First of all - I do not believe in any religion, on the contrary, if there were a "god", prime mover, etc., it would most certainly be NP-Complete, and hence not codifiable. The world's religions were developed before we had any insight into the universal nature of computability.
God cannot describe him/her/it self!
Why? - Godel's Incompleteness.
If there is a god of some sort, e.g. supernatural agent that determines all things, then there must be some unknowable part of it.
Is there such a thing? Yes. But it is not a primitive explanation from our evolutionary past.
It is reason. Everything reason says is true. Reason says what is fair. Reason says what is just, not the atavistic "HEART".
The heart is a magnificent organ. The emotions are a set of sensations that can or can not be associated with a set of circumstances.
When today's religions sprang up, they represented the best reasoning of the day. The explanations of where things came from was the cosmology of the day. The rules were the social science and economics of the day. The meaning of life fit with all the rest of their "science" and represented the best philosophy of the day.
If the "bibles" had just been amended as reasoning evolved we would have science for cosmology and social science for morals and ethics and epsitemology and ontology and logic and so on.
We would have learned Marx, and Sartre, and Bordieau in sunday school. We would learn how game theory applies to society and how mirror neurons are part of the "mystery" ingredient of "completeness" even when it is logically impossible. We would have learned how life "actually" works (given the current science) - and our children would get an even better picture.
We could have avoided ourselves the embarassment of Dawkin's clumsy, overly emotive, defense of something he barely has a grasp on.
Reason explains everything....eventually.
I may not always obey reason, but if I want to "do right" I follow it, no matter what it says.
If reasoning says the heavy airplane will fly, I will not doubt it can fly.
If reasoning says the fair way to deal with my neighbor can not be oblivious to Pareto optimality, then I will not consider myself fair until I know about it.
If reasoning says that cooperative Nash Equilibrium is equivalent to looking out for the group first, then yourself, I will see that as a mandate for two identities, the self, and the group: first human, then animals, then all life, then all things.
I pray by reasoning, I live by reasoning, I am defined by reasoning - and am becoming more and more "like" reasoning, every day.
Reasoning is my "God" - my bible is everything knowable - it is not static - but evolving.
Thinking this way, it is easy to say that God is also "Evolution" (not just biological)
Yet, here we are, in the 21st century, pomo, post relativity, post quantum, ... and are debating evolution??? Because someone forgot to update their blog????
