SYNOPSIS

NOUN Factuality Transfer

Imagine Language as a beautiful tree - sinewy branches full of glistening leaves rising skywards out of obelisk-like trunk… If so, this tree's roots and trunk are made-up of a founding part that Language - the NOUNS.
Be it in this or any other Universe, there'll never be a Word which – if itself not a NOUN, cannot ultimately be traced to a NOUN. How come?
The contents of any Universe are invariably a collection of tangible THINGS
Life must congruently account for as - “THING #1 will now be known by my NOUN #1, THING #2 will now be known by my NOUN# 2, THING #3 will now be known by NOUN #3, THING #4 will now be known … etc… etc…”
The rest of Language then reflects the sentient intricacies amongst NOUNS that little by little reveal themselves to their users.
wWhat are the evolutionary consequences of Life being surrounded by the THINGS of its Environment?
To survive, Life instinctively accepts that THINGS perceived must be dealt with immediately – their EXISTENCE thus becomes a given which can't be questioned.
Indeed, if by some aberration there could ever arise a Life wondering as to whether the THING it has perceived does exist, and if does – whether or not it should immediately be responded to with all resources available, Natural Selection would have simply thrown it out of the Environment.
If this uncompromising urgency ultimately hard wires Life into accepting that the THINGS it perceives unquestionably exist - what happens next?
Once Language starts to sprout, Social Evolution will likewise hard wire its users into intuitively assuming that one's intention behind use of a NOUN is to state the THING it corresponds to does unquestionably exist…
Trouble then lurks just behind - humans begin to equate comprehension of a NOUN with comprehending the factuality of whatever that NOUN happens to represent.

Now let's forget about NOUNS for a moment - in a strictly functional sense, Language had arisen out of a single Adjective -
Driven by Life's pervasive instinct for IMPROVEMENT, two proto-humans - one in possession of THING #A, the other of THING #B, had discovered the BENEFIT in exchanging A for B. It would be “better” for both of them, they had concluded. Needless to say, this most generic of all social inventions could not have occurred unless both proto-humans had a sentient grasp of THINGS and the BENEFITS they entail.

Fast-forward a couple of million years till the Present – what has changed?
First, every conceivable sentient relationship amongst NOUNS has by now been explored many times over. From Aari to Zumi - well above 5000 Ethnic Versions of our LANGUAGE had done so - often independently, but all with a striking degree of similarity.
Second, the NOUNS representing intangible, often hypothetical ENTITIES had by now vastly outnumbered NOUNS which once facilitated first proto-human exchanges of the tangible THINGS of their Environment.
Third, exchanges of THING #A for THING #B had by now led to the most challenging social invention any Life in any Universe will ever arrive at - the evaluation of EQUIVALENCE.
How it was discovered remains lost in time… But it could be assumed that budding humans gradually began to sense that exchanging THING #A for THING #B has a potential to do more then BENEFIT both participants - with sufficient thought, the degree of EQUIVALENCE between those BENEFITS could be ascertained. Once this breakthrough was realized, the cohesion within a group providing EQUIVALENT BENEFITS for its members would prove of crucial advantage in the primordial battles of our Social Evolution.

To this day, our entire Social Existence still revolves around the search for EQUIVALENCE between A and B…
Admittedly, since a constant unit of exchanges - Coinage, was developed several millennia ago, that activity became indirect. We're now exchanging Labor for Money, then Money for the archetypal THINGS #A, #B, #C… essential of our survival; Food, Housing and Clothing, etc … But invariably, keeping an eye over those exchanges is the instinctive expectation that our BENEFITS should be at least EQUIVALENT - not “worse”, to those current across the social marketplace. It's our primeval sense of FAIRNESS…
Strange as it may seem, evaluation of EQUIVALENCE applies beyond the intricacies of maintaining a livelihood - take the Sciences, for example …
Say you declared that the most general law of Reality is “Any #A is always EQUIVALENT to # B multiplied by X” - how would it stand-up to scrutiny?
A million years ago, a Stone Tool might for the purpose of exchanges have been judged as EQUIVALENT to bananas multiplied by X.
Today, in E = mc2, Energy is the EQUIVALENT of Mass multiplied by X of Velocity. But the sentient foundations beneath these generic evaluations of EQUIVALENCE remain the same for both cases.
And it's been business as usual for the NOUNS too - we still instinctively stand up and salute those Words for representing the EXISTENCE itself.

