“And time, that takes survey of all the world, Must haves a stop.” (Henry IV Part I, Act 5, Scene 4) As I went about last night, turning back clocks, I had an epiphany of sorts. Creation stories, and the religions that flow from them, exist because we do not understand the concept of time. Aristotle observed, nearly 25 centuries ago, that ‘time is the most unknown of all unknown things.’ We exist in time, and we think it had a beginning, and that it has an end. We look at time in the asymmetric terms of a one-way direction from a fixed, unchanging past, through the present, and toward an unknown future. Religion seeks to turn the unknown future into something fixed by usurping time’s beginning. Religion seeks to explain how time started and that time has an eschatology. Christianity explains those end of times in ways intended to prompt us to act in righteous ways today. Religion is predicated upon this concept of time. The arrow of time implies an archer, and an arrow let loose in a specific direction. The arrow of time posits a universe that destined to degrade into a thermal equilibrium. We say that time began with the Big Bang (or Genesis, if you are one of the literal believers). In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute Time does not “flow;” it just “is”. Our perception of time as an arrow with direction is nothing more than an illusion of our consciousness. Modern physicists do not regard time as “passing” or “flowing,” nor is time just a sequence of events which happen: both the past and the future are simply “there”, laid out as part of four-dimensional space-time. We’ve been to some of those places and there are others we have yet to arrive at. For tens of thousand of years we have been accustomed to thinking of all parts of space as existing even if we are not there to experience them. All of time (past, present and future) are constantly in existence even if we are not able to witness them. If time does not “flow”, then, it just “is.” The concept of a ‘now’ that moves along in time, giving the appearance of a flow or direction is, in the words of Einstein, ‘only a stubbornly persistent illusion.’ Religion usurped time, seeking to ‘take survey of all the world.’ If time just ‘is’ and if there is no arrow of time with a set direction, then what answer has relgion?

The values we cherish in a civil society are reason and respect. These are secular ethical and moral values upon which a democracy rests. We cherish a hope that the collective decisions we make are made in the best interests of the polity - be that polity a neighborhood association, or the city, county, state, or nation. Not all of us are willing to show that respect. The nature of politics amidst a population willing to subvert the ethics or the moral values of this hope have produced what we are enduring and will endure as we watch be broken the fetters of reasoned discussion the Founders hoped would bind us into an open and civil society. There is an explicit problem here - some are tempted to use unethical or immoral processes to influence the collective judgments that drive public policy. When we stop being ethical or moral in the tools and methods we use to develop public policy we then undermine the foundation of civil society that can exist only so long as we respect each other.

The Phillip Dick quote is, to me, the essence of existentialism. It gives me as much peace as I would ever get from prayer (which is not to say that prayer ever gave me any peace).

As one of those who commented far more extensively than I ought to have, I am interested in the nature of the comments. There are essentially two threads, with rebuttals to each. The first thread damns Laurel as a liberal. Being liberal, nothing whatsoever that she says is true. This person has three answers: to agree, to vilify, and when truly put in a corner, to remain silent. He is the face of 21st century fascism. The second is a born again type. He plays fast and loose with language, using words in ways that no dictionary of etymology would recognize. He admits to having supported the killing of babies before he was born again, for example. And having been reborn, he sees no merit in reading anything that would question his faith. I've downloaded all of the comments, and they run to more than 20 pages. I save them because the themes from the usual suspects are seldom original and it is easy to pick out an appropriate rebuttal, refine, and polish it and then post it. The two threads (fascist and evangelical) represent commentators who have lost their individuality to their message. They are the message; they have been subsumed by the message. Toying with them is a way to understand how the extremist mind works. Rebuttal to them is mostly reasoned and thoughtful. They seek to be vilified in the way they choose to vilify, preach to, or demean and have trouble with mature criticism. Rebuttal did not imply that we entirely supported everything Laurel wrote; each had some point where what we thought we might differ, but the differences were presented in a starkly contrasting manner to the sad anti-intellectualism of these usual suspects. These are people who would destroy the Bill of Rights in order to preserve the Bill of Rights. These are people for whom what they believe, is true. This inversion of the process of determining truth is what leads to tyranny.

