SYNOPSIS

If your brief worth on Earth is graced by living amidst Western Democracy you'd know that its opportunistic politicians – whilst broadly accepting that Death is a price we must pay for having lived, often invite the promoters of a supposed Afterlife to pontificate on matters of our Morality.
wEndure those promoters' ingratiating etiquette, their tales of helping the poor, their persistent hinting on how only THEIR Faith provides a pathway to your purportedly Happy Afterlife and what awaits you otherwise…
Nod politely at all explanations of Nature which only those blessed with a child-like conceit of representing on Earth the Maker of the Universe's Toys can propagate without blushing…
“The only alternative to God's Creation is a Cosmos of purposeless, eternal slime governed by Chance!” Sure, what else…
wThen, 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 whose sole transgression in life was to express a view of the world contradicting your own?”
Too harsh? Look at Religion's time capsule - humanity's backward 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 right until the beginning of its SECULAR REVOLUTION.
Now if by a great 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 last two centuries of the Modern Era… Remember brother, this is the only reason that your hands are clean today.

What a fascinating CONCEPT is that of “Chance” … “The Chances of Life arising without God are like that of a Boeing 747 - complete with technical specifications, coming together out of nothing …”
Not necessarily verbatim, this statement conveys the essence of reasoning behind most of the creationists' arguments nowadays offered in support of a would-be Creator.
However, while they'll allow the more enterprising fools to make Money out of other fools, all such Chance-based arguments always carry within them their own kiss of death. How come?
Chance is not a single CONCEPT - it divides into two “discontinuous” and mutually exclusive Potentials of Chance 1 and Chance 2… Let's call them Classrooms #1 and #2.
Can Life arise without “Divine Intervention”? “Girls and boys, we'll study this subject in Classroom #1 and at the end of class you let me know what you think…”
Can Life arise with “Divine Intervention”? “Girls and boys, we'll study this subject in Classroom #2 and at the end of class you let me know what you think…”
Now the problem for creationism is as follows – once the nexus between a “supposed Creator” and Chance has been duly examined in Classroom #2, certain logical conclusions cannot be avoided or refuted -
1. In any Reality, any Action of any “supposed Creator” could only be an “Action of Chance”.
2. In any Reality, any OUTCOME of any Action of any “supposed Creator” could only be an “OUTCOME of Chance”.
3. In any Reality any “supposed Creator” could ITSELF only be a “ structure of Chance ”.
In light of the above difficulties, promoters of Western Religions could well consider more conventional ways of making a living - say, GETTING A JOB.

Intelligent Design?
© 2003, 2005

AXIOMS

NON-EXISTENCE is "smooth"
EXISTENCE is "granular"

Ever since the salutary lessons of French Revolution - codified in 1792 as the FIRST AMENDMENT to the American Constitution, marked the dawning of SECULAR DEMOCRACY across Western Civilization, the proprietors of its Religion had been compelled to forego INTIMIDATION and confine their business to the more appropriate Art of PERSUASION .
No longer able to bare the fangs and snarl “Obey me, or else!” at Societies and Nations – its arrogant modus-operandi for over a dozen centuries after the Fall of the Roman Empire, Western Religion is today gracefully earning its upkeep from selling “Feel good – live forever” lifestyle plans.
Could there be a more resounding proof of EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION having taken place during a relatively short period of the Modern Era?

Yet underneath the engaging smiles, there seethes a self-righteous drive to regain the lost ground – or at least prevent continuing erosion of the status quo and here, the “Intelligent Design Hypothesis” is its latest and arguably most recalcitrant example. What's it all about?
Essentially, the sound of NOUN “God” has been turned “Off” and should one query the whereabouts of “Designer” – a hired claque of “Complexity”, “Probability”, “Causality”, etc… is instructed to wail; “We're the Universe's Designer” at the top of their voices.
Whilst the ensuing noise travels well on its intended path to circumventing the FIRST AMENDMENT, the reasoning it depends upon has no intellectual efficacy in either this or any other Universe. “Chance…?”
As we'll see – had such a “hypothesis” been valid, any “Intelligent Design” could have only resulted in the “OUTCOMES OF CHANCE”.