“How would you like to live forever ?”
Not surprisingly, there's a NOUN for accommodating this Evolution-driven longing - the Afterlife. How did it come about? Archeological records of earliest ritual burials would suggest that Afterlife began dominating human thought around 50 000 years ago…
Technically, two NOUNS had two be invented -
1. Seeing the physiological dissolution of a body after Death, some savage genius endowed that body an “ever-lasting essence”, explained it to others and a NOUN naming this would-be ENTITY as “spirit” promptly made its ill-conceived entry into humanity's vocabulary.
2. Next, a place of that “spirit's” ever-lasting rest had to be conceptualized, explained and its NOUN agreed upon - hence the “Afterlife”.
Once that happened, the heads of doubters or competitors were banged together and hey presto - those two audacious NOUNS still dominate our Social Existence fifty millennia later…

Now the present aim isn't to examine the intellectual merit of propositions based on the NOUNS of “spirit”, “Afterlife” - or indeed their afterthoughts of “gods”, “God”, “Creation”, “Intelligent Design”, etc…Those matters are addressed separately in Chapter “Intelligent Design?” and the conclusions there don't favor promoters of Religions.
Rather, let us look only at the FAIRNESS of exchanging NOUNS for Money.
w“Pray to our God #@^&* and the Afterlife shall most verily be yours!” That's all fine - except that soon afterwards a hand expertly snakes toward you expecting Money. While it might then be argued that a warm assurance of being able to live forever is worth infinitely more that the $20 just placed on a collection plate - should our intellectual standards rest on emotions of the gullible?
The THINGS behind NOUNS of Afterlife and Money cannot, for the purpose exchange, represent EQUIVALENTS of existence– that's the only point that matters. Now, what in practical terms can be done about it?

Let's digress briefly… The general thrust of Fools of Language may by now have given the impression that the game is largely lost; that humanity - like a stranded cattle, is doomed to being prodded by the NOUNS in whatever direction best suits their most eloquent, ambitious or violent masters. That is not all that far off the mark…
wYet a more astute segment of our civilization - the Law Industry, had seen through the power of NOUNS and curtailed their hypnotic influence -

“Your Honor, the NOUN “offence” unjustly asserts that whatever my client is being accused of had in fact taken place. May I with respect submit that a phrase “ alleged offence ” be used henceforth?”

Who knows when in the history of Western Jurisprudence this submission was first made... Suffice it to say that prior to the guilt or innocence being established, the use of NOUN “offence” unaccompanied by “alleged” had been banished from the Western legal domain for quite a long time.

The suggestion now is that we follow the example of those who know first hand how rogue NOUNS can distort the course of human thought -
To prevent the distortion of our Civil Intellect, we should insist that NOUNS indispensable to the claims of Religion – the “Afterlife” and “spirit” along with elaborations of “gods”, “God” and “Creation”, be likewise qualified by the Adjective “supposed”: as in the "supposed spirit", "supposed Afterlife",
"supposed God", "supposed Creation", etc…whenever they are being used to advance a religious agenda in the public domain.
Only then - when emphasizing the entirely speculative nature of ENTITIES those NOUNS supposedly represent becomes an anchor of our intellectual transactions, will Religions find within their societies a role EQUIVALENT to their merit.

