

 

 

Hello Potential reader. 

 

The following blog is about 30 pages long and it puts forward a new religion called The Religion Of Truth.  The last part of the blog contains 6 questions that I answer as if someone was actually asking them of me.  There are 11 other questions that I also answer to end the "opening statement"for the Religion Of Truth, but apparently there is not enough space in this one blog to include those 11 other questions also.  I will try to add them in a second blog if I am allowed to do so.  Sorry, but I am new at this blogging area and I am trying to do my best. 

 

I hope you will persevere and read this entire blog and a second one that will follow in due time. (Immediately if I am allowed to do it.)  No doubt the following words will sound arrogant or conceited of me, but I believe it is being said out of a reasonable sense of confidence. --- You will not regret having read both of them in their entirety.  ---   Trust me I am telling the truth. 

 

 

THE RELIGION OF TRUTH

 

In regards to the creation of  a new religion, one could easily say that endeavor is the last thing that this Old World needs.   With the level of violence that is now occurring in one God’s name or the other, who needs another one to compound our existing problems?

 

 Sometimes however, what we think is required the least of all, turns out to be exactly what is needed.   And so, with those thoughts in mind, I hereby put forward the new religion called, --- The Religion Of Truth.

  

 There are two negative connotations to this name, one of which is that with a host of such names for various branches of Protestantism, it could easily be dismissed as one more branch of Christianity, when in fact it seeks to replace, not only Christianity, but also other existing belief systems including Islam.   

 

 The other is that the acronym for this religion comes out as ROT, which can be used by its critics to provide a negative connotation for its value.  Neither of these two negatives can overcome the obvious value of this religions name.   We will seek out the truth no matter where it leads us.  We will glorify the search for the truth and we will experience the liberating value that such a search has to offer to those who have the courage to seek it.

 

 Christianity declares that the originator of that religion is God’s son.  Why shouldn’t another part of the world have their own messenger from God in the name of Allah?   The Religion Of Truth is being started by a Canadian citizen of English ancestry who does not pretend that he has some special status with God.   Unless of course, you want to say that all of us are our Creator’s children and then I will most definitely agree with that.

 

 The point is, that the ROT is a religion for the entire human race and should not be seen as being especially favored or specifically aimed at any one segment of the human family.   To be sure, these words are being written in English, but that should not, and I find these next words to be inviolate, --- should not indicate any bias towards any one language or group of people.

 

 The first words to be written about this religion necessarily had to appear in one language, but it should be seen as one that is universal to the world at large.   I like the capacity of the computer age that will allow someone to write in ones own language and have the computer translate it individually into the language of the recipient of the words.  It is this kind of universality that I am talking about for the Religion Of Truth.

 

 This does not mean that I believe the day will come when the Religion Of Truth will be the only religion being practiced.   On the contrary, Atheism for sure will be practiced and a host of other religions also.  But I believe the ROT will expand exponentially and it will force other belief systems who want to compete with it, to eliminate as much superstitious belief from their tenets as they possibly can.  

 

 Besides, competition forces each of the participants in the competition to face reality more completely.  Without competition one might accept some aspect of ones belief system without completely delving into the heart of the idea put forward, but the competition will have no such tendency to write a blank check for whatever the idea or new belief is in question.

 

 The first tenet of this religion will be as follows:  We believe in a First Cause, a Life Force, a Creator.  This Life Force created the Universe and every living thing that dwells therein.  However, at this time in our history, and because of our mental limitations, we are unable to comprehend the actual form of our Creator’s existence.  Later in this document, we will discuss further, the differences between a belief in Atheism as opposed to the belief in a Creator.

 

 I believe that a silent majority of Christians are dismayed at the ever increasing evidence that proves that the basic tenets of Christianity are mythical in nature.  They want to believe in a Creator and if they give up their present religion, no matter how contaminated it is with human frailties and/or mythical beliefs, if they reject it, where will they go to continue their belief in a Creator?

 

 A further disincentive to change, is the belief that since the religion has had 2000 years of acceptance, that in itself must confer some basic value to the belief system itself.  There is indeed much value in the Christian belief system, but there is also far too many superstitious beliefs, which show themselves up in negative attitudes and behaviors of its  followers. 

 

 To a large extent the Christian religion has discarded many of its more horrific practices of past generations, (The Inquisition, the Crusades, acceptance of slavery, etc. etc.),  but the Islamic religion still provokes some of its followers who take these superstitious beliefs as the gospel truth.  They then convince themselves, or they are convinced by others, to commit acts of terror and deliberately commit suicide in the mistaken belief that they are doing so for the protection and proliferation of their cause and religion.    

 

 It is to provide a realistic and alternative belief system for such people that this religion is being put forward.  It is to discard superstitious beliefs that were formulated 2000 years ago and to replace them with ideas that identify with the truth as much as we possibly can achieve at this time.  This religion will not ask its followers to believe every word, every “jot” that is put forward or used in this document.

 

 It will readily accept the fact that some truths that seemed to be valid at one time in human history, have been proven to be invalid as a result of the acquisition of new knowledge.  This religion will not adhere to old ideas in an attempt to make this original document appear to have some kind of absolute truth in it that is beyond questioning.

 

 I am reminded here of a difference of opinion about the value of circumcising male babies in the Jewish religion.  After exhausting most of the pros and cons of this procedure, the Rabbi in the discussion stated that the tenets of his religion were under constant criticism and to protect the sanctity of the religion, they could not allow any further chipping away of its basic tenets.

