I have in my own amateur way studied religious, spiritual, and atheistic philosophies, and have actively pursued enlightenment in several of these traditions. What I have come to ask myself is this: when it comes down to it, at the core, is there any true difference between all of these human attempts to explain the inexplicable? Can it be agreed that regardless of the dogma entertained by an individual, the basis of any of these spiritual constructs is one of belief? Philosophers have compared knowledge and belief for many ages, the main Platonic concept is this: belief becomes knowledge if and only if the belief can be proven as true. Since one cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that any of these systems of soul searching is true then why should they not all be labeled as equally existing within the realm of belief? There is a simple question to answer the previous: why can't mankind get over themselves? I don't want to turn this into a full blown epistemological debate but it almost must be: belief is the core of any religious/spiritual/etc. debate.
So to sum things up I present the two main questions for today.
Question 1 (main discussion for today): Is there one true primary difference between any modes of human spiritual understanding?
Question 2 (derivative question to be discussed next time): Why do these concepts of belief continue to permeate our modern world?
Well thinkers I hope you have something to think about and if you know something that I do not, would you be so kind as to share it with me?
-ShemS