Now we cannot be too precious about whether or not an ENTITY resides behind the “Intelligent Design hypothesis”. All PRECEDENTS applying to such “hypotheses” had involved ENTITIES, and Humanity's inconsolable yearning to “survive forever” already accounts for inventing well over 5000 of them in every conceivable hue, stripe and size… Ergo.
Since “Intelligent Design hypothesis” therefore “differs” from “hypothesis of God” not as a breakthrough in Epistemology, but as wholly premeditated EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION of the latter to today's Social Environment, we have to consider them as interchangeable and evaluate their validity in common. But first, a brief note on the COMPARATIVE aspects of Language, the tools of that evaluation…

( Cont'd with an excerpt from “Structure of Reality” )

1. EXISTENCE, being “granular”, is inherently COMPARATIVE and survival of higher Life in any Universe is determined by EVALUATIONS emanating from its evolved capacity to perform CONCEPTUAL COMPARISONS.
The elemental means of COMPARISONS are the Descriptive CONCEPTS of “same / different” and the Proportional CONCEPTS of “less / equal / more”, which - as Language develops, become universally translated into WORDS.

2. The basement feature of Reality is the “same // different & equal // NIL” - a “discontinuity” between “granularity” and “smoothness”, or respectively EXISTENCE and non-EXISTENCE.
The “existence of X” can thus be held “consistent” only if the WHITE of “X” is assumed to have DISPLACED an EQUIVALENT VOLUME of “non-X” – the BLACK of “nothingness”.
Of these, only the WHITE of “existence” forms “repetitive patterns”. Within those “patterns”, the “SAME as” “describes” an ENTITY – “particle X” for example, whilst the “EQUAL to” accounts for the “measurements” of that ENTITY'S physical properties in every applicable Descriptive Context, i.e. properties “being described” by their DEFINITIONS #1, #2, #3, etc… as say, “spin”, “momentum”, “charge”, etc…

Contrary to our intuition, we DO NOT communicate with one, homogenous Language. All along Social Evolution, we've been forced to comply with the DUAL nature of Reality by developing two corresponding and “functionally different” Versions of Language – Descriptive and Proportional…
Misunderstanding the EXISTENT aspects of Reality has its historical roots in our inability, or unwillingness, to SEPARATE the role one Version plays in “describing” that which is held to EXIST and the other – in examining the “measurable” consequences of that assumption.

As we have already seen with “hypothesis of God”, whilst the Description of “God” does lead to “meaningful plausibility”, the “………/ equal /………” performing that “hypothetical entity” would first have to DISPLACE the NIL of “nothingness” in order to “exist” at all within Proportional Reality.
If that “hypothetical entity” is then assumed to be “smooth” – just like the NIL of “non-existence” but “existing” at some mysterious level above it, its “equal” becomes an irrelevance. Why?
Absence of “granular discontinuities” prevents this “entity” from becoming the CAUSE of anything other then “smoothness”. No wondrously “granular OUTCOMES” like “The Universe”, “LIFE”, etc… could ever have arisen.
(This applies beyond “entities” assumed to be “supernatural”. Had SPACE, for example been “smooth” - even its most basic “granular” OUTCOMES of “frequency” and “amplitude” couldn't have manifested themselves).
wNext, if that “entity” is assumed to be “granular”, then the NUMBER of its “grains” must be either “finite” or “infinite”…Usually, our instincts point to the green pastures of “infinity”. Hold it - WHICH “infinity”?
As Cantor had shown so incisively, “Infinity of granular infinities” can co-EXIST with one another. Which “1” should be preferred when ALL of them correspond to the SAME Description of “God”?
Should ALL be supposed to co-EXIST - that “Infinity of granular infinities” co-EXIST solely in “infinity” of arbitrarily arranged PERMUTATIONS. Which “1PERMUTATION of infinities” should be preferred, when ALL “remaining PERMUTATIONS” will also correspond to the SAME Description of “God”?