 

 “Chipping away” certainly was a poor choice of words in this situation.   It must be comforting for a young Jewish boy to know that the chipping away decision was not necessarily decided by medical issues, but by the need to fortify Jewish tradition and stop the onslaught of criticisms about ancient practices in the Jewish faith.  This type of attitude prevails to some degree or another in most, if not all of the existing religions.

 

 It could easily be said that although I am 72 years old, my understanding of these issues is incomplete (true) and I should study the situation more thoroughly before making a decision to write this document.   In this regard, Charles Darwin took almost 30 years to write his book called, Origin Of The Species. 

 

 He admitted that his constant procrastination was finally ended when a contemporary of his times, whose last name was Wallace, wrote a long letter to him in which he outlined almost verbatim Darwin’s theory of natural selection from evolutionary concepts.

 

 Fearing that all his work would be usurped by another, or that the theory of evolution would be put forward less perfectly than his own version, which could further jeopardize the acceptance of the theory,  he wrote more feverishly than ever before and finished the book for publication shortly thereafter. 

 

 He then discovered that the criticism which he received from writing and publishing the book, both constructive and otherwise, provided him with the opportunity to refine his ideas which, when kept to himself during the long period of time that he took to write the book, --- did not make themselves self-evident.

 

 Another appropriate quotation on this subject is from Priscilla Effrey:  “The paradox of course is that you can never have enough information.  But you cannot gather information forever either.”  And so I press on.

 

 Christianity had to get started 2000 years ago in an age of horrific barbarity and almost universal illiteracy.  These two negatives provided  fertile ground for the cultivation of superstitious beliefs.  If Christianity tried to get started today, DNA testing would show that Joseph, or some other man was Jesus’ biological father and the whole mythical foundation of the religion would never get off the ground.

 

 Less than two thousand years ago, without an educated populace to address, it is my considered opinion that the writers of the Bible concluded that the best chance to change peoples behavior for the better, was to put forward the belief that the tenets of their religion were to be  accepted as absolute truths that should never be challenged or questioned.

 

 The concept of heaven and hell was considered to be the best possible way that they could see to try to overcome some of the barbarity and horrors of life at that time and bring about some kind of decent behavior between other members of the human race.  Ultimately, the higher level of order that this religion helped to usher in for the human race as a whole, also ushered in a new emphasis on education which ultimately would become the downfall of the religion itself.

 

 There is no heaven or hell in the Religion Of Truth.  There is no life after death.  What there is, --- is an acceptance of the mortality of life and the belief that the proper living of it, --- is life’s more than adequate reward.

 

 It is a belief that evolution is our Creator’s method of bringing forth life on this planet and perhaps on other planets also.  Evolutionary theory has shown that we, in our present form, are the products of an evolutionary system that was put in place to bring into being a life system as intelligent as we are.  This does not mean that we are the end result of this evolutionary process.  We may very well be the “missing link” to some far more intelligent life force that will come into existence in the future.

 

 Of course if we preserve the intellectual knowledge that we have so far accumulated, these more enlightened sentient beings of the future will not have to contemplate a “missing link” syndrome, as we seem to be saddled with today, we will have left them a written record of our existence.

 

 In this regard the following quotation from Albert Einstein is appropriate.  “Men of clarity and vision are few and far apart in anyone’s lifetime.  What is preserved of their work is mankind’s most valuable possession.”  

 

 This religion will advocate two vital purposes for life itself.  Firstly, there is the successful embracing of the responsibilities of life as we are living it.  Secondly, there is the quest to constantly increase the knowledge of the human race as a whole, so as to embrace the necessary success in achievements that are required to insure that the human race will not become extinct.

 

 This is part of the answer to why we are here.  Although we do not know the definitive answer to such a question, we do know that unless the human race continues to exist, we will never determine exactly what the answer is to the question --- Why are we here?

 

 How did we get here is a two sided question also.  Obviously one side of the answer is that we were created by the sexual union of our natural father and mother.  The other side of the question still remains beyond our understanding.  When evolution was first put forward, Atheists said that we got here because of evolution and they stated that no God was necessary in the equation of life.

 

 On the last page of Richard Dawkins book, “The Greatest Show On Earth”, he definitively states that evolution is “no accident” it is a result of the non-random natural selection that is the process whereby evolution occurs.

 

 Rather than prove that a Creator is not necessary, in my opinion, evolution simply proves that our previous level of understanding about how life was created was much shallower than we now understand.   Another way of saying this is that our Creator is even more miraculous then we previously believed possible. 

 

 Still further, another way of looking at this situation is as follows:  When mankind makes new discoveries and reaches a new plateau of knowledge, from this new platform we become aware that the extent of the unknown is even greater than we previously visualized  it to be. 

 

 This is not to say that the journey towards new knowledge is infinite and we should become disheartened by it.  Actually the quest for such knowledge is so rewarding to the searcher and to the human race as a whole, that I really don’t believe we have to worry about the immensity of it all leaving us in a state of disillusion.  The journey towards more understanding is also, like life itself, ---its own reward.

 

 It is almost impossible to say when this new religion will reach a point where it begins to accelerate into the eminent position that I believe that it will eventually attain.  I cannot expect a large number of people in their 30’s or older to simply set aside their long held beliefs for this new one. 

