A 'positive' theory states that Reality is 'this' as opposed to 'that',It is the idea that one or more of the categories of thought are fundamental. For instance, we might conjecture that Reality is Mind as opposed to Matter or vice versa — FrancisRay

Ok, got that part.

These questions are undecidable in dialectical logic because both their available answers are logically indefensible — FrancisRay

Confused by this. Remember, no philosophy education here.

What creates this problem is not the failure of these theories but the assumption that no other kind of theory is possible. This assumption is popular because the only other kind of theory is the one endorsed by the mystics. — FrancisRay

Ok, academics are trapped in a box, and unwilling to consider alternate theories from outside the box, such as those offered by mystics.

The solution is obvious. It is to assume all positive theories are false and this is why they are absurd. Then we are forced to adopt the neutral metaphysical theory endorsed by Nagarjuna, who is famous for explaining the philosophical foundation of Buddhism. When we assume a neutral theory is true we immediately dispose of all undecidable metaphysical problems. The solution is instant and comprehensive. — FrancisRay

Not obvious to we armadillo worshippers sadly. :-) The neutral metaphysical theory? Are you happy you signed up to teach a kindergarten class? :-)

A useful problem to study is the 'Something-Nothing' problem. Which came first? This is an undecidable question and the source of endless angst in philosophy. Mysticism says the answer is neither, and if we see how this is possible then we have understood the problem and solved it. — FrancisRay

I get that typical Western thought seeks simplistic dualistic answers such as the classic "exists or not" paradigm of the God debate. I've argued against such dualism extensively all over the form, using space as the example of a phenomena which transcends "exists or not". So I'm surely receptive to what you're saying. It's possible that all that's needed here is more translation from your style of language to mine. Also possible I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg, so keep going if you wish.

So, the first proposition for a solution for metaphysics would be 'All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible'. — FrancisRay

So far, I would say I get this to a limited degree, maybe. Enough to be interested, not enough to be done.

Or, to chant this in Hippiehead dogma, what if the problem we are trying to address arises not from thought content, but from the medium of thought? — Hippyhead

I'm still unclear as to what you mean. — TLCD1996

Are you referring to my quote just above?

So while getting beyond "yes-no" thinking is arguably quite important (especially since it helps us attend to nuance and avoid getting trapped in our own ideas), it is not the essence, which is dispassion and release. — TLCD1996

Could you perhaps expand on dispassion and release? If this is a bottom line, I'm interested in bottom lines.

The origin of "problems", the Buddha said, is just our ignorance. Meaning, we don't pay attention to the processes of our life, especially the process of suffering. — TLCD1996

This could be a key point of divergence between Buddhism and whatever we want to call my perspective. As I may have said too many times, I see the origin of human suffering as the nature of that which we are made of psychologically, thought. The evidence for this is that psychological suffering is universal in all times and places, and thus must arise from something we all have in common. That can't be anything within culture, as there is huge diversity among cultures.

That said, should this be true, then ignorance of it would be a source of suffering.

The idea that mysticism is 'illogical' or logically unclear is a misunderstanding. It's answer for 'this or that' metaphysical questions is the same in every case. It is to reject both for a middle way. — FrancisRay

I can get this. The vast majority of reality is space, and it would seem to inhabit a middle way between existence and non-existence. If true, then the vast majority of the God debate (all sides of it) is built upon a foundation of sand. If that is true, it might teach us much about our relationship with authority.

You should at least try to show where I demonstrate a lack of understanding and perhaps regain some semblance of credibility.
— praxis

Patiently awaiting receipt of your payment. Take your time. Or ignore, as you wish. — Hippyhead

I just read your conditions with the intent to comply but — and I guess it shouldn’t have come as a surprise — they’re unmeetable or not coherent enough to follow.

If you lack the honor to withdraw a lie then own your dishonesty.

I just read your conditions with the intent to comply but — and I guess it shouldn’t have come as a surprise — they’re unmeetable — praxis

If you find you can not write a thread which doesn't reference other people's ideas, write a thread about that.

That appears to be only one of the conditions.