Fools of Language

Language is a mirror-reflection of Reality… It is latent across EXISTENCE, ready for Life - a task-performing phenomenon, to access its WORDS and through them, try to describe the workings of its Universe.
Yet Life can become so distracted by that task as to ignore - at its peril, the inner workings of the Language itself…

AXIOM

Cognate but different CONCEPTS must be expressed
by cognate but different NOUNS

Some two and a half millennia ago, distrustful of the "Infinite" Aristotle had proposed an alternative - the POTENTIAL Infinite.
Had the great man also grasped the extent of what he has stumbled upon - one of most applicable Constants of Reality, maybe our Knowledge would have followed a different path…
wTake a Word - the QUANTUM of social existence. A Universe is the totality of "Potentials for Words".
Included here are the Potentials for Words of "quantum", "Words", "social",
"existence", "Universe"… Indeed - the Potential for Aristotle's assumption that "Potential Infinite" is a "factual" LIMIT of Reality to be translated by his co-relation of two Words; "Potential" and "Infinite".
wLike a unique "I EXIST - GIVE ME A NAME!" pleading over the background murmurs of "existence", Potential for a Word - any "entity", "phenomenon" or "feature", EXISTS by "distinguishing" itself from the "remainder of Word Potentials" - the "remainder of the Universe".
As a result, once Life translates a sufficient variety of Potentials into Words - an enchanting "consistency" will emerge... The hitherto muted, mechanistic relationship between "Word Potential" and the "remainder of the Universe" becomes evocated by a direct correspondence between its "Word" and the "remainder of Language".

"Consistency"
(Those who find the following too hard to digest, go to "Meaningfulness")

Using dynamic marker ">" - signifying "leads to…" or "is Potentially…" and static marker "/" signifying a "discontinuity", this " correspondence" can be displayed as -

"Universe's consistency" = Word Potential / remainder of Word Potentials
LIFE'S TRANSLATION = Word Potentials > Words > Language
"semantic consistency" = Word / remainder of Language

This "repetitive pattern" links the GENERIC manifestations of "existence" - UNIVERSE, LIFE and LANGUAGE in a "consistent", interdependent whole.

Now if every "factuality" in the Universe resides only within the mechanistic Potential giving rise to its corresponding Word - all aspects of that Universe should, in principle, be wholly knowable -
We need only to translate every Potential into a Word "consistently" and all Mysteries within "totality of Word Potentials" - the Universe, must ultimately be elucidated by the "consistency" arising between those translating Words and their respective "remainders of Language". It works - in principle.
wThe main obstacle here is biological randomness of our "conceptual hardware" -
Word Potentials become translated into Words only through the medium of CONCEPTS - the ethereal, ever-changing electro-chemical "discontinuities" which the Environment etches on every individual's MEMORY across Life's primal lens of PERCEPTION -

"external" Word Potential > interface of Perception >
"individual's internal CONCEPT" > "external" WORD

Although each of us is able to distinguish any Word from the "remainder of Language" with complete "certainty" - their MEANINGS are never more then "semantic approximations" varying from one individual to another. Why?
The electro-chemical "discontinuities" embodying those Words' "concepts"
are likewise never more then "structural approximations" of one another…
Therefore, all shared quest for Knowledge will always be undermined by the "conceptual uncertainty" amongst any two of its participants.

"conceptual uncertainty" = an Individual's "semantic approximations" /
the Social Group's "remainder of semantic approximations"

The "conceptual uncertainty" of COMMUNICATION can be summed-up with following "repetitive pattern" -

1. "internal concept" > "internal semantic approximation"
2. "internal semantic approximation" > "external" Words
3. "external" Words > "internal semantic approximation"
4. "internal semantic approximation" > "internal concept"
COMMUNICATION = "Rpt. 1, 2 // 3, 4, 1, 2 // 3, 4, 1, 2 //…>"

Since "conceptual uncertainty" resides "internally" - within the physiology of Life, the LIMIT it imposes on the "consistency" of "biologically-actuated" communication cannot be circumvented. We can only minimise its effect by INTENDING our communication to be as concise as we find possible.
wNow in addition, there's an EXTERNAL subversive quietly sabotaging the "consistency" of our communication. But this time, it is something we can and should act upon…
The problem resides in our SOCIAL ATTITUDES to the functions of Words - especially to Words conveying the most important distinction in our Social Existence; the difference between a "factuality" and a "hypothesis".