 

 It is the younger generation who have not yet invested a large amount of their mental energy in choosing one belief system or the other, that will be more willing to embrace this new belief system.  Of course this is also the domain of the existing religions.  Get them while they are young when the tableau of their minds is still capable of being molded into the shape or belief system that the teacher wishes to achieve.

 

 It is no accident that the best chance that Christianity has of increasing its followers is in areas of the world that are somewhat behind in their educational systems.  It is to those who are more readily willing to accept superstitious beliefs that this religion (Christianity) and others like it have the best chance to find new followers for the religious beliefs that they are putting forward.

 

 Another factor, even though it implies much more suffering for the human race in the meantime, is also in favor of the ultimate acceptance of the Religion Of Truth.  I call it the Red Light syndrome.  That is, before a new traffic light is installed at an intersection, it usually takes a number of accidents or even deaths to finally bring the new traffic light into existence.

 

 In this regard, the acceptance of a superstitious belief system in combination with an escalating population, finally exposes the flaws of such a system.  Islam is a perfect example of this phenomena.   The forced acceptance of this belief system by its followers, in combination with a surplus of superstitious beliefs, eventually causes horrific acts of violence to be visited upon the human race.

 

 Whereas this violence is intended to cower those opposing the religion into accepting Islam’s “superior” understanding of the realities of life, on the contrary, each act of violence convinces many others that the religion itself, in its present form, is totally unacceptable. 

 

 If the “red light” is the acceptance of the Religion Of Truth, then the violence that is being perpetrated in the name of other religions, of whatever kind, is the horrific negative action that will help make the acceptance of  the Religion Of Truth more self-evident to those who are reading these words.

 

 It is my hope that the acceptance of new ideas about the type of religious beliefs that we should embrace would race ahead of the violence that the continued acceptance of the existing religions will cause to happen.  Obviously there is no guarantee that this will happen and evolution can certainly appear to be cruel indeed. 

 

 But one way or the other, this religion that I am proposing, or a refined and more complete version thereof, will replace what we are practicing now.  The only questions to be answered are when, and after how much ancillary violence, --- will that acceptance occur?

 

 To be sure, most followers of the religions, Christianity and Islam, downplay the negatives involved in their religions and concentrate on the positives and live decent caring lives.  But one cannot allocate all of the violence that occurs in the name of religion, to the possible mental problems of some of its followers.  If one faces reality, one must acknowledge that the superstitious aspects of a religion have the capacity to reshape what otherwise would be a normal mental approach to life and turn it into something horrific and destructive.   

 

 In reference to the acceptance of new ideas, the habit of smoking sheds light on the manner in which old ideas are given up for better ideas and the amount of time required for those new ideas to take hold.  When I was about 12 years old I remember saying to myself that I must be living on the wrong planet.  It seemed to me that smoking was a ridiculous habit but a majority of people were smokers and I mistakenly concluded that I would just have to learn to put up with it.

 

 I failed to realize that with the passage of time and the population explosion that time itself causes to happen, the smoking habit would, in essence, strangle itself with its own rope.  How many people have to die of cancer of the lungs, throat or other ways that this habit inflicts upon its users, before more people would begin to say enough is enough?

 

 I never thought I would see the day when smokers would congregate outside in the cold instead of non-smokers being forced to endure clouds of smoke in the work place and elsewhere.  Apparently a reporter was zeroing in on some of Babe Ruth’s bad habits, (alcohol, infidelity) and to back the reporter off, Ruth said, “ I suppose the next thing you’ll do is start telling me I smoke too much.    What’s wrong with a relaxing smoke to calm my nerves?”  Well anyway, at least Babe Ruth knew how to hit a baseball.

 

 I remember attending the funeral of the father of one of my friends when I was in my 30’s.  It was a blisteringly hot summer day and after the funeral we were all going to meet at the home of one of the sons of the deceased man.  I arrived early at the home and went down into the basement where everyone would meet and chat for a while.

 

 I couldn’t get over how comfortable and cool it was in that room.  About half an hour later, when everybody had been chatting and smoking during that time, I realized that I had to go outside to get away from all of the smoke, just to breath in some fresh air.

 

 The point of this story is that changing people’s habits takes a long time.  But just as the population explosion and the negative implications of the habit of smoking, dictated that it would eventually be rejected, so too does the negative implications of the superstitious beliefs in the existing religions dictate that they too will eventually be rejected. 

 

 Even though my writing style is not perfect, even though these words may not be read by many people at first or even later, nevertheless, the ideas that I am putting forward will come to pass sometime in, I hope, the not too distant future.   

 

 Perhaps this opening statement is only the precursor of books or television programs or internet articles that will cause the change to happen.  Perhaps I will be on the cutting edge of such change, perhaps not.  But the main point is that the changes that I am proposing --- will eventually occur.

 

 I find it difficult to understand how so many people cling to the Christian belief system when there are so many examples to prove that it is not valid.  It never should have lasted until the time of Galileo but look at that situation.  Now, four or five hundred years later the Catholic church has finally got around to apologizing for their behavior towards him. 

 

 Other so called heretics would have been put to death but the Catholic Church graciously consented to house arrest for Gallileo if he would denounce the truth that he had discovered which directly conflicted with “Biblical Knowledge.”   Once again, I think part of the continued success of the Christian religion was mankind’s desire to believe in a Creator and there was no other option that seemed worthwhile to the people at that time

 

 Contrary to what is occurring now, the general attitude in the past, was that the laity accepted almost without question what the hierarchy of a religion said they should accept and a tight lid was kept on any form of dissent.  Now the invention of computers and the internet is virtually robbing the religions of the control that they previously treasured so deeply.  In any religions favor of course is the human desire, by far too many people, to go with the established flow and not be singled out as a dissenter, heretic or heathen.