I would further explain, but it's clear that all you're ever going to do is blast out these lazy little gotchas. Figure it out or don't.

Is the following your only condition then?

write a thread which doesn't reference other people's idea

That’s quite easy, particularly if, in all fairness, it only needs to meet the quality of your posts.

For this clarity we would have to grok Nagarjuna's theory of two truths or worlds, by which all selective statements about reality are inadequate. This is a double-aspect theory by which reality has a Conventional and Ultimate aspect, both of which have to be taken into account. Thus the endlessly (seemingly) self-contradictory nature of the language of mysticism and non-duality. It is logically rigorous and precise but takes effort to some understand. — FrancisRay

Thanks for sharing this! I think I'm understanding a little more of what you're saying; it's a bit tricky for me to get through the technical language. It would probably not be a bad idea to read up on Nagarjuna. Do you have any recommended reading as an intro?

Are you referring to my quote just above? — Hippyhead

Yes; I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but am not totally certain. Are you saying that thinking itself is the cause of suffering, or that the problems that philosophy tries to solve are totally imagined? Both seem to be agreeable in their own way.

Could you perhaps expand on dispassion and release? If this is a bottom line, I'm interested in bottom lines. — Hippyhead

I believe so. Dispassion is what takes us to the end, which is release. See:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.030.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.029.than.html

Basically, both suttas are saying that there are different fruits of practice. First, a monk gains food and other requisites if not fame. Two things can happen: either he grows intoxicated (impassioned) with it, or he remains heedful and dispassionate toward it. If he is dispassionate, he goes for something more refined.

The list is, from coarse to most refined: virtue, concentration (i.e. jhanas), knowledge and vision (wisdom), or "non-occasional awareness release" (basically, liberation from suffering).

Except for the last, it is possible for one to grow intoxicated with each one and thus "pass over the heartwood" (or miss the point) of practice. In this sense, one must not rest content merely with comfortable or pleasant living, a virtuous or "good" life, the peace of meditation, or even insight itself. Otherwise, one is still bound to samsara (another good reason to not think too much and just do the thing). Release happens, any way, as a result of vision (if that vision is used skillfully, with "right intention"). This is because if one sees things as they are, one "sees all things as worthy of non-attachment", to put it simply (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.080.than.html). Thus, one lets go. This is not necessarily the same as having an intellectual understanding of the statement; often it seems that people tend to equate the statement to "I should be un-attached". It's limited to the imagination and hasn't really gone deep. When it goes deep, you totally let go, so they say. However, whatever limited intellectual understanding we have can be used if we trust that it's pointing to something deeper (this is something we can take advantage of in meditation; if a dhamma-phrase has meaning and allows us to let go or abandon unwholesome qualities, we should use it even if we can't completely understand it).

One gets a taste of release each time one gets into a state of meditation, or when one puts coarser things aside (e.g. sensual pleasures) in favor of a more refined state of peace. The thing is, you need to pay attention and understand it to make it go deeper, otherwise it comes and goes like any other form of happiness and you have little understanding of how it can be used or cultivated; the Buddha practiced jhana meditation when he was a young child, but it wasn't until after his ascetic years that he realized he could use it to find total release. However, this is pretty much the name of the game: we usually don't understand meditation right away, and that's why it's difficult. But the more we do it and the more we pay attention to it, the more skilled we become and the closer we get.

This could be a key point of divergence between Buddhism and whatever we want to call my perspective. As I may have said too many times, I see the origin of human suffering as the nature of that which we are made of psychologically, thought. The evidence for this is that psychological suffering is universal in all times and places, and thus must arise from something we all have in common. That can't be anything within culture, as there is huge diversity among cultures. — Hippyhead

Sure, but what says "we are made of thought" and why is suffering limited to that? I think we need to understand that thought isn't just logical thought or philosophical thought or discursive thought or verbal thought. If we look a little deeper, we see that a lot of our state of mind is based off of intention and attention. Those, too, are what the Buddha calls "sankhara", or "fabrications". They're something we do, with (and because of) ignorance. And fabrication is something that happens even at the subtlest levels of consciousness, such as those attained through meditative absorption. This is why nirvana is also called "unfabricated" or "unconditioned". There's no intention or acting force to "create it"; it's uncreated.

