BEWARE OF THE MAN WITH ONLY ONE RELIGIOUS BOOK!: He is Incapable of Knowing the Truth

By Louis S. S. Toth Ph.D

The thesis of this book is that people and religions that have one religious book as guidance cannot be true (in the larger sense of shared truth) and that government that are faith-based cannot represent all the people. Free and open discussions and serious debate are essential for arriving at truth and democratic government. And religion is detrimental to world eace. The discussions presented assert that: there are many religions and that ALL their gods are "pretend" (given arbitrary characteristics), and new gods/religions have been easily made by many persons who visit the desert, wilderness, mountain-top, or any place of solitude where they were able to receive god's calling without witnesses, and then they decree that god wants to speak through them (and only to them) and echoed by their appointed priests. If they can get gullible people to follow them and their god's rules, they can establish their own religion (and warriors). The primary focus of the book's discussions will be to establish "ground rules" for establishing "truth." Then as examples, discussions are presented with other explanations of "miracles" in order to reconsider some of the Bible dogma specifically attributed to Jehovah, Moses, Passover, and the roles of all the gods involved in the story of the Exodus. The Bible (or Torah) may tell a different story when we discount miracles and explain them with other real possibilities. The conclusions may be different when we explore the plausibility that 1) Moses was the son of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (later called Akhenaten who converted Egypt to a monotheistic religion) and Jochebed (a lesser wife—if married at all) and that 2) Moses was an Aten Priest who killed King Tut. The Exodus (and Adam and Eve) would have different explanations if Jehovah were not invented until on Mount Sinai in 1311 BCE (Before the Common Era) . . . not "In the Beginning" of the existence of the world. Also, the Passover, "the Jews" took in leaving Egypt would be logical if one sees Moses' attempt to assert his claim to the pharaoh throne. And the Jews wandering in the desert would be reasonable if one considers that they were advised and supported by Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, who was the nomadic high priest of the Druze religion (also a monotheistic type). These possibilities are herein explored in some detail, and the events are presented with a "psychological history" that includes the back stories, motivation, and relationships behind the characters and events. These discussions encourage rational thought and open-mindedness.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Nov 15, 2020
• ISBN: 9781643505923

Book preview

1

Why Beware?

Beware of the man with only one religious book (e.g., Bible, Koran, Torah, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Sruti, Dhammapada, etc.) because he will come at you with all the courage and conviction of his Absolute Truth…not realizing that he is incapable of understanding any alternative. Memorizing one book may establish a perceived knowledge of its opinions/explanations/assertions. However, the next level of understanding (cognitive function)¹, comprehension, requires comparing and contrasting alternative sources and opinions (other knowledge) in order to establish a Truth² (consistency) of observations/opinions.

Truth Ground Rules

The underlying concept of Truth here is that Truth is an individual quality and temporal in nature. This concept definition/assertion assumes that in an empirical world, we think that we exist, and we sense the world around us, and thereby propose that what we see, touch, taste, smell, and hear also exists (to the extent that our sensing mechanisms can be trusted). We often try to validate the sampling by using more than one sensing mechanism if possible. For example, we may reach out to touch an object to assure that it is not just a hologram, or we may wait for a figure to move or speak before asserting that it is alive and not just wax.

However, in sampling the world, we always run the risk of taking an incomplete or biased sample—or of sampling under adverse/contaminated conditions (not the conditions that we thought we were experiencing). For example, we cannot measure resting heart rate during stress or exercise, and a glucose test may be inappropriate if the person is not fasting.

After multiple samples, we eventually have confidence that the results are repeatable and that we may be able to know something about the thing/situation. The multiple repetitions lend credence to the relationship between sample and observation, and we establish some knowledge or if-then relationship credibility. After these multiple repetitions, we (personally) claim some reliability to the knowledge or to the if-then (causal or correlation) relationship.

This reliability (repeatability) must be tested for validity of the facts/premise/hypothesis that we (individually) asserted as knowledge. The best we can do in most cases to assert validity (does it measure/mean what it is supposed to measure?) is to see if other people (who we may consider capable of thought and of sampling the same/similar concept) conclude the same knowledge or if-then relationship that we are asserting. The concurrence lends itself to creating a larger truth by consensus. The concept of a larger truth is seen to expand the individual’s truth by validating it through mutual agreement. In this practice, we try to eliminate figments of our imagination with the hope that others see (sample/understand) the world as we do.

Doubt

An engraving on one of the College of Education buildings at the Ohio State University states, Prize the doubt, lower kinds exist without. It encourages thinking individuals not to stay stuck on knowing an answer (i.e., Level 1 of the Cognitive Taxonomy). It encourages thinking individuals not to memorize an answer. Instead one should develop and apply the higher levels of the Cognitive Taxonomy to comprehend, analyze, build, evaluate, etc.…to think about an answer and to see if it withstands scrutiny or if there are other answers which are also defensible (better?).

In an empirical world, THERE CAN BE NO ABSOLUTES. Sampling sizes are limited, measurement techniques can/do alter the variable being assessed/measured, and the dynamics of interaction may change the system being measured. Change may continue after measurement (nothing stays constant). Some things measured are not really things but rather concepts or constructs. For example, speed is defined as distance traveled divided by the time of travel. However, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle states that it is not possible to know a particle’s location and speed at the same time because its location is changing during the measurement.

In empirical reality, magic and miracles are considered just tricks for which we are unaware of the performance—method or mechanism or underlying causality. Empirical studies typically look for unanticipated forces, chemical reactions, reflections/refractions, substitutions, or changes in the environment for explanations of magic (as opposed to crediting alien creatures as the reason).

All levels of the Cognitive Taxonomy must be continually exercised to expand the knowledge-base and to validate the truth-tables. Thus, rather than an absolute truth, there can only be credible argument/evidence. Empirical truth is also temporal as is the knowledge it is built on. A measurement (scientific knowledge) can be asserted to represent the system as sampled, but it may be subject to additional or alternative causal influences and change after measurement. Thus, assertions or ideas that may be based on previous observations may be changed upon remeasurement after effect of that influence. If the underlying knowledge changes, the truth that it supported must be called into question and reasserted or changed.

In a pretend world, ANYTHING THAT CAN BE IMAGINED CAN BE ASSERTED TO EXIST. With just one religious book, everything can be considered absolute—because its assertions/explanations are not allowed to be challenged, things do not change, and magic/miracles are possible. In the pretend world (or world of fiction), the question of why?