Were we to substitute the above, implicitly “static interpretation” of “infinity” with its more satisfactory “dynamic interpretation”, we find that regardless of its algorithm, a continuous drip of “ +1 / +1 / + 1 >>>>>>>” mathematical “grains” emanates from that IDEA without any conclusion in sight…
Should we now construe a “hypothetical God” within this form of “infinity”; in which of that ENTITY'S “ non -Chance REGION” is that unending dripping of “grains” supposed to accumulate?

Lastly, “granular but finite” - i.e. that “entity” would have to be embodied into some “finite” VOLUMETRIC AGGREGATE. But here, a “hyperfinity” of POTENTIAL PERMUTATIONS amongst that AGGREGATE'S “grains” now becomes possible - with “1000000000000… >” in their mathematical values whooshing past the Moon to stop at some distant, unknowable point of the Cosmos.
Though the “equal” now applies to each of them - which “1PERMUTATION” should be preferred over their remainder, when once again ALL correspond to the SAME Description of “God”?
With the NUMBER of “grains” within that VOLUMETRIC AGGREGATE now “finite”, wouldn't an AGGREGATE with say, “1 grain less” also correspond to the SAME Description of “God”? Hence - which “non-Chance” NUMBER is required to embody the “non-Chance God”?
wSuch examples had hardly even begun to shine a Descriptive spotlight at the uncountable “nooks and crannies” which any “granular existence” has to consist of. Once illuminated, those “nooks and crannies” can't escape CONCEPTUAL COMPARISON and its constant carping; “It's an interesting “………/ equal /………” but a “hyperfinity” of its “< less / ………/ more >” variations would have also led to the SAME OUTCOME. You can therefore be only an ENTITY of CHANCE”.
wThe consequences?
If that “hypothesis” was valid, any “entity” embodying its Description may only have been a “Chance God” - Chance “1” amongst either the “infinity” or “hyperfinity” of the Potentially SAME OUTCOMES.

When examining the “hypotheses of Creation”, we were additionally able to see that any “Creation” would only have been an “Act of Chance”. In an example, DESCRIBING the purported “Creation of LIFE” posed no problem to purveyors of Religion across the millennia anymore then it does today…
But for “Creation” to become “factual”, it had to be embodied into a “finite” VOLUMETRIC AGGREGATE... Since a “hyperfinity” of such AGGREGATE'S
“less / ………/ more” PERMUTATIONS may Potentially embody the “same” Description of LIFE, exactly which PERMUTATION should be performing it “factually” without being selected as a “1-in-hyperfinity” “Act of Chance”?

From the VOLUMETRIC AGGREGATE, which accounts for all mathematical Proportions available within a Description, let's bring the resolution down to the scale of GENETIC STRUCTURE …
How many GENETIC PERMUTATIONS, each “un-equal” to any other, could have Potentially “Created” the SAME Description of LIFE – be it on Earth or on planet “X” half-way across the Universe, wherever…?
Here, the “10000000000000 >” in their mathematical values may not go past the Moon, but there should be enough of them at least round the Earth…
Exactly which “1” amongst those Potential PERMUTATIONS should have performed the “Creation of LIFE” “factually”, without ibeing selected by a “1-in-hyperfinity” “Act of Chance”?
Even supposing that ALL may have done so simultaneously doesn't free us from the dreaded tentacles of “Chance”…
A “hyperfinity” of SEPARATE “genetic patterns” supposed to perform LIFE simultaneously within whatever VOLUME does aggregate into an arbitrarily ordered geometric CONFIGURATION…
In how many PERMUTATIONS can that initial CONFIGURATION of “genetic patterns” then express itself? For a “hyperfinity” of N the result is N! – i.e. the “product” of N; with the “100000000000000 >” once again disappearing past the Moon.
Exactly which “1” amongst those Potential CONFIGURATIONS of a multiple and simultaneous “Creation of LIFE” is to become “factual”, etc…etc…?