So yeah, it's not limited to culture. Culture is something that comes out of this process we call thinking, specifically when it's happening between multiple people.

It's yet another reason to just look at suffering as we experience it and not get caught in the labelling. Even though the Buddha defines suffering as "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair" it's not like we have to look at our minds and check off the list to see what we're experiencing. At some point, such as in jhana, the "Dukkha" becomes quite refined and hard to pin down with these words. The words become pointers for the mind, and the meanings become progressively more refined and impactful.

Yes; I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but am not totally certain. Are you saying that thinking itself is the cause of suffering — TLCD1996

Yes, this. Don't mean all thinking is bad, but rather that psychological suffering arises from the properties of the medium (thought) which both thinker and his thoughts are made of. Our genius also arises from those properties.

GENIUS: Thought divides the single unified reality in to conceptual parts, allowing us to rearrange the conceptual parts in our minds to create new visions of reality, that is, to be creative.

SUFFERING: Thought creates a human experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", with "me" being very small, and "everything else" being very big. This perspective gives rise to fear, which in turn is the source of most human problems.

Both the genius and the suffering arise from the nature of thought itself, from how it operates through a process of conceptual division.

or that the problems that philosophy tries to solve are totally imagined? — TLCD1996

No, not this. Problems are real.

Except for the last, it is possible for one to grow intoxicated with each one and thus "pass over the heartwood" (or miss the point) of practice. In this sense, one must not rest content merely with comfortable or pleasant living, a virtuous or "good" life, the peace of meditation, or even insight itself. — TLCD1996

This is because if one sees things as they are, one "sees all things as worthy of non-attachment", Thus, one lets go. — TLCD1996

Ok. Why are all things worth of non-attachment, in theory at least? Not arguing, just trying to get a better understanding, to the degree it is possible to explain in logic and words etc.

One gets a taste of release each time one gets into a state of meditation — TLCD1996

Off topic perhaps, but I've long wondered what relationship this might have with the advice of Jesus to "die and be reborn". Don't know what he meant, but sounds similar?

The thing is, you need to pay attention and understand it to make it go deeper, otherwise it comes and goes like any other form of happiness and you have little understanding of how it can be used or cultivated; — TLCD1996

Ok, that makes sense. I experience peace in the woods, and then start chasing that, and when I don't get it I'm frustrated, annoyed, suffering etc. So long as I don't understand what's happening I'm stuck on the treadmill of chasing. Like that, more or less?

Sure, but what says "we are made of thought" and why is suffering limited to that? — TLCD1996

I do. :-) My argument is that suffering is made of thought, so to the degree one is not thinking, one doesn't suffer. One is not happy either, as happiness is also made of thought. Not sure how to translate this in to Buddhism language, or if that would be appropriate.

Buddhism would be a way to re-unify life and death by revealing the underlying state common to both. — FrancisRay

I'm still interested in learning more about this, should anyone wish to chew on it. Underlying state common to life and death? Hmmm...

Good grief. Do you not ever listen? By your defintion of religion Buddhism is not one. I toid you this some time ago. You clearly know little about Buddhism so why are you arguing? Why do you even care? You're spoiling an interesting discussion. .

These questions are undecidable in dialectical logic because both their available answers are logically indefensible — FrancisRay

Confused by this. Remember, no philosophy education here.


We can go no further until this is clear. Take the question 'Is this bicycle male or female?' Both answers are absurd so it is undecidable. The question embodies an assumption that renders it so.

'Dialectical' logic is binary. Its job is to decide between a thesis and its counter-thesis. The thesis may be 'Socrates is wise' or 'God exists'. In each case the system has to decide whether the thesis is true or false. Analysis shows that metaphysical questions take the form of 'Does two plus two equal three or five?'. Thus they are undecidable. The answer is 'neither'', and we are offered no third alternative. .