Adam Gopnik reviewed Harari's latest book "Homo Deus" in the 20 March issue of The New Yorker. Gopnik writes: "Harari’s larger contention is that our homocentric creed, devoted to human liberty and happiness, will be destroyed by the approaching post-humanist horizon. Free will and individualism are, he says, illusions. We must reconceive ourselves as mere meat machines running algorithms, soon to be overtaken by metal machines running better ones. By then, we will no longer be able to sustain our comforting creed of “autonomy,” the belief, which he finds in Rousseau, that “I will find deep within myself a clear and single inner voice, which is my authentic self,” and that “my authentic self is completely free.” In reality, Harari maintains, we have merely a self-deluding, “narrating self,” one that recites obviously tendentious stories, shaped by our evolutionary history to help us cope with life. We are—this is his most emphatic point—already machines of a kind, robots unaware of our own programming. Humanism will be replaced by Dataism; and if the humanist revolution made us masters the Dataist revolution will make us pets." My narrative self is somewhat dated, and this strikes me as more dystopian than I can wrap my head around. Is anything like this in the book you read?

Does this include those who could not find it in their heart to vote for Ciinton? In 2016, well before the election, I posted this in response to someone. Several months have passed, and my judgement still holds. I wonder how the person to whom this was directed would answer your challenge: "Trump is a fascist and Clinton is not. Trump does not respect those who disagree with him. Fascism is not a word I use lightly. While Clinton will not issue in a new age, she is the foundation upon which we can strive to have one built. Trump will, on the other hand, issue forth a new, and very dark, age. "I have studied government; I have studied history, and I have studied the the absence of any underlying ethics or moral values to fascism and I see far more congruity between fascism and Trump than I do any dissimilarity. "Thus I feel as justified in my anger at the prospects of his election, as do many of you toward Ms Clinton. Trump’s sins are mortal; Clinton’s are venal in comparison. "Clinton is not perfect, but the perfect horror of a Trump victory is sufficient for me to support her in every way that I can. Morally the sins of omission are as deadly as the sins of commission."

With the exception of number #9 I think you have made a sober assessment. You are being far too generous to the person. May I suggest some further points, drawn from a reading of His inaugural address. He feeds upon His base just as they feed upon Him. He is their voice and they will act as the instruments of His righteous anger. I do not support Him because I have feared that He represents a 21st Century incarnation of the evil that nations committed to civility fought so hard against during WWII. I see in some of His supporters little more than SA in mufti. I would add: 10. There will be a dramatic increase in partisanship. His speech, read carefully, invites an open season on dissent. The speech about as clearly as possible invites and “us” versus “them” paradigm. If you are not with Us there is no place for you. 11. Having stoked a sense that those who do not support His agenda are opposed to those He has fueled as victims, I expect to see suppression of speech and assembly. The condescension Evangelicals have for those who do not share their world view will be mirrored in the political arena. Those who do not support Him will receive the same goodwill that many Evangelicals extend to those who do not share their faith. Just as religious freedom extends only to those who share similar values, political freedom will do so as well. Those who do not sufficiently support Him should rightfully feel the wrath of those who are the True Believers. 12. There will be an increase in the sale of Jack London’s “The Iron Heel.” With no appeal to community, with no respect for diversity, expect exactly the opposite.