 

 Acknowledging that the litany of evidence against Christianity being the absolute truth that it purports to be, should make the following story unnecessary, I nevertheless find it to be so overwhelming  and all encompassing that I include it herewith. 

 

 The Bible states that God made man in his image and all other living things in their own particular image.  First of all, no one can actually know what the image of our Creator might be so it is disingenuous to pretend that you are in possession of such knowledge.

 

 Evolution says that we evolved from other living entities into the form that we now present to each other.  It also states that we are no accident. That the progression of the evolutionary state is to finally bring into existence a living being with intellectual powers on the level that we possess and further to have the potential to change us into even more intellectual beings in the future.  Whether that would be accompanied by physical changes or not is another matter beyond which I will not contemplate at this time.

 

 Creationism Versus Evolution

 

 The illustration which appears on Page 365 of Richard Dawkins book called, “The Greatest Show On Earth”, represents one of thousands of examples which prove that the Christian or Biblical story that God created each living being separately is false and that evolution is true.  Unfortunately, I do not know how to duplicate such a drawing on this website, so I will have to describe it to the best of my ability and hope that you are able to follow along with me.

 

 The illustration is intended to show that an Intelligent Designer (Creator/God) would have chosen the representation on the left side of the body which provides a direct link from the testis to the prostate gland for the vas deferens; instead of the elongated and apparently unnecessary extra length of vas deferens on the right side, which is a representation of the actual route taken in the male human body. 

 

 To wit, the vas deferens travels from the testis up about 8 to 10 inches where it loops over the ureter, (tube leading from the kidney to the bladder) and then travels back down to the prostate gland.  A circuitous route to be sure that seems to indicate unintelligent design..

 

At some point in our past history, who knows how many million years ago, a man’s testis descended from inside his body instead of remaining there as is the case with many of the species that we evolved from.  They now reside outside the body in their present position.

 

 Each testis had two choices; it could either descend in front of the ureter or descend behind it.  If it descended in front of the ureter, there would be the necessity to accommodate the extra length of vas deferens tube closer to the prostate gland or the immediate vicinity.  This situation could result in the potential for crimping or complete blockage of the vas deferens which would prevent the sperm from reaching the penis and render the man infertile.

 

 Of course one might say that over the course of time the elongated vas deferens would whither away and eventually resemble the perfect engineering example on the left.   The problem with such a scenario is that the infertility caused by the blocked vas deferens would dead end such a genetic mutation so that there would never be the necessary multitude of progeny necessary to allow the withering process to occur.

 

 Richard Dawkins gave a perfect description of the problem facing evolution.  That is, evolution had to work from the existing situation and modify it to a more evolved situation.  In the case of an intelligent designer, it could be said that such a person could discard the previous model and make the more efficient model from scratch. 

 

 Of course the Creationist viewpoint, as enunciated by the Christian religion, would be that there was no previous model and our Creator made each form of life separately.  If that were true, then the vas deferens should travel efficiently from the testis a short distance through the groin area and attach itself to the prostate gland. 

 

 As an example of discarding the previous model, when car manufacturers invented the automatic transmission, they simply eliminated the clutch pedal.  In living specimens, the “clutch pedal” would either remain in an unused state until it shriveled up and disappeared, or through the process of evolution, “the clutch pedal” would be changed into different parts performing different functions. 

 

 These changes would occur with the proviso that those different functions had to provide the recipient of same with some extra value in the unending evolutionary changes designed to make the living creature more efficient at survival.  In the case of human beings, it might also include the potential for even more mental acuity than is possible for any other form of life in existence today.

 

 Getting back to our story about the vas deferens tubes.  From the diagram located in the above mentioned book, it is obvious that the testis descended behind the ureter which culminates with the elongated vas deferens as pictured. 

 

 The question then, becomes a rather simple one.  Would you prefer to have a perfectly engineered (shorter) vas deferens that caused infertility, or would you prefer an elongated vas deferens and the survival of the species in question, which of course in this case would be the human race itself?

 

 If the route that the testis took was in front of the ureter and no problems occurred, we should expect that the vas deferens in some men should be in front of the ureter and other men should have their vas deferens behind the ureter.  Since only the “behind” scenario exists, we can postulate that the “in front of” scenario failed.

 

 Under these terms of reference, the elongated vas deferens on the right side verifies evolution and unless you are willing to ascribe unintelligent design to the Christian God, the failure to employ the efficient design depicted on the left proves that the Christian concept of God is false.

 

 I am not saying that the human race has accumulated all of the knowledge that is required to properly understand the elongated vas deferens tubes.  The future might find us realizing that with increased knowledge, comes the realization that the elongated design was more efficient than we previously recognized. 

 

 There are untold examples in life where we look at something that we think is ridiculous, only to discover with increased knowledge,  that the “something” in question is not only, not ridiculous, --- but absolutely necessary also.

 

 What I am saying is that there are far too many examples of this kind of “tangled” design inside the human body and in other living entities also, to avoid coming to the conclusion that rather than a Creator designing each species of life separately, as put forward in the Bible, the manner in which evolution explains these tangles is, in my not so humble opinion, beyond reasonable doubt.    