But they are not intractable. The answer is clearly 'four'. They become intractable when for some reason we refuse to accept 'four' as an answer and demand an answer to the question as stated. Thus Western thinkers find metaphysical questions both undecidable and intractable, while 'mystical' philosophers find them undecidable and easily answerable. They are answered by denying their extreme answers and endorsing a third alternative.

This logical issue is what divides Western dualism from mysticism and non-dualism. In university philosophy the undecidability of these questions is a barrier-to-knowledge and a frustrating mystery. It prevents philosophers from solving or understanding philosophical problems. The solution is easy but it is mysticism, so ideology wins and metaphysics is declared incomprehensible,

It's all tosh. When one adopts the Middle Way view metaphysical problems immediately evaporate. All of them have a third answer.

So, if you ask a mystic 'Do we have freewill' the answer will be yes and no. If you ask, 'Do we exist' the answer will be the same. These anwers ask us to reconsider the categories of thought. If Heraclitus is right to say 'We exist and exist-not', then this sends us back to examine our categories of thought. The answer transcends the categories, just as does Reality itself.

So Wordsworth's 'spirit that rolls through all things', which no doubt you sense as you walk through the woods, leads us beyond dialectical logic to Unity and to the idea that reality is 'advaita' or 'not-two'.. This is called 'non-dualism' because it takes us beyond the dualism that renders metaphysical questions intractable (and not just undecidable).

If you want to grasp this issue better I may need to refer you elsewhere to an essay or two. I'm enjoying the discussion but there may be too much ground to cover to get to the end of it here. Simple as it is, it took my five years to get to the bottom of this logical issue when I started out. So don't feel bad if it doesn't immediately make sense.
. . . , ,. . .






. . . . .

I get that typical Western thought seeks simplistic dualistic answers such as the classic "exists or not" paradigm of the God debate. I've argued against such dualism extensively all over the form, using space as the example of a phenomena which transcends "exists or not". So I'm surely receptive to what you're saying. It's possible that all that's needed here is more translation from your style of language to mine. Also possible I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg, so keep going if you wish.

I realise you;re almost on board with all of this otherwise I wouldn't be putting in the time. The trouble is that this is a technical logical issue and some grasp of Aristotle's dialectic and 'laws of thought' is required. A practitioner has no need to bother with all of this. They can by-pass the logical issues by leaping straight to truth and understanding. But a philosophical understanding requires getting ones hands grubby and dealing with the intellectual details. . .

As I may have said too many times, I see the origin of human suffering as the nature of that which we are made of psychologically, thought.

Yes. This is roughly what the mystics discover. Thus suffering is both real and unreal, since when we transcend psychology we transcend suffering. Your vview would be incorrect only insofar as you reify the intellect and psychology. But Kant notes that the source of the intellect must be a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category, and this idea takes us beyond psychology and suffering. .

If true, then the vast majority of the God debate (all sides of it) is built upon a foundation of sand.

Exactly. Meister Eckhart dismisses the argument as prattle. Complete waste of time.

Thanks for sharing this! I think I'm understanding a little more of what you're saying; it's a bit tricky for me to get through the technical language. It would probably not be a bad idea to read up on Nagarjuna. Do you have any recommended reading as an intro?

You clearly know a lot about many of the issues surrounding the practice, but the logic is not often studied by practitioners since it is not interesting if our goal is soteriological - as the Buddha points out. It is a little studied area of knowledge.

The academic literature on Nagarjuna is best avoided in my opinion. It usually just massively complicates the issues. It generally treats Nagarjuna's logic as if it is unusual or idiosyncratic in some way, when in fact it is just ordinary logic. The most straightforward and easiest introduction I've found is The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way/ by Khenpo Tsutrim Gyamptso. This deals with what Nagarjuna proves and the form of his argument. It does not explain the logical issues. . . .

For the logical issues there's an essay here that covers the ground. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2017/05/aristotle-nagarjuna-and-law-of-non.html

Good grief. Do you not ever listen? By your defintion of religion Buddhism is not one. I toid you this some time ago. — FrancisRay

You’re not speaking so I have nothing to listen to but ad hominem attacks. My last post on topic was the following.