"Hurd explores the ramifications of secularism and religious freedom on the global stage in her provocatively titled Beyond Religious Freedom. Political secularism and the attendant logic of religious freedom, she shows, have long been central to the governing methods of the United States, the United Nations, and many individual states too. In her view, the category of religion is a clumsy one, and the religious-secular binary obscures more than it illuminates. It is impossible, she thinks, to disentangle elements of a society that are religious from those that are not. “To rely for policy purposes on the category of religious actor,” she argues, is to “presume a certain form of actorship motivated by religion that is neither intellectually coherent nor sociologically defensible.” From a review of several books that might interest you: http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/james-chappel-secularism-religion?utm_source=New+Daily+Newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=8fadd370f6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4675a5c15f-8fadd370f6-81843045 The Boston Review April 25, 2016, "Holy Wars - Secularism and the invention of religion" by James G. Chappel

I agree with Kurt. Thank you. I'm starting to think that you represent the world of post-print local journalism.

Does Pollyanna have a dark side? I try to embrace evidence, from which I seek facts, and ultimately, truth. In cognition there is the great seducer that seeks to drive you down a path to unwarranted optimism or pessimism. Keeping the great seducer at bay is the greatest challenge there is to clear thinking. I credit myself with a basic understanding of government and what philosophers and politicians have said and thought about the nature of government. I have no reason to question the judgment of a Plato, Socrates, Machiavelli, or the authors of The Federalist Papers about the nature and purpose of government. I also credit myself with a basic understanding of history. I know that tyranny lurks within the best motives. The 14th of July, 1789 stands as a date in French history when the people rose above the monarchy. The republican dreams set out the The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen) turned into the The Committee of Public Safety (Comité de salut public) after which tyranny stalked the land. I know that the alienation of Germans produced Hitler, and from him the Holocaust. These are the ingredients or filters through which I understand what is at play. I sufficiently understand how fragile is the structure of a republic to fear that how people will vote could well make manifest the spectre of tyranny. I swing between doubt and hope and I have no idea how I will cope if the doubt I have triumphs Tuesday. The strength of the republic is in the ability of those with the franchise to exercise that franchise with the wisdom the Founders intended. The great misfortune of this election and its debilitating effect on the future is that we are motivated by the demons of distrust, disliking one candidate so much we have lost the ability to see the corrosive flaws in the other. Our hatred of one candidate causes us to attribute sainthood to the other. We live in a Twitter world. We live in the twilight of the world of which the Founders dreamt. We live in a world of 240 characters, no longer having the cognitive capacity to absorb the 3,035 words of even one of the Federalist papers. If you have any of that cognitive capacity remaining, I suggest you read but one of those critical Papers, Federalist 10. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

"The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." (Alfred North Whitehead) Tragedy is the “solemnity of the remorseless working of things” and the purpose of life, whether you are like Brian or Amon Bundy, is to avoid tragedy. The remorseless working of things lies at the heart of moral philosophy, ethics, and religion. Unique (so far as we know) among we who exist (or were created, depending upon your perspective) is our recognition of that the path we are on has about it a remorselessness that we have little ability to control or to determine or to possibly understand. Brian writes later about the distinction between determinism and fatalism. We seek, through reason or the dictates of faith to set ourselves on that path most likely to avoid the tragedy of that remorseless working of things. For me, the tragedy comes with finding myself on a path from which I cannot turn back and that I am being pushed by and confronted with a remorseless working over which I have no control. The most I can do is to make minor corrections. For me that remorseless path leads to a door through which I alone pass and through which I cannot return, despite each of us also inexorably progressing toward similar doors. A precious few of us have the knowledge or understanding to clear away the cobwebs or pierce the fog of the past or the near future to see more clearly than do others. Some seek to clear away that fog through faith and the dictates of a supreme being, doing so in order to cope with this remorseless working that carries us as we also carry ourselves forward. The remorseless working does not permit backtracking or stopping; the remorseless working is inexorable. Individually and collectively we seek to make those corrections of which we are capable. In a secular society we collectively make those corrections through law and civil behavior. Amon Bundy, as do all evangelicals, seeks to rely upon a higher power and to justify his actions based upon the dictates and the words of that higher power. Amon Bundy thinks he was placed here as the agent of a higher authority. I reject that notion. For me and for the clarity I have as to my personal end the remorseless working as in store for me says that the highest authority is the collective decisions we make through our secular civil society. I can only buy into that which I have been born and bred to as a citizen. Your personal actions must be guided by the values you have framed through your own struggles to understand this remorseless working of things. You cannot dictate to me the corrections I must make; the only entities that can do that are the civil and political structures we and our ancestors framed in order for us to live and work together in some modicum of amity.