 

 A related question in regards to this topic concerns the reasons why evolution chose to place the testis outside the body rather than inside it.  One could say that it added to the pleasure that a man would experience during sexual touching and help to further motivate him to engage in such activity. 

 

 However, such increased motivation for the male can be achieved with many other methods and since the testis are at a greater potential to be injured outside the body, and since we are talking about the very process that reproduces life itself; I think we can safely postulate that such a mutational change had extremely important ramifications for our species.

 

 As Richard Dawkins stated, as well as many others, this change has to do with the temperature at which the sperm is created and the ability of the testis to adjust such temperature by moving them closer or further from the body.   But he also intimated that other reasons might be involved in this evolutionary change.

 

 Reproduction of other species whose testis are still inside the body means that nature has perfected this position for the testis also.  Still further, in keeping with the idea that this change must have important ramifications, I am speculating that a more precise control of the temperature at which a man’s sperm is produced was necessary to allow certain mutations to occur that would give us the ability to increase the size of the human brain and thereby allow us to ascend to the intellectual level that we now possess.

 

 In closing, I think that this “vas deferens” example is undeniably one of thousands of examples that definitively proves that evolution is not just some wild unreliable theory, but rather it is an unassailable fact of life.  To a reasonable person, it should leave no doubt that the Biblical concept of our Creator does not mirror reality and a new and deeper understanding or concept of our Creator is long overdue. 

 

 Perhaps it is time for me to anticipate some of the questions that would probably be directed my way about the Religion Of Truth and try to answer them to the best of my ability.  Here then are some of those questions:

 

 1.  If there is no heaven or hell, no life after death, then why not enjoy life as much as possible and “the hell” with morality or decency or fairness or any of the other disciplines that Christianity holds to be valuable human behavior?

 

 Answer:

 

 First off, if the Christian religion did not embrace so many superstitious beliefs, in all probability they would have far more people living the decent life that the religion tries to embrace.  These superstitious beliefs have many people walking away from the religion and formulating their own rules of conduct, some of which are not necessarily of a positive nature.    

 

 As was the case with me, as one is entering ones adolescent years, one has had a chance to increase ones knowledge sufficiently to take a deeper look at reality.  It is at this critical time in life that many people reject superstitious beliefs such as the Christian story.  Critical, --- in the sense that adolescence is the very time when a person needs good rules to live by so as not to make negative life-altering mistakes.  

 

 The Religion Of Truth mirrors reality as much as possible and so I predict that it will attract many young people to its belief system.  I will need plenty of help in formulating the best possible rules for living a life of empathy, and a strong desire to continually increase ones knowledge in all areas of life.  Obviously this will have an accumulative effect on the new platform of knowledge that each succeeding generation attempts to construct for those who will inherit the future.          

 

Secondly, I have heard it said that if a person lost his Bible, he would still be able to live a decent life if he followed an example set forth in the Bible, which was copied from an earlier time:  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” 

 

 The above behavior would automatically cover this next quote from Albert Einstein but nevertheless, it is well worth repeating again:  “Subjection and exploitation are the two most hated phenomena in the whole realm of human relations.”  The Religion Of Truth places the pursuit of the truth at the very top of human endeavors. 

 

 None of the other living entities on this earth could continue to exist if some kind of catastrophe occurred on this earth that made life as we know it impossible.   We are  the only ones with the mental capacity to increase our knowledge to perhaps solve such a problem and continue to exist. 

 

 It is said that the best attributes of a human being are his or her ability to achieve something whose value will become apparent after his or her time on this earth is over.  It is this journey, or this type of achievement, that I want followers of the Religion Of Truth to embrace.

 

 I want them to love the human race.  This does not mean that they are to become arrogant and assign themselves a distorted level of value, but rather, I want them to come to the inescapable conclusion that the more value they place in themselves, the more they emphatically honor their very own Creator. 

 

 Unfortunately, since the population of the world at large races ahead of the knowledge that is required to allow everyone to live peacefully, violence and even wars will be part of the human condition, perhaps far into our future.   But it is the concepts that I wish to put forward in this new Religion, which I sincerely believe will provide us with the chance to increase dramatically the harmony among all individuals and among all nations for the betterment of the human condition in all parts of this world of ours. 

 

 Who are we to ask that God grant us some kind of physical or other kind of immortality, other than perhaps the work that we do on this earth that has a beneficial effect on those who are our contemporaries and those who will follow after us.  Is our fear of death so strong that we must invent a belief system to overcome it (heaven) in some mystical manner?

 

 Members of the ROT will obey the law because we want to see the human race achieve the highest level of harmony among each other so that this harmony will allow more of its geniuses to concentrate on making the world a better place for all of us. 

 

 It is my belief that many of the potential geniuses that are alive today, are prevented from reaching such status because of the political, religious and economic unrest that permeates the societies in which they are born and live; and these factors prevent them from acquiring the education and experience that would make their genius status self-evident.                         

 

 I am 72 years old and I am far from being rich, in fact, I am much closer to the other end of the economic spectrum.   It certainly would be nice to have enough money to provide my wife and myself with a better life style.  But the writing of this book, and the belief that I might actually be doing something that would thank my Creator for the incredible gift of life that he has bestowed upon me; leaves me with the belief that there is no other achievement that I would rather embrace at this very moment.  This is the kind of joy that I wish to impart to those who would follow The Religion of Truth.

