Paradox of religion: Love Your Enemy

Religion supposes another world after death: paradise / hell / nirvana / karma, etc... We live in incomplete world, because there is other 'truer' world. This replicates Plato philosophy (428--347 BC): behind something, is something, is something... till the pure idea (final judgment, karma, etc). In contrast, 'I think, therefore I am' (Descartes, 1637), showed the reality independent of Plato's parallel worlds. When I am thinking, regardless of what, 'I am' - whether there is or not 'truer' world.

Religions' rules (e.g. don't cheat) increase chances of future paradise. Expectation of future paradise may determine our current decision to obey the rules. Hume's (1748): 'A preceding B does not need to cause B' evolves to: '(expectation of) B may cause A now'. It fragments our time whose fraction is always occupied by expectations: Paradise is expected in future, and in future (e.g. tomorrow) paradise is expected in future, etc... Forever expected paradise leads to the paradox: Following religion to fulfill expectation of paradise, prevents paradise to exist. To realize paradise, it is necessary to deviate, at some moment, from religion. In other words, Jesus's 'Kingdom come' is not an expectation.

Paradise - if exists - must be somehow present already now (maybe not fully realized). And the religion to (may) be true must leave Plato's parallel worlds for the sake of Descartes' one world.

But it is a bit more complicated because: before understanding (or reinventing) Descartes, Plato's parallel worlds existed - otherwise Descartes' truer world could not exist. And at time of understanding of Descartes, it becomes Plato's 'truer' world without 'truer' world (=true idea). Also Plato could claim there is truer world than Descartes, i.e. Descartes is not the last station...

So, Plato's parallel worlds exist till individual grasps or invents Descartes' one world (= true idea). And Descartes's one world exists till individual grasps or invents Plato's parallel worlds...

It means Plato precedes Descartes and Descartes precedes Plato. To determine who is right, is like to answer: which came the first chicken or egg? Thus Plato's and Descartes's views alternate with each other. Once Plato is right, and Descartes may be expected, another time Descartes is right, and Plato may be expected...

Analogically, paradise / hell / karma - is true or expected. When it is expected (following religion) it can't be true.

Breaking the rule is a chance to make expectation true, even though deviation (in itself) does not guarantee it will happen. It only opens possibility of paradise.

Miro.Brada