——————

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.↪praxis

Okay. So this is your definition of religion. In this case Buddhism is not a religion.
— FrancisRay

I assume you're claiming this because Buddha's are not considered Gods and therefore not an ultimate authority. What matters is that in order to be part of the religion, the authority has access to knowledge or experience that others do not, and that their authority is beyond questioning. Those who question are heretics, outsiders, or otherwise not considered part of the tradition.

People often point to the Kālāma Sutta and say something like, "see, the Buddha says to not take anything on authority and simply try it out for yourself." Notice that nowhere does the doctrine entertain the possibility that the doctrine could be mistaken in any way or invite criticism or reform. In philosophy, science, and art, revision is an integral part.

——————

And don’t blame me for Hippyhead’s nuttyness.

I cannot uderstand why you make no effort to understand Buddhism. It is all about discovering what is true. It is not about being told!!! If you do not understand this then you understand exactly nothing about mysticism. . .

Why not try to learn? What;s the point of arguing with a Buddhist about what Buddhism is and is-not?
Have you no humility at all? How can you learn when you believe you know it all already? You cannot expect people here to keep responding to your comments when you invariably ignore their replies.

Nobody is attacking you personally. They just cannot see any point in your approach.and find it wearisome. You could change this in an instant if you chose to stop imagining Buddhist doctrine and practice is so useless that even you can find fault with it, before even learning what it is. .

The fact that you call Hippyhead a nutcase is a reflection on you and has nothing to with him I find he speaks nothing but good sense. You have an unusual opportunity here since there are a few posters who know what they're talking about. I would suggest taking advantage of this opportunity. . . . .

I’m willing to entertain all the meta-discussion if it’s a prerequisite to your returning to the topic. Let me know if it is. I’ll reiterate my position below and wait for your response in case the meta-chat isn’t necessary.

I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy, primary by pointing out two distinguishing aspects:

• In philosophy there is no ultimate or supreme authority and in Buddhism there is.
  
  
• There is no one metaphysical theory in philosophy whereas Buddhism holds to a single metaphysical understanding.

Because metaphysics are not empirical some special mode of understanding or experience must be necessary, if it’s not merely theory. If someone were to claim what the nature of reality is, and they had access that others did not have, those who don’t have access will necessarily need to take the claim on faith. In this way ultimate authority and metaphysics go hand in hand in religion.

Now, where we left off, you told me that by my own definition Buddhism is not a religion but you didn’t explain how. There is something of a clue in your last post where you write, “It is all about discovering what is true. It is not about being told!!! If you do not understand this then you understand exactly nothing about mysticism.”

With that you seem to be equating Buddhism with mysticism. Obviously there is mysticism in Buddhism, but just as obvious is the fact that there’s much more than mysticism. I think you might agree that mysticism could be said to be a mode of access to the nature of reality, and that the Buddha had this access. However, this access is uncommon and therefore the common folk necessary need to take whatever the Buddha claims about the nature of reality on faith. Many of the claims are unverifiable, by any known means. For instance, there are countless questions about rebirth that no one on earth could answer. Questions of this kind are rebuffed as ‘imponderables’.

How is Buddhism not a religion by my definition?

How is Buddhism not a religion by my definition? — praxis

I agree that Buddhism is a religion, but it seems in your view, religion is bad, so the point you always seem to laboring is that insofar as Buddhism is a religion, then this is a bad thing. Religious authority is to be rejected, religious experience not to be trusted.

Whereas my view is that, yes, Buddhism is a religion, and there's nothing the matter with that. Yes, I think there is a conflict between modern liberal individualism and religion, but the former is created on unsound premisses - basically on the premise that there is nothing beyond the individual ego, that the individual is him or herself (along with science) the only real authority. This might be a sound principle in terms of civil culture, but when it comes to 'matters of ultimate concern', most individuals don't have the insight, discipline, or skill required to navigate them.