A “Creation” could have only been an “Act of Chance” in other Descriptive Contexts. Take the “< closer /………/ further >” for example…
The Universe's VOLUMETRIC AGGREGATE corresponds to a “hyperfinity” of geometric LOCATIONS able to accommodate the purported “Creation of LIFE” Potentially . Exactly which LOCATION can accommodate it “factually” without being selected by a “1-in-hyperfinity” “Act of Chance”?

Next to “< earlier /………/ later >”… The purported “Creation of LIFE” could have Potentially begun at a “hyperfinity” of PAST INSTANTS. Exactly when may it begin “factually” without having its “INSTANT of Creation” selected by a “1-in-hyperfinity” “Act of Chance”?
Those “Acts of Chance” arise from within every other Descriptive Context – be it “< slower /………/ faster >”, “< cooler /………/ hotter >”, etc…etc…

Similarly, the “Creation” of something as elemental as a “triangle” would only have been an “Act of Chance”. Whilst the “meaningful plausibility” of Descriptive Language is quietly urging us to accept that a “triangle” could have been “Created” with “Divine Intent”, Proportion Language only greets it with a dismissive shrug; “Yeah, which one…”
Only “one” from amongst the “infinity” of “triangles” Potentially available within Proportional Reality for a “Creation” could have been brought into GEOMETRIC EXISTENCE as “factual”… Chances? “1-in-infinity”. And here, let's also remember any possible “Universe” is ultimately an AGGREGATE of TRIANGLES.

Let us conclude this analysis with something familiar – a “loaf of bread”, for example…
Throughout History, it's been so easy to “Create” it Descriptively. A dozen Words woven into a NOUN-based sequence will readily create a depiction of that “loaf” arising out of nothing to be munched by some Ancient yokels or maybe their recent counterparts as a “factual occurrence”.
wBut what if that “loaf of bread” is assumed to have been the OUTCOME of an “Act of Creation” within Proportional Reality – what are its “equals”?
They're “Potential equals” of “molecules”, “atoms”, “protons”, “neutrons”, “electrons”, etc… which, when embodied as a VOLUMETRIC AGGREGATE are to facilitate its TRANSITON from “non-existence” – into “existence” as a “loaf of bread”

LET THERE BE BREAD!
But of ANY “Kind”, “Size”, “Shape”, “Weight”, “Color”…? ANY number of “molecules”, “atoms”, “protons”, “neutrons”, “electrons” in ANY of their “physical states” adding-up to its “factual” VOLUMETRIC AGGREGATE?
Unless these “Potential equals” had been determined prior to TRANSITION, its “hypothetical Creation” would have to be deemed an “Act of Chance” because of the “ANY…”
Interestingly, even if some “Hypothetical Omniscience” could determine all those “Potential equals” prior to TRANSITION – that “loaf of bread” still remains the outcome of a “Chance Creation”. Brrr…
wWhy be so reckless – hadn't the IDEA of “Omniscience” been able to slay the detractors of Religion through the Ages with a flick of its finger? Rather then be overwhelmed by that IDEA'S extraordinary reputation, let us look it in the eye and call its bluff –
An astronomical “hyperfinity” of VOLUMETRIC PERMUTATIONS amongst these “molecules”, “atoms”, “protons”, “neutrons”, “electrons”, etc… lead to the Descriptively SAME OUTCOME – a “loaf of bread”.
Here, by selecting any “1 PERMUTATION” that “Hypothetical Omniscience” gives it “Chance preference” over the remaining PERMUTATIONS – despite being also “omnisciently aware” that each of those PERMUTATIONS would have likewise embodied the SAME Description – a “loaf of bread”.
Hence, like every other “hypothetical Creation” Descriptive Language may inculcate within our “conceptual imagery”, that “loaf of bread” would only have been the result of Chance PROPORTIONS – an “Act of Chance”.