"Meaningfulness"

Let us examine just how did those "social attitudes" establish themselves and how they DISTORT - with tragic results, the "consistency" of our Language. There are two reasons…
First, "consistency" has a bastard sibling; "meaningfulness". Although all "consistent" statements are necessarily "meaningful", not all "meaningful" statements are necessarily "consistent"…
Next, the "conceptual process" that allocating Words to Potentials deemed to be "factual", is semantically open-ended…
Empirical Words we have evolved to do NO MORE then translate the self- evident "factualities" that any Environment abounds with, can additionally be used to "define" a HYPOTHESIS…
Inevitably, those "definitions" emerge as the NOUNS of "hypotheses" that address our Evolution-driven misconceptions to the feeblest of standards; the enticing "meaningfulness" of the subject matter they describe.
w"Meaningfulness", not "consistency", is the intuitive driver of Language...
As Language expands, "meaningfulness" can't tolerate a vacuum... Bands of clever Words will diligently visit every "conceptual" nook and cranny of individuals, groups and Societies, requesting - sometimes forcefully, a nod of obedience to the "meaningful hypothesis" they communicate.
And should a "meaningful hypothesis" then provide "repetitive pattern" for the "socially consistent" RITUAL, this dazzling form of "consistency" often becomes misunderstood for the "factual" status of the "hypothesis" itself.

As suggested, the remedy here resides in an ATTITUDE to communication, especially to the use of Words most critical in expressing arguments about the ultimate structure of Reality.
The Potential of "attitude" is always "diverging" in EMOTIVE directions. On the one hand, we can tread the millennia-old path of "meaningfulness"…
Here, a given argument's "contextual consistency" with the subject matter under consideration is comprehended as "meaningful", then responded to with an equally "meaningful" rebuttal.
Not a very difficult path to follow - with the enticement of "meaningfulness" goading both sides forward, each believes itself only one leap of logic or of rhetorical flourish away from an inevitable triumph. It rarely works…
wOn the other, we ONLY accept the argument's "contextual consistency" if the Words the argument hinges on are also PERCEPTUALLY CONSISTENT with their Evolutionary Function in our Language.
What if they are not? We refuse to participate in that argument - period.
wAs attitudes go, that is hardly conducive to a robust, free-flowing debate… But since there's no shortage of subjects that humanity had been gnawing at for millennia and which - like "meaningful" offal, only result in bad cases of "conceptual indigestion", it is time for a less accommodating attitude to Language.

Let's return to the first proposition; "A Universe is the totality of Potentials for Words". Which Words - from an evolutionary standpoint, constitute the most important part of our Language?
Imagine Language as a tree with its trunk made of NOUNS, its branches of Verbs, Adverbs and Adjectives - its twigs and leaves accounting for all the remaining "units of linguistic function"…
There's not one unit of Language which - if not a NOUN, doesn't ultimately "connect" to some NOUN. Why so?

Life - the Potential of NOUN "Life", has evolved amongst Potential NOUNS, i.e. the "factual" THINGS which all individual embodiments of "bodily Life" had to depend on for their survival over the last billion years.
wAbout half a billion years ago, the capability of PERCEPTION - the greatest gift Evolution could bestow on Life apart from Language, had facilitated the translation of those Potential NOUNS into "concepts".
Be it the "predator", "prey", "mate", "offspring", "tree", "water" or any other Potential NOUNS the Environment is made of, only Life able to instinctively "conceptualize" them as self-evident "factualities" that must "consistently" be RESPONDED TO, had a chance to survive.
Consequently, once "proto-humans" evolved NOUNS - this specific form of Word has retained the archetypal function of Potential NOUNS - alerting Life to the "factuality" of THINGS critical to its survival.
wThis is the reason our instincts still urge us to think that NOUNS invariably point towards some "factuality" of our Social Environment and not - as is so often the case in our everyday discourse - to a mere "hypothesis".