I agree that in Western culture, religious authority has often be used to blatanly political ends especially in pre-modern culture. But I see the problem as the imposition of political power rationalised by religious dogma. In principle, at least, all the Biblical religions are supposed never to convert by force, although as is obvious, this principle is widely flouted.

In any case, I disagree that religions are necessarily bad, which is what you always seem to argue. They can be, they often have been, but they don't have to be.

There is no one metaphysical theory in philosophy whereas Buddhism holds to a single metaphysical understanding. — praxis

There was arguably a single metaphysical understanding in Western philosophy, up until the fragmentation of world-views introduced by the transition to modernity. But to show that would be an enormous undertaking, because of the vast nature of the subject.

In philosophy there is no ultimate or supreme authority and in Buddhism there is. — praxis

Let me re-post some of the passage from Edward Conze on the nature of religious authority:

The "perennial philosophy" is in this context defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worth-while knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality. — Edward Conze

In the early Buddhist texts, the authoritative summary of kinds of religious views is the Brahmajala Sutta (the Net of Views). Throughout it, we read the following formulation:

These are those dhammas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.

However, in Buddhism it is understood from the beginning that others may indeed 'see and comprehend' these 'dhammas', provided they go about it properly. That is why, in Buddhism, the Buddha is a type, not a singular instance or the only one of a kind.

I'm arguing that the animus against religion is based on the history of religious oppression in Western cultural history, which has left a deep shadow in collective psyche. It's the source of the 'anything but religion' feeling, in my view.

See https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/does-reason-know-what-it-is-missing/?searchResultPosition=1

Thus Western thinkers find metaphysical questions both undecidable and intractable, while 'mystical' philosophers find them undecidable and easily answerable. They are answered by denying their extreme answers and endorsing a third alternative. — FrancisRay

Ok, I get this, and have been taking that approach in the God debate, without knowing what to call it.

So Wordsworth's 'spirit that rolls through all things', which no doubt you sense as you walk through the woods, leads us beyond dialectical logic to Unity and to the idea that reality is 'advaita' or 'not-two'.. This is called 'non-dualism' because it takes us beyond the dualism that renders metaphysical questions intractable — FrancisRay

This all makes sense, and represents my view too. I think we're just working on a translation from Buddhist language to armadillo worship language. :-)

But a philosophical understanding requires getting ones hands grubby and dealing with the intellectual details. — FrancisRay

Without arguing, or suggesting what approach anyone else should pursue, we might keep in mind that I'm referencing different source material most of time. I'm getting my hands grubby with actual grubs, you know, in the dirt. :-) The philosophy is still interesting though, and this is of course a philosophy forum.

The fact that you call Hippyhead a nutcase is a reflection on you and has nothing to with him I find he speaks nothing but good sense — FrancisRay

A nutcase who sometimes speaks good sense. :-) Remember folks, it's typically the ill who show up at the hospital.

Thank you for a post with some meat. Refreshing.

I'm not debating your ideas here, just suggesting another way in which we might proceed.

Be practical.

There is a great deal of psychological suffering in the world, it's pretty much universal to one degree or another. Anything that relieves such suffering in a non-destructive manner, even if just temporarily, is good. To me, it's not that rational for us to endlessly nitpick anything which is working for someone, assuming no harm is being done to others.

Perhaps I'm too practical, but my question is, does it work? Whether it is a philosophy, or a religion, or a can of beans is of less interest here. But obviously, this is not a rule anyone has to follow, just stating my own perspective.

Thanks for the thoughtful response that I will characterize as corroborative.

I take exception to this bit though:

but it seems in your view, religion is bad, so the point you always seem to laboring is that insofar as Buddhism is a religion, then this is a bad thing. Religious authority is to be rejected, religious experience not to be trusted. — Wayfarer

Because you responded to it I know that you read in this topic that I’m reading Meido Moore’s new book. Meido Moore is a religious authority who’s “religious experience” I trust and who’s practice methods and techniques I study and practice, so it is rather absurd to claim that I reject all such authority.

Like so many things in life religion can be beneficial or injurious. Wouldn’t it be just as irrational to hold the view that religion is all good?