All people make guesses. Some are better at guessing, or they are simply luckier than others in getting nearer the truth. Some people simply have more information to make more educated guesses. For a reason these people are more often right than others. Even they may be wrong. It may be a result of  them being biased about the issues or simply misinterpreting the evidence, not because of all that they know, but because what little they do not know.

As it seems economical experts have made some bold guesses, that did not prove to be correct. As a result the world economy has plunged into a recession. It is typical to the guessing, that usually it is motivated not what seems to be correct, but what we would choose to be correct. People rather believe a pleasant and compelling suggestion, than the complicated truth. On the other hand fear is the key for many to believe in a particular guesses.

Fear of the outsider, or unknown is a powerfull factor in this mind game of guessing. If there is a rehabilitation center for alcoholics, or drug addicts, or a nursing home for the disabled being build in the neighbourhood, the ugly head of fearfull guessing raises its head. Suddenly there are loads of people who argue that they fear for their children and especially that their property value goes down. They are outraged, if their concerns are not tolerated. As if we were expected to tolerate the most vile intolerance of some. Having lived close by to alcoholist rehabilitation centre, insane asulym and a hospital giving treatment to drug addicts I would say, these were better built around rental housing. Just because the bad guesses those who actually own their houses may cause harm to the people who need these public services. For sure it will cause more harm to the children of these intolerant people, as they will pass on to the next generation their hate of the unknown.  People like me in rental flats could not care less if the neighbouring building is a re-hab center. Nor are their children harassed by their strange  neighbours.

What do we know? You and I know the world is round since some authority has told us so, but to verify that idea we only need to look at the horizon. It curves and the rest of the world is somewhere beyond. Hence, the information we have about this matter is rationally acceptable. We may wonder, how did our ancestors not come to think about such an obvious matter. What on earth made them think the world is flat, when it does not look it? Would we have come to question that the world is flat, if the same authority that told us it is round had told it to be flat?

If we had lived in them days when all people still thought the world is flat, we would propably have accepted it to be so. The reason why someone ever even claimed the world is flat, is that they did not know, what is the shape of the world, so they made up an explanation they thought sounded just right. It was a guess on the shape of the world. That they chose the world to be flat, shows how little they knew or bothered even to think about the matter, when looking at the horizon would have told them immediately, it to be a poor guess.  A number of world views were built on such guesses. This one claimed the world to be disc on the back of a giant, that one said it is a disc held up by invisible pillars. None of them represents anything than a poor guess of the matters. These wild guesses have since been shown to be totally and utterly nonsense. But instead people would have given up all the nonsense invented to explain the world beyond the horizon and all the unknown matters in it, they canonize these unplausible guesses. People like to say these mythological explanations are not simply nonsense, but defend them by claiming them to be metaphysical, or metaphors for something completely else. However, they were not metaphors to the people who invented them, nor to the countless generations who believed in them for centuries.

What if something in a religious text, that was for centuries understood as a factual truth, is proven scientifically to be false? Is it honest to claim it to be actually meant to be a metaphor? If that piece of religious fancy is actually a metaphor, how can we tell, what parts of religious texts are actually to be accepted as facts and what are mere metaphors? Some parts of religious texts abide to the scientific testing and others are possibly beyond our capablity of testing. But why should we believe anything to be absolutely true, if there is no way of proving such? All those things that science can not prove to be true or false may also be later found out to be mere metaphors for something completely else. Is for example god in the Bible just a mere metaphor, a metaphor for universal moralism, or the creative force of life energy?  Maybe it is just a metaphor for the national spirit of the twelve jewish tribes?

There may be a day, when the science can prove the existance some particular god or gods, but until that day we will have to choose whose guesses on the matter are plausible to us. If it is just the authority who claims to know that a particular god exists because it says so in the same book that claims the world is supported by the invisible pillars, or that it is a flat disc on the back of a giant tortoise, should we trust such an authority?

Science is not a religion or a philosophy. Neither is it an ideology. Therefore it itself has no bias to find previoulsy invented world views wrong. It is just a bunch of the best guesses on what can be verifiably found true by people who have researched a particular issue, with the best tools and methods available. It has no dogmas, it is under constant change and very unconservative by nature, though some scientist may hold conservative ideals and every scientist has their own particular world view with included bias.

If we are to choose either the theories science presents, or the religious ideals that contradict those theories on how the universe around actually is, honestly we can only accept the religious ideals by abandoning reason and embracing faith. Faith is not build on reason. It is built on feelings, or to say it in other words, it is based on the subconscious.

Scientific theories may be later proven to be wrong, but they are not wrong because they contradict some particular system of superstition. Science can take alteration, how about religions? Certainly most of them have been altered many times as the knowledge of the surrounding universe has increased.

To be perfectly honest, I doubt it, if there are any gods that hold any benevolent interrest towards humanity,  or that if there are gods, they are in any need for us to worship them. In fact it would be reasonable to expect them to be proud of us, if we finally claimed indepence and as adults took responsibility of our own actions. Certainly they would be appalled by us bickering about whose ancestors had the most correct guesses of gods, when they wrote theirs up. Especially so,  as those scriptures have obviously been written in the very limited knowledge of the universe of those past times.

Is the world flat? Was the earth created before the sun? Are there gods? Your guess is as good as mine, but on what do you base your opinion about it?