 

 2.  You said earlier that you would talk about Atheism later in this opening statement.  You seem to respect and infer that Richard Dawkins is a genius, but in fact, he is an Atheist.  I’d like to hear what you have to say on this subject now, before reading any more of this book.

 

 Answer:

 

 In our attempts to learn more about the truth, we visualize into the unknown with our imaginary powers and then try to match those visualizations up with reality.   In effect, nobody can definitively prove that there is or is not a Creator.  If we refer to such a Creator as the author of Intelligent Design, an Atheist will show that our bodies, in particular, appear to be the result of anything but Intelligent Design.

 

 But we have shown in the above example concerning a man’s vas deferens tube, that  when the effects of evolution are taken into account, Intelligent Design is indeed at work.  There are untold deeper mysteries that we cannot explain.   This does not mean that every time that we cannot explain something, that it proves that a Creator exists.   Neither does it prove that such a Creator does not exist either.

 

 What I do like about the Atheist view point is their desire to search for more knowledge, rather than pretend that they have already discovered the absolute and final truth.  Atheists like to say that the burden of proof is on the believer in a Creator and it is not up to them to prove a negative, namely that there is no Creator.

 

 This position appears to me to be somewhat disingenuous.  Both the believer in a Creator and an Atheist are making a positive affirmation.  The Atheist is affirming that at the very core of reality there is no Creator.  The believer in a Creator is affirming the opposite.   The burden of proof should be on both of them.

 

 We simply do not have enough knowledge to prove these assertions in either direction.   The Atheist view point is that even with this updated version of a religion (the ROT), since you cannot definitively prove that there is a Creator, that you are simply trading one obtuse superstitious belief system for a somewhat more sophisticated one.

 

 Since we cannot know everything, we are compelled to use our imaginative powers to reach into the unknown in an attempt to increase our knowledge.  If in doing so, we choose to believe in a Creator, and if we acknowledge that there is an element of superstition regarding the unknown in our decision to believe in a Creator; then I would say that such a level of superstition on the believers part, could be looked upon as the lowest level possible at this particular time in human history.    

 

 Under these terms of reference, I am persuaded by the reality of my existence that there is a Creator, and until we increase our knowledge far beyond our present boundaries, I believe that the debate about a Creator or no Creator will go on unabated for many years, --- decades, --- or even centuries to come.

 

 3.   How can you believe in a Creator when you watch the kill or be killed behavior in nature.  What kind of (God) Creator would bring such cruelty and horror into existence?

 

 Answer:

 

 I must emphatically suggest that you read Richard Dawkin’s book called, “The Greatest Show On Earth.”   This topic and much, much more is discussed in vivid detail, and his reasoning either borders on genius, or it is genius itself.  I am going to quote from

 

page 416 in his book:

 

 “We know a great deal about how evolution has worked ever since it got started but we have no evidence bearing upon the momentous event (or events) that was the start of evolution here on this planet.”

 

 And then from Page 426,  which is the last page in the book: 

 

 “Without the ever-escalating arms race between predator and prey, parasite and host, without Darwin’s “War of Nature”, without his “famine and death”, there would be no nervous systems capable of seeing anything at all, let alone appreciating and understanding it.  We are surrounded by endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, and it is NO ACCIDENT. (my capitals)  It is the direct consequence of evolution by non- random natural selection.  The only game in town.  The Greatest Show On Earth.”

 

 Richard Dawkins described the tangled up mess that the insides of a body of the more complex life forms appears to be.  But he also acknowledges that with the understanding of how evolution is carried out, these tangled up messes become intelligent design.  That is, even though the processes of evolution forces these tangles to occur, the end result is intelligent design.  In the case of the elongated vas deferens, that means a fertile male.

 

 In reference to the ultimate designing of a nervous system that allows us to achieve the intellectual level that the human race has acquired, the tangled up mess (kill or be killed in the animal world etc. etc.) that brought it into existence must be endured. 

 

 The choice of no tangles but no nervous system allowing increased intelligence would be a choice for failure in the most important achievement of all; --- giving the human race the potential to accumulate deeper and deeper levels of truth in an ultimate effort to avoid extinction of the human race itself. 

 

 I don’t see anything in these statements that negates the possibility of the existence of a Creator, in fact I think it indicates that such a Creator would be even more miraculous then we previously perceived (him/ her/it) to be.

 

 With the knowledge of evolution that we have accumulated already, it appears to me to be self-evident that a new, more improved concept of our Creator is far overdue.  For a person to cling to the Christian concept of God, in my opinion, would be similar to an astronaut looking back at the earth from space and saying:  “I still believe that the earth is flat.”

 

 Let us say that our Creator (Life Force) created our world differently, where there was no violence between the different species of life.  If that situation failed to bring into existence the intelligent beings that we have become, then, when the world can no longer support life, all life on this planet would become extinct.

 

 Is it better to provide the potential for the human race to become as intelligent as we are and have the potential to avoid extinction (not necessarily for just us only but for many other forms of life also) or would it be better to avoid the violence that you are asking about and have life as we know it for all species come to an abrupt end?

 

 Hopefully we have many centuries in which to acquire the necessary knowledge, but there is nothing that focuses ones attention more completely than a specific deadline, which in this case would be the threat of extinction for mankind itself.  We are already headed in this direction whether we are consciously aware of it or not.  This religion will bring that achievement more completely into our focus.  In effect, one could say that it will be moving it up from a back burner closer to the front.