What might have been the FIRST of our "hypotheses"?
Around a million years ago, our Toolmaking ancestors began to control the "factuality" of Fire. Apart from a chance to translate that Potential NOUN as our contemporary equivalent, what kind of additional "conceptual Potential" does it create?
Above all, the Potential for an inkling of a "hypothesis" - that "Unknown B" must be behind the "Known A" of Fire. All that is needed to develop such a "hypothesis" further is a handful of cognate, "survival-related" Words.
It might have taken another half a million years of experiments with an ever increasing body of Language for the Masters of Fire to arrive at "something conceptual" - "belief" that some powerful Being ( B ), is responsible for the Mystery of Fire ( A )…
wA few hundred thousand years later, "A - B" would have "connected" with a few dozen Words "defining" it as Life-like, Higher Being capable not only of protecting its believers from danger - but granting them BENEFITS...
And what is it that our cave-dwelling ancestors would most desperately be yearning for? It's their SURVIVAL, but this time with a brilliant BENEFIT no linguistic Life in any Universe will ever be able to resist…

Imagine a scenario from around fifty thousand years ago... A savage mind - it's invariably an individual, perhaps a mother whimpering over her child's lifeless body, desperately wails into the Future…
Life's evolved biological yearning to keep "surviving indefinitely" chances upon extraordinary Potential - the "conceptual image" of a child remaining alive within that Future. FOREVER… Who could resist that?
At first a mute portent, the "concept" of "surviving forever" shall "connect" to the existing Words and then - having discarded its DEFINITION, fly away into the Environment as a Word destined to hypnotise and haunt humanity for all time; the NOUN of "Afterlife".
wOver the millennia, the "hypothesis of Afterlife" becomes embellished with further "hypothetical NOUNS" - "souls", "gods" or "spirits", culminating in a "hypothetical NOUN" typical of the dominant Religions - "GOD". An entirely "hypothetical entity" claimed by its promoters not to merely facilitate one's entry into the "Afterlife" - but be responsible the Laws of Nature governing the "factual" workings of our Universe, etc… etc…

We need some sense of the numbers involved. How many "factual NOUNS" translating Potentials that can be "demonstrated" and "tested", are there in Language today? Between the "aardvark" for A and "zygote" for Z, most of dictionaries will list them in many tens of thousands...
wHow many Religion-based "hypothetical NOUNS"? Half a dozen…
Thus, 99.99 % of the NOUNS Social Evolution has programmed our brains to interpret as "factual" are currently compelled to co-exist with a handful of bright arrivistas - which don't proclaim their "hypothetical status" at the top of their lungs. Quite the contrary…
Consequently, these exciting "hypothetical NOUNS" are treated just like all other NOUNS - Words whose only function in Social Evolution has been to alert us to some "factuality" important to our Social Survival.

Forget for a moment the “hypotheses” behind “God X, Y, Z ...” and hear its NOUN introducing itself into your “conceptual infrastructure” -
“Show me ANYTHING in the Universe which “exists” and Language could describe without a NOUN… You won't find it. Since you've “conceptualized” me, “God”, as a NOUN - then surely, I must “exist”…
As a result, whenever we use this NOUN - even when vehemently rejecting the “hypothesis” behind it, we're allowing it to impose its “pseudo-factual” influence over all OTHER Words of that argument…
Before long, the resulting Transfer of Factuality diffuses and corrupts their most frequent “empirical” functions in our Language.

NOUN Factuality Transfer is instinctive, taking place without our conscious awareness and producing Societies whose Elites can no longer distinguish a “factuality” that anyone may “look at”, “touch”, “hear”, “taste” or “smell” from a “hypothesis” about some “Divine Order of the Universe” which they - needless to say, are administering on Earth as their Sacred Duty…
And not surprisingly, those Elites next demand a Society's blind obedience to their Edicts as a matter of self-evident, “ factual ” obligation on its part…

How can the use of NOUN “God” be reconciled with intellectual demands of Modernity - that's the quandary.
Obviously, the lamentable experiment of “communism” didn't work. Rather then offer any intellectual solutions, it had simply adopted the millennia-old method of religious oppression to a modern JUSTIFICATION; “We're acting in the noblest interests of the Working Class”.
In the end, the industrialised extent of crimes which “communism” inflicted on its Societies proved to be the only relevant difference.
Besides, what can be more fundamental than the right of any human being to suggest ANY view of the world or the Universe - including that based on the NOUN of “God”?