The “< less /………/ more >” is just scratching the EXTENT of “Chance”, for its translation to “< slower / ………/ faster >” further undermines the reason to hold any “Potential equals” of “Creation” can undergo their TRANSITION into “factual outcomes” by other then an “Act of Chance”.
Here, a “loaf of bread” “hypothetically Created” in “0.0001049 seconds” or “1.0119782 seconds” – a “hyperfinity” of such “slots” are available, doesn't change its Descriptive “sameness” because of the “equals” required…
Exactly which amongst those possible DURATIONS should correspond to a “non-Chance Act of Creation”?

“Instantaneous hypothetical Creation”? Not a “consistent concept”, but it can be humored briefly…
Doesn't solve anything since it can always be correlated to some “equal” – the already mentioned “< earlier /………/ later >” being a ready example.
Would a “loaf of bread” “instantaneously Created” “21.37 seconds earlier” or “0.27 seconds later” – again, there's a “hyperfinity” of such “slots”, not have also resulted in the Descriptively SAME OUTCOME? Which of these “slots” should be selected for a “non-Chance Act of Creation”?
Would a “loaf of bread” “instantaneously Created” “0.012 yards to the left” or “0.117 yards to the right” – there's a “hyperfinity” of such LOCATIONS in the VOLUME of a shopping bag, not have resulted in the Descriptively SAME OUTCOME? Which of them should be selected for a “ non-Chance Act of Creation”? And so on and so forth – ad nauseum…

From the times our cave-dwelling Ancestors first became enchanted by the Cosmos, the “hypotheses of God and Creation” had flourished because Language extends the Evolution's original instruction to “survive as long as possible” into “survive as long as possible – even after own Death”, as the DEFAULT setting of our “emotional software”.
But no matter how enchanting the “hypotheses of God and Creation” are Descriptively, the OUTCOMES “described” could only be performed by the PROPORTIONS of CHANCE – a fatal flaw invalidating these “hypotheses” if proposed by any linguistic Life in whatever Universe.

Descriptive Reality -
Potentially “SAME OUTCOME”
Proportional Reality -
“< CHANCE less / CHANCE equal / CHANCE more >”

Not quite the kudos which theological entrepreneurs expect when invoking “Hypotheses of God and Creation / Intelligent Design” as alternatives to an otherwise “mindlessly Chance”, “slime-like” and “Purpose-less” structure of the Universe.

So, let no people of common sense ever again pay for the glittering bottles of “Life's so complex there had to be a Creator behind it, etc…” or “The Laws of Nature govern the Universe to such a Perfection they had to “fine-tuned” by a Creator, etc…” snake oil.
Having already considered the PERMUTATIONS of LIFE, let's briefly look at the so-called “fine-tuning” of Nature…

Another “observation-related” hokum meandering across the Lecture Halls of pseudo-Science - “The Universe exists so it can be OBSERVED by Life”.
Be it on Earth or elsewhere in the Universe a statement like this shall have one socially redeeming feature - it allows prostitutes of Science to improve their circumstances by attending to the fantasies of wealthy obscurantists. So, let's examine their smarts -
   As in the parallel demimonde, Sciences of the Night have a pecking order and here, hunks specialising in “fine-tuning” the Universe are really in a class of their own.
“Look, the Laws of Nature interact with one another in such a perfect order that some Intelligent Mind must have overseen it at the beginning. Name it God or Nature – it's an inescapable scientific necessity…” they'll harangue the malleable public while their clients purr happily towards the heavens. And in the main, it's all safely done in Descriptive Language.
But after a trick too many, they can carelessly stray into the Proportional - “If even some of the Laws of Nature were but infinitesimally different, there would have been no Universe at all” This may mimic the patois of learning, but is also a dead giveaway…
The “infinitesimals” are never factual - in GRANULAR REALITY everything happens in most miniscule but numerically finite “grains”, “slots”, “jerks”, “clicks”, etc…

