Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor is a basic scientific principle which says, all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.

So what’s more likely?
An all powerful and mysterious God created the Universe, and then decided not to give any proof of his existence, or that he simply doesn't exist at all, and that men created the idea of God so that they didn’t have to feel so small and alone?

What if science simply revealed that God never existed in the first place? Would you have a problem with that?

This "question" has "plagued" mankind throughout history. Some men don't believe in God and don't know why they don't. Some men do believe in God and don't know why they do.

What if, it's this very question that is primarily responsible for the growth and development of those two features of the human animal that makes him utterly different from the other non-human animals - emotion and intelligence.

Instinctively, and bodily, many kinds of animals demonstrate more capabilities than humans - some can live longer, live and breath under water, fly, jump higher, are much stronger, etc.

But, emotionally and intellectually, none of the non-human animals on this planet even come close. (Don't bother trying to argue this one, if you can't realize the truth of that, then you don't belong in this discussion.)

So, given the possibility that the above is "correct enough", perhaps the question of the existence or non-existence of God, and the question of emotional faith and intellectual proof, are the chief means through which mankind "grew" his emotional and intellectual capacities (i.e., expanding his nervous system into those two higher circuits), and that without that one question, it could be said - with a straight face - that man would in fact be no different than any other animal on this planet.

If you can "accept" the above as a legitimate premise, then the next mind-blowing (expanding) question could be: What question, therefore, would/could be responsible for growing the nervous system into the next circuit, the 4th circuit which is not yet ordinarily functioning in man?

What's all this talk, about religious and spiritual texts?

(As if you don't have enough to think about!)

Are you getting suitably energized by all those texts you're passing back and forth - in the form of reading, and talking about - like some kind of waterpipe? Or are you drifting even deeper into sleep?

Sure, the waterpipe is attractive to look at, and craftily manufactured, by certifiable artisans and craftsmen - with students no less - but the stuff in the bowl is the thing, NOT the pipe!

"What's the stuff in the bowl, master?"

Are you kidding!?!
You still don't know do you, after all the finger-pointing, and head-banging.
The "stuff" is not in the bowl, stupid - er, I mean, student.

Talking trash and other stuff

Why do people - a few, anyway - talk about (and think about) this kind of stuff: religion, philosophy, psychology, enlightenment, consciousness, waking up, nirvana, etc., etc.? (Besides the obvious fact, that they can't help it.)

Because doing so affects a small, albeit very minor, alteration in their nervous system, especially at the highest ends of the cerebral cortex wherein such non-ordinary thinking takes place.

The only "problem" (and it most definitely IS a problem, of the highest order, for those who've discovered it as such for themselves), is that this kind of talking and thinking is way too random, erratic, and without known purpose, EVEN IF (especially when) the person tries to convince himself and others, otherwise.

He might SAY he thinks and talks about this stuff so that he will wake up, become enlightened, reach nirvana, and other things like that, but in fact, he does so simply because it's enjoyable to do so (and he can't help it). That is, the brain gets a small, rather insignificant HIT of special neuropeptides which affect certain locations in the pleasure centers of the brain.

He might as well be thinking about last night's basketball playoff game, or next weekend's rock group concert, for all the "benefit" such thinking produces in him. Does the phrase, "mental masturbation" mean anything to you, because that's what going on, whether or not you own up to it yet.

All thinking and talking about what other people first thought and talked about (trying to "analyze" what they "meant" when they wrote/said it first) - and, getting your little "contact hit" thereby - is like trying to get high by walking by a person smoking some dynamite pot, while abstaining yourself, and not actually taking the bowl and doing the deed.

If you >>really<< want to "get high" (a euphemism, and a pun), come up with something you've NEVER thought about, NEVER heard about, NEVER read about, and then THINK about it in a way that is uncharacteristic for you. You will then discover what "uncharacteristic" might actually mean in that sentence, and how it "solves" that little "problem" referred to earlier.

Two kinds of thought

Humans are capable of two kinds of thought:
1) this, and
2) that.

The "other thing" is merely imagination, a future possibility that can never be realized.

This, is saying/thinking stupid things in an intelligent way; and
That, is saying/thinking intelligent things in a stupid way.

The "other thing" (depending upon your time-based preference) is saying/thinking intelligent things in an intelligent way.

You might think - looking at your own mind - that you do the "other thing" all the time, right? Wrong.

It never happens, because there's no need for it to happen, anymore than there is a need for people to fly. (If "god" had wanted people to fly, "he" would have..., and if "he" had wanted people to say intelligent things intelligently, he would have...)

Go figure... or, TWO plus TWO sometimes equals FOUR, and sometimes not (depending upon your time-based, ad-hoc preference.)