On the face of it, that is precisely how it should be - people offering a few IDEAS to the intellectual marketplace, then arguing their merit the best way they can…
But our communication consist of “Word-sequences” travelling across the “individual interfaces” of PERCEPTION…
What in the “perceptual make-up” of NOUN “God” informs us it is merely a useful convention for aggregating all the arcane definitions and arguments ever advanced to support the “factuality” of whatever such a “hypothesis” is able to express? Nothing.
So naturally we'll “perceive” it as just another NOUN; a Word implying that the “factuality” of a “thing” or “person” has ALREADY been established.
If any intellectual “reasoning”, “inference” or “deduction” about the subject matter is now to be made in a “conceptually consistent” manner, this is not a “perceptually consistent” STARTING POINT for making it…

Admittedly, we can always demand clarifications and conduct interminable debates, but that's not how Language ever works at its competitive level.
“Conceptualising” all NOUNS “as perceived” - then providing an immediate and conclusive response, has long proved to be the most successful model for our civil transactions.
Whilst with hindsight we may regret not having done so, had we insisted on continually seeking clarification to each important NOUN we face daily - our lives would remain stranded in an open-ended mire of endless explanations, re-explanations and arguments.
wSo, we blunder on…
Faced with the need to provide an immediate and conclusive response to the NOUN of “God”, we'll fleetingly recall how answers of the Past affected our standing, “compare” this with Future aspiration, “re-compare” the net result with requirements of the Present, then provide an answer reflecting either “Yes” or “No”… It's happening throughout humanity a countless times each day…
Yet by mere answering, whether it's with APPROVAL or DISAPPROVAL, we commit a transgression against the “consistency” of our Language...
Indeed, whenever we use NOUN “God” in any Context - we allow it to deftly re-direct that Context's already established associations with “factuality” towards itself…

Rectifying this process of unwitting deception is not difficult - provided we are astute enough to demand that the NOUN of "God" be communicated in a manner that differs PERCEIVABLY from the NOUNS which communicate to us the remaining, demonstrable aspects of our Social Environment.
Once we link this NOUN to a "warning light" informing all and sundry of its "hypothetical" status at the point of PERCEPTION, its claims can at last be assigned their rightful role - interesting "hypotheses", deserving of no less or more freely-expressed debate then any other.

How should "warning light" be constructed? Anything "perceivable" and attached "consistently" to this NOUN can perform that semantic function.
But then, why not go with the obvious - the very Adjective "hypothetical"…
wAssume each time we INTEND to use NOUN "God" - "hypothetical God" magically passes across our lips or writing. Doesn't seem such a big deal. WRONG... Check this out for a "perceptually and conceptually consistent" prayer -

"Brethren, we're gathered today to worship our "hypothetical God",
to be blessed in this life and delivered into "hypothetical Afterlife".

Can you imagine the howls of protest? However "consistent", its message becomes "commercially uncompetitive" within any society in which NOUN "God" continues to be merchandized in the old-fashioned manner of NOUN Factuality Transfer…
It wouldn't sell and its customers, despairing for the certitude of "Afterlife", would have scurried off to the back-yard zealots still marketing that NOUN without any linkage to it being "hypothetical". Not a prayer compatible with the commercial viability of Religions.
But Language is the essence of “humanness” and no society can owe any commercial favours to professional misusers of its NOUNS. Consequently, time has come for the final chapter of Secular Revolution - the LINGUISTIC REVOLUTION…