 

 If you watch a lion killing a deer it certainly looks gruesome and leaves you wondering what kind of world are we living in?  Remember that we are doing the same as that lion, only on a different scale and with different methods.  We transport animals to an abattoir where they are shot in the back of the head and promptly sliced into pieces to provide the food that we apparently (vegetarianism) need to remain alive. 

 

 The Christian religion views this situation as part of the mysterious ways of our Creator.  The Religion of Truth, as a result of the intellectual skills of people such as Richard Dawkins, virtually agrees with Christianity, with the proviso that the mysterious ways are not quite so mysterious.

 

 Evolution has shown us that the reality of the natural world was necessary to bring the human race and its superior brain into existence which is more than we realized before.  But it still leaves more complicated reasons unanswered and we must simply accept that situation until we increase our knowledge to a higher level than it is today.

 

 These next  ideas are somewhat unrelated to the above topic but in the case of cancers, (lungs, jaws, esophagus etc.) caused by smoking, the following ideas may prove to have some value.  We know that evolution allows the living entity to react to the prevailing conditions under which it must live, by favoring mutations that prove to be worthwhile, that is, they favor survival of the species in question..

 

 This is only conjecture on my part, but if the body reaches a point where the unending abuse that smoking causes to the lungs of the smoker will ultimately result in the death of the living entity; it might as well try to change the genetic structure of the lungs by choosing mutations that might allow the lungs to put up with smoke and keep the living entity alive.  

 

 Of course these kinds of evolutionary changes take a long period of time to occur and fortunately the intelligence of the human race as a whole, realized that the habit itself must be changed.  This happened within about 300 years which is much too fast for any mutational genetic change to have a chance to become successful.  It just might be that the cancerous cells are a result of this mutational process and that the mutations did not help, but rather caused the death of the smoker from cancer itself. 

 

 I consider any habit that is detrimental to the continued health of the living entity, as well as all of the various diseases and genetic damages that also occur, to be a clarion call for us to increase our knowledge to overcome them.  Wouldn’t it be special if the increased knowledge that is required to overcome cancer happened sooner --- rather than later!

 

 4. Going back again to the violence in nature, why couldn’t your definition of our Creator have brought us into existence at our present level of intelligence and let us try to increase our knowledge from this advantage point, rather than go through millions of years of evolutionary change?

 

 Answer:

 

 Perhaps the concept of a Creator who can do anything it wants is not exactly true.  Perhaps our Creator isn’t quite as omnipotent as we seem to imply.  This is not to denigrate such a Creator but rather it is a concept that is worth thinking about.  It probably will turn out to be true that if we knew far more than we do now, we would understand why reality is the way it is.

 

 Perhaps it was necessary that Dinosaurs existed on this earth to bring about some kind of change that we are not specifically aware of.   If we had been brought into existence at that time, we probably would have become food for those monsters and we would now be extinct.

 

 In this regard, if we finally were able to travel to other planets in some other galaxy and found one that could support our kind of life, but it was overrun by some kind of life similar to the Dinosaurs, because of our increased intelligence, rather than us being devoured by the “Dinosaurs” on such a planet,  we would vanquish them.  Who knows maybe we would set up a Jurassic Park on an Australian type continent of such a planet.   

 

 The previously described elongated vas deferens story is an excellent example of how our increased knowledge brings us closer to the reality of our existence.   One hundred years ago a forensic doctor would look at this strange aberration and shake his head in bewilderment.  Now, with our newfound understanding about evolution he would say, --- “Ah!  Now I understand.

 

 The point I want to make presently is only conjecture again but it is said that there are a billion, billion stars, each with their own satellites.   It is possible that there are a billion other planets where life in some form is possible.  Even on this one planet of ours, there are around a million forms of life in existence right now.  Perhaps the best way to meet this challenge for our Creator was to institute the laws of evolution to tailor-make life into the various conditions throughout the universe.

 

 We already have countless examples of this phenomena right here on our planet.  There are living entities at the very bottom of the Pacific Ocean that live in an environment saturated with sulfur. Evolution has equipped them with the ability to survive in such conditions, which includes a massive level of water pressure also.

 

 It should provide us with some comfort if indeed we are not alone in this Universe.  Perhaps other sentient beings will advance their knowledge base sufficiently enough to save us. Obviously however, it is our responsibility to accomplish this task on our own and not depend on another form of life to do it for us.

 

 Then again, if we are the only form of life in the Universe, or if other forms are so far away that they cannot even make radio contact with us, then, for all intents and purposes, we are indeed on our own and we become the only living entity that just might be able to overcome the threat of extinction in whatever form such extinction might turn out to be.

 

 5. The Catholic church is enduring an unending series of sexual abuse scandals concerning its Priests, Bishops and other hierarchy, that appears to be threatening the very economic well-being of this Church and ultimately, its future existence.   How would you avoid such a problem in the Religion Of Truth?

 

 Answer:

 

 I suppose the answer to that question could fill up its own book.  Perhaps the shortest answer is that the Religion Of Truth would make one of its tenets the necessity to FACE the truth, rather than coming to the conclusion that avoiding the truth is the best policy. 

 

 These problems have existed in the Catholic clergy for a very long, long time.  For most of that time, the Church successfully placed a tight lid on this problem.  I believe that the hierarchy of the Church, during untold decades or probably even centuries,  decided that the scandal of sexual abuse by their clergy would damage the church so badly that the best approach was to keep it a secret and --- deny, --- deny.