Imagine a beaten-to-death scene from some B-movie; “Click, click, click…” Deftly manipulating the dial “to the left” then “to the right”, a thief is trying to pick the combination of a safe. “Click” Got it!
Now take the 5 most important Constants of Nature – by how many “clicks to the left” and “clicks to the right” could they be changed and still result in a Universe functionally indistinct from our own?
Say it's “5 clicks” either side - a modest imposition on our current state of Knowledge -

/…/- 4/…/…/…/ Constant A /…/…/…/…/…/
 /…/…/…/…/…/ Constant B /…/+2/…/…/…/
 /…/…/…/…/…/ Constant C /…/…/+3/…/…/
/…/…/…/… /-1/ Constant D /…/…/…/…/…/
/- 5/…/…/…/…/ Constant E /…/…/…/…/…/

Above you see a setting for “5 clicks either side of 5 Constants” Universe and there's another 1953124 combinations waiting in the wings….
Being Descriptively “same” as our Universe, if slightly “un-equal” in their innermost workings - all of them ought to eventually have resulted in Life. All Life ought to eventually have resulted in Language and all Languages ought to eventually have arrived at the statement “The Universe exists so it can be OBSERVED by Life”, or equivalents…
And in every Universe, each such statement would likewise have implied a so-called Higher Intelligence had “fine-tuned” it so Life could arise within and in turn - OBSERVE its particular Universe.
But we've seen already in the “Intelligent Design?” chapter the treacherous cliffs from which all assumptions of any alleged Divine Plans tumble down ass overhead into inconsequence - the cliffs of CHANCE.
As before - “fine-tuning” any 1 of those 1953125 Universes would only have been a 1 / 1953124 act of chance.

What might be the simplest VERSION of the above analysis, something that even a ten year-old can understand and be able to use with confidence? Just a plain numerical “………/ N /………” versus “ – x /………/ + x” will feed off the “granular” structure of Reality very effectively.
wHere, let us consider some other Descriptive item, the “Big Bang” for example…
Did the “Big Bang” consist of “infinite” or “finite” NUMBER of its “grains”?
Obviously their NUMBER was “finite” - some “N”. Now would changing that NUMBER to “N minus 92949136489 grains” or “N plus 5433219743 grains” have changed the Description of the “Big Bang” itself? Not on that scale…
w The consequences?
Many may claim that “Big Bang” is the result of “Creation”, but had it been so – it would only have been a “Chance OUTCOME” of the “Act of Chance” because of the “ANY…”

CONCLUSION 1

Why, in light of extraordinary intellectual advancements having taken place over the last two centuries of Modernity, do we still debate the “hypotheses of God and Creation”? Our Intellectual Elites became too hypnotized with explaining how things DO happen -
wUndoubtedly, the procedure of providing explanations to how things DO happen - then “testing” their validity, accounts for the most important part of our Knowledge. Commendable it may be, that procedure also contains a trap - awaiting the unwary…
w“Explain to me the origins of LIFE, how DID it begin?” - so goes a wholly perfunctory creationist challenge. Hey dude, somebody is interested in you addressing the central question of our existence – how good is that…
You might well spend hours, days even weeks elucidating the “most likely” scenarios for the origins of LIFE - merely to be obliterated by a devastating, and not entirely unreasonable riposte; “That was very interesting, but after all is said and done that's just pure speculation, isn't it?”
w What's the alternative?
Elementary… Instead of foolishly falling for the ruse of “Explain how LIFE began”, it's time to strike back with; “I don't care how LIFE began - it arose somehow, period. Now we're clear on this point, let us concentrate on how it COULDN'T have begun - then subtract the net conclusion”.

“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 2

( an excerpt from “Fools of Language” )

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.

DISCLOSING the “hypothetical” status of a NOUN isn't as onerous as it can at first appear – consider its EQUIVALENCE with a long-standing precedent of Law…
The Law of all civilized countries demands that prior to an “offence” being “tested”, this NOUN be scrupulously referred to as “hypothetical offence” - the contextual phrase is “alleged offence”, EVERY TIME it is used in court procedure.
But NOUNS penalize 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.

CONCLUSION 3

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