If you are privileged to live amidst Western Civilization, you'll know that its Secular Politics – although broadly accepting Death as a price we pay for having lived, habitually perpetuate the pre-Historic tradition of upholding promoters of Religion to be a source of Morality.
wEndure those promoters' ingratiating etiquette, tales of helping the poor, persistent hints on how only THEIR Faith leads to your so-called Salvation and what's more important - your purported “Afterlife”…
Nod politely at any explanation of Nature which only the optimists imbued with a child-like conceit of personally representing on Earth the Maker of all the Universe's Toys are able to contrive… Then, ask a poignant, History-laden question -
“Isn't it the fear of Secular Morality that currently prevents your kind from instigating the intimidation, imprisonment, torture and murder of innocent people for expressing a mere view of the world contradicting your own?”
wToo harsh? Look at a religious time capsule; humanity's stagnant residue of Medievalism. There, an ignorant thuggery which Secular Morality would have responded to with stiff prison sentences still goes on unpunished, as it was unpunished throughout Western Civilization until the beginning of its SECULAR REVOLUTION.
wAnd if by a fortune of geography you are the promoter of Religion in the West, don't save your flock - save yourself.
Bow your head before the Altar of Secular Morality and praise its Laws for ending your Religion's impunity over the past two centuries… Remember brother, that's the only reason your hands are clean today.

So, whenever theological entrepreneurs seek to impose their primitivism on a Secular Society, let's demand that the “consistent” NOUN - “hypothetical God”, first establish the validity of such agendas in the public domain…
Only then, when the "hypothetical" status of this NOUN is disclosed at the point-of-sale, can the public arrive at an informed opinion regarding social merit of that Linguistic Product.
wWhenever a politician is searching for "God's guidance and grace", let's welcome it, then request that the "consistent" NOUN - "hypothetical God", be the ONLY method of relating to that "hypothesis" within Politics.
wWhenever the camp followers of Science pick the fastest path to public's wallet by cagily dissembling about the possibilities of "God's Mind", let us ask that the "consistent" NOUN - "hypothetical God", be used instead.
Not as profitable? Betraying Science is one thing, prostituting Language is quite another…
wMost importantly, when Education had become an "indoctrination racket" for training Future Adults to place Money on a collection plate in the name of "God" a generation later, let us ensure that only the "consistent" NOUN - "hypothetical God", is allowed for merchandising this Linguistic Product to the young, uncritical and unsuspecting minds…

DISCLOSING the "hypothetical" status of a NOUN isn't as onerous as it would at first appear. Consider its social congruence with a long standing precedent of Law -
In any civilised country, the Law demands that while an "offence" is being "tested", this NOUN be scrupulously referred to as "hypothetical offence" - the contextual phrase is "alleged offence", EVERY TIME it is being used in court procedure...
But NOUNS penalise their misuse in ALL social contexts. When we ignore their "hypothetical" status, they induce in our minds the very "assumption of factuality" which the Legal Process had so assiduously expunged from its own domain.

Q; "Do you believe in God?"
A; "Well, er…it is only a "hypothesis", isn't it?"
If that is your response - then you have not understood the last few pages.
Never allow this unstable NOUN to bluff its way into your sentient faculties unless it is securely handcuffed to its intellectual overseer - "hypothetical".

Q; "Do you believe in God?"
A; "I know what you are intending to say - but ask that you first re-phrase it in its "perceptually consistent" format; "Do you believe the "hypothesis of God" is valid?". Only THEN will I further discuss this subject…

It is worth noting that the process of NOUN Factuality Transfer has a sickly assistant - the hereditary bacillus of CULTURAL Factuality Transfer.
wAs we "humans" instinctively pass Language onto our Young, they inherit our Social Values and Beliefs, warts and all.
And not surprisingly - people who at the age of 20 wouldn't spit at some of their Parents "hypotheses", HAD to believe them to be "factual" at the age of five because that is what their instinct of self-preservation dictated must be done in order to survive... No INFORMED CHOICE in the matter.
By the time they'll reach twenty - the corrosive influence of those "pseudo-factualities" implanted in their minds not on intellectual merit - but because of our highly misguided notions of parental freedom and responsibility, can exert a toll lasting a lifetime.
wIt is time we dispense with the assumption that Parents and Educators are free to "intellectually abuse" a child because a generation earlier they have themselves been "intellectually abused" AS CHILDREN.
wHow to prevent the "intellectual abuse" of our children?
By demanding that the "conceptual difference" between "hypothesis" and "factuality" be made known to them at the point of PERCEPTION - through "perceptual difference" between these 2 GENERIC forms of NOUNS.