 

 This policy worked for the longest time because the Church was given carte blanche on honor and respect and anyone who criticized the church was severely dealt with.   In effect, what the Catholic Church did was to postpone the inevitable and the present leaders of the Church are left with the horror that their predecessors decision to hide the truth, has inflicted upon them. 

 

 In this regard I think any organization should realize that if a sacred trust has been broken, it is better to face the consequences immediately, rather than further down the road.  The path down that road in this instance, is one of deceit and obfuscation, and an apparent lack of empathy for the people who were sexually abused.

 

 The above policy was followed for the misinformed “protection and continued existence”, of the Catholic Church.  Today’s reality is showing that their decision and the behavior that results from those decisions is having  the opposite effect of what they believed it would be.  

 

 For the Catholic Church to set itself up as a bastion of truth and then be unwilling to face the truth, is an indictment against the Church itself, which is next to impossible to dismiss.   On a deeper level, the Catholic Church’s (and other Christian churches also) attitude that sex is somehow sinful also brought the problem into existence.   Certainly the very act that brings forth new life, is of the utmost importance and as such it is very powerful.   It can certainly lead to many problems.

 

 But for the Church not to realize that our Creator would make the desire to engage in the activity that initiates procreation, of the utmost importance inside our minds and in our nerves and other organs throughout the body, was the first mistake in the spiraling escalation of the problems that they now face.

 

 Far better for its clergy to be married with a family than to be asked to remain celibate.  Certainly celibacy avoided many problems when it was first instituted, but from our vantage point today, it has obviously caused far worse problems to occur.   It is not good enough to adopt a system which looks good in the short term but turns out to be a disaster in the long term.

 

 One aspect of the disaster concerns the practice of celibacy, where the Church effectively disqualified far too many heterosexual men and left their Priesthood vulnerable to either latent homosexuals, or frustrated heterosexuals who saw no other way to express their sexuality. 

 

 It is easy to visualize the homosexual or child abusing Priests counseling potential new Priests with the assurance that even if you are accused of molesting children, the Church will protect you.  If you did the same thing in the private or general public, you would probably wind up in jail.   

 

 Another attitude that helped cause this problem, is the idea that the clergy is “married” to the church and because they can overcome the so called “carnal” instincts of the normal man, they should be seen to be special envoys of their Creator. 

 

The Religion Of Truth would allow its clergy to be married.  In the short term, this religion would be virtual in nature.   That is, it would be on the internet without any physical structures to look after and therefore no direct clergy to check up on or administer in its infancy.

 

 6.  What would be the Religion Of Truth’s (ROT’s) attitude towards homosexuality and lesbianism?               

 

 Answer:

 

 There will be many questions such as this that will require skill and experience in the field of each question.   While the answers that I give will be the best that I have to offer at this time, they certainly will be open to change and improvement by others more qualified than myself, to put forward.

 

 While I agree with the belief that homosexuality and lesbianism   sometimes have their origin in genetic factors or other physical factors, I also believe that in more cases than we might be willing to admit, it is either a conscious or semi- conscious decision by the person to engage in this sexual life style. 

 

 Here is a newspaper clipping from a few years ago which quotes Anne Heche as follows:  “I was never attracted to a woman before Ellen (DeGenneres).   I have a right to love who I want to love.  I understand that many homosexuals believe that it is not a choice, but I made a choice out of joy.” 

 

The article also stated that Anne had been involved with more than one aggressive and abusive man and she wanted to avoid the same problems all over again.  I believe that she has now given birth to her own child.

 

 It is also my belief that distorted reactions to fear are at work in some of these decisions.  That does not just apply to the achievement of sexual orientation or satisfaction, but to put it quite specifically, distorted reactions to fear can affect EVERY achievement and EVERY decision that we make.   The direct answer to your question is that we would not discriminate against homosexual activity. 

 

 However, there is one side effect of this situation that I would like to comment on.  To be sure, most if not all human beings going through adolescence wonder whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

 

 With the well deserved acceptance that the homosexual community is now receiving, I believe that a much larger number of adolescents are experiencing sexual stress about their sexual orientation as they progress through this trying period in their lives.

 

 Especially when the homosexual community believes that this lifestyle is not a choice but is governed exclusively by genetic factors.   Just how does a young adolescent boy or girl determine how a genetic factor works or how does it manifest itself?  I am concerned for these people and want them to know that in many cases this is a personal choice rather than a foregone conclusion.

 

 On the other side of this coin, if it is accepted within the homosexual community that this life style is not always determined by genetic factors but also by personal decisions, then that will add extra stress and pressure for those who are leaning towards homosexuality, but do not have the assurance that it is always genetically determined. 

 

 Perhaps the strident desire to believe that  homosexuality or lesbianism is definitively caused by genetic factors is a semi-conscious attempt on their part to eliminate any uncertainty or stress about this life-style. Certainly throughout history the propensity of stress has been unfairly directed towards the homosexual and lesbian community.       

 

 The other factor that would be taken into account is the normal distribution of homosexuals to heterosexuals in society at large, that is, as best as can be determined.  These percentages should  closely reflect the membership in the ROT also, so that neither the heterosexuals nor the homosexuals are out of proportion to the above described percentages.   Obviously, the seeds of discontent could easily make themselves evident in this rather delicate situation and it is one that would require constant care and empathy on all sides.

 

(Apparently I have used up the alloted space for one blog.  The remaining 11 questions will  be continued in a second blog with the same title if I am allowed to do that.)