Essay:Wonder

Hi

I've often wonder why is it that some people can lie publicly and to themselves and go about their lives as if nothing in fact has transpired?

In the last statement, or self questioning a proposition is made and points out to a type of 'attitude', mainly observable by my own interpretation of the event. This is to say that 'if any' my expectations were linear to a precept of transparency however minute and established by the empirical understanding of truth that most of humans share in this day and age.

The question then rises. What is truth? Where it lays? Who conforms to it? Is it important? Why should we care if some one is misrepresenting something? Why should I care?

And I wonder, because of the simple observation of an 'attitude' Should I regard myself a veritas seeker? Do I even care if there are underlying truths of this existence, of which I may know nothing about? If the 'substance' of truth were to appear to me, Would I conform to it? In essence I wonder, who represents truth today? Who can I trust for I myself, I am to be question in this regard as well?

It is obvious that is vexing to most men, the arrogance (attitude if you will) of the proponents of 'truths and halve truths' of this epoch, but I also observe a steady grow of 'ready following' 'fans' who ratifies, defend and uphold a ruinous view with out verification of the alleged claims. Arguments such as: All religion is blind faith. Their is no way we can observe metaphysical claims. You are ignorant if you believe in the Bible. The Bible is self-serving in its inception and use.

As a truth seeker (more or less as the next guy) I find it a polling and insincere when people talk about me when they have never even meet with me, and go as far as describing my inner self based on pre-supposed assumptions that have their foot on their own interpretations and believe systems.

The honest question we need to have with ourselves is: Are all religions based on self-serving dogmas, with blind hoards following fantastic claims? We should be able to answer this if we claim a clearer understanding over the next guy. But the honest answer will always be based on ratification of the claim based on conformity with the information, in other words, claims substantiated by 'resoning'.

So I wonder yet again and ask. Can we reason the claim that all religion is based on an empty, blind, inaccurate description of the cosmos people call 'faith'? Well, can we know all religions? I think that the honest answer is no. So for starters the proposition for 'all religions' can not be studied in one man's life time, so we shouldn't say 'all religions are this or that' to begging with. We should at least study the claims made by religion, mainly in the metaphysical realm where most of the argumentation for validation is made.

So what are the metaphysical claims across the board? Well for starters, most religions base their believe in a 'superior being' called in different names and most accepted title is 'God or gods' who at a point in their particular history and geographic's 'appear or revealed' himself or themselves to people who then became 'affected' by the 'revelation' or 'aparition' thus a religion was born and latter developed a particular 'dogma' or 'form' if you will.

Second most popular metaphysical claim is the believe that consequently to the apparition a 'will' or 'purpose' is 'order' on to the 'choosen one' and is then executed and continued in a 'prescibed form'

My proposition (if I am allowed) is that given the inextricable importance the issue of religion is to many millions of people all over the world today, including me, we ought to (at least those who care) seek the validity of the claims, the validity of the individuals who participated in shaping those religions, the upholding and conformity to form, reasoning and purpose.

I wonder, What could we learn from such a search? My best regards to all. D.V