A historical anecdote -
Napoleon to Laplace; "Is there a role for God in your scheme of thinking?"
Laplace; "Sire, I see no need for that hypothesis".
One of seminal exchanges in our Intellectual History…Alas, although close - even great Laplace didn't quite manage to hit the bulls-eye. What else could he have said?
"Sire, the NOUN "God" is distorting the rest of your question - a handful of Words you have been using since childhood to describe your indisputably "factual" experiences bearing no relationship to the "concept" of "God", or the NOUN of "God"… May I add that Language so distorted could lead you - my Emperor, into Actions that later prove to be costly mistakes?
Sire, I humbly beg that you re-phrase your profound question to; "Is there a role for the "hypothesis of God" in your scheme of thinking?"

“Man is by nature a political animal”, or so had Aristotle pronounced nearly two and a half millennia ago. For those times, that may have been deemed a brainy observation, indeed an intellectual breakthrough of sorts…
Pity the thoughtful Greek didn't occasionally run fingers through his ample mane and pondered a more mundane, yet revealing topic; “Why am I able to have Food on my table, a shelter over my head and clothes on my body? Could I have lawfully obtained those everyday essentials of life other then by “exchanging” them for the products of my intellect?”
wMan is by nature a COMMERCIAL animal - and the predominant function of Politics is to define and enforce the FAIRNESS of “exchanges” which all of Social Existence depends upon.

CONCLUSION

Organized Religion is ultimately a COMMERCIAL, "exchange-based" social entity, and rather then denigrate it or engage it in metaphysical debates, the challenge is to ensure that it obtains its Wealth on FAIR terms.

1. Since BENEFITS offered under the NOUN of “God” – the “Afterlife”, etc…
cannot be demonstrated as “factual” – they remain entirely “hypothetical”.
By contrast, the BENEFITS received - MONEY, etc… can be demonstrated as indisputably “factual”.
The respective BENEFITS are hence non-EQUIVALENT and until that non-EQUIVALENCE has been duly acknowledged, “exchanging” one BENEFIT for the other can be neither FAIR - nor “intellectually” sustainable.  

2. MONEY and “hypothetical BENEFITS” offered under the NOUN of “God” can be “exchanged” FAIRLY, but only if that NOUN'S “hypothetical” status is DISCLOSED as “hypothetical God” at the point of its usage - i.e. before MONEY is to change hands.

3. A Social Agenda promoted under the NOUN of “God” can be valid, but only if that NOUN'S “hypothetical status” is DISCLOSED as “hypothetical God” at the point of its usage in a public domain.

4. EDUCATION informing of the “hypotheses” promoted under the NOUN of “God” can likewise be valid, but only if that NOUN'S “hypothetical” status is DISCLOSED to the malleable and unsuspecting minds as “hypothetical God” at the point of its usage.

5. Adopting the obligation of DISCLOSURE as a standard of Public Integrity is the only feasible weapon against Religion-driven fanaticism. But to use it credibly, Western Civilization ought to first bring its own Religions to order

CONCLUSION

"Ask not what you can knowingly do with Language - ask what Language can do with you, without your knowledge".

A footnote;
Factuality Transfer doesn't distinguish one Social Context from another - all that sustains it is REPETITION of NOUNS. And here - the Sciences run a few lengths ahead of Religions with their “inconsistent” REPETITION of NOUNS like “infinity”, “space”, “time”, “continuum”, “dimension”, “truth”, etc…
We'll come to that in due course and the solutions won't be different from those dealing with Religion; a “conceptual difference” between NOUNS has to be “externalized” in their “perceptual difference”.

There will be Contexts in which ADJECTIVE Factuality Transfer is the main obstacle to “conceptual consistency” of our linguistic interaction…
Indeed, there'll be specific Contexts in which Adjectives are more critical to systematizing Reality then NOUNS - only the Adjectives, with their cousins the Adverbs, are suitable for describing the beautiful SYMMETRY of Reality.