I forgot to include Risser's response: Richard - I enjoyed your analysis of the differences between the Statesman Journal and the Register Guard. I don't quite understand your point about turning to the RG or the New York Times for local Salem news, but I found the other comparisons between papers in similar cities to be quite interesting. As anyone can conclude anything if they limit their measures, I think it would be only fair to make a comparison on several additional factors, including locally produced stories, lively stories that engage real readers, stories about people rather than the actions of institutions, and coverage of state government and state worker issues. In those areas and others, I believe we beat the Eugene paper. And of course we have room to grow. If you would like to advise me on local stories upon which we should unleash our not-insubstantial forces, I would be very delighted to evaluate them and take off the leashes as appropriate. I've forwarded your note to our publisher in case she'd like to send less money to Gannett. Cheers, David

In April of 2003, I sent the following to the then publisher, David Risser. Nothing changes: This is in response to your commentary in the Statesman Journal, Sunday, April 6, 2003 The Headline: "Newspaper strives to present balanced coverage of war" The bullet that jumped out: "If we use our barrels of ink on the war, are we neglecting other areas? We regularly shift attention to breaking news. Coverage of some subjects may be shelved. But only temporarily. It's not long before we continue shining a light on traditional local news." What kind of light? Through a Glass Darkly?; through rose-colored lenses?; with a dim bulb? Balanced coverage? Yes, I think that your war coverage has done a good job. But I'm puzzled by a later comment: "Our news staff strives to be fair and unbiased. Our newsroom is filled with thinking, caring people who reflect the community." I agree that they are, but my sense is that you sure keep them on a short leash with respect to local news. In order to get a complete spectrum of local, state, and national news, I pick up the Eugene Register-Guard and the Sunday NYTimes. I don't expect either paper to be the Times, but the two local papers should be comparable. I did a small comparison of the Statesman Journal (SJ) and the Eugene Register Guard (RG). I would appreciate any feedback you and the editorial staff may have (though that response may be constrained by your corporate overlords). I used the Sunday, April 6th editions of the two papers for comparison. PRICE: SJ, $1.50; RG, $1.25. TOTAL WEIGHT: SJ, 2lb. 13-oz.; RG 2lb. 4-oz. WEIGHT OF NEWS SECTIONS: SJ, 5 oz.; RG 11-oz. I know this may be an unusual comparison, but it does indicate the amount of paper, ink, and staffing that must be needed to have more than twice the news that the Salem paper has. The RG provided a 12 page section dedicated to local and state news. Their editorials are in a separate section. The RG provided 8 pages of sports, with even a section for letters (with a 250 word limit). They even do a good job of covering OSU sports. The RG has a 12 page Oregon Life Section covering arts, travel, books, and concerts. The RG has a solid 8 pages of business news. And finally, a four page editorial section (with a much greater word limit for letters). The RG has more reporters, greater local coverage, and the best sports section in the state AND a lower price. If both papers shared a common market, the RG would seemingly win hands down. The articles are better written, the schedules are accurate; they still appear to use proof readers to review news for accuracy of spelling and grammar. You can read the first two paragraphs and get the gist of the article, as we were taught in journalism class. It does take longer to read. How can the Register Guard provide more news, especially local news, at a lower price? I'd suggest that you need to give less to Gannett and increase the number of reporters that you have on the beat. I have no sense of what is happening in Salem and it is sad to hear the news from other sources (for example, a gang fight(?) downtown recently that was not reported). My sense is that the SJ is to local news what ClearChannel is to local radio - there is no one there when you need them. Sincerely, Richard van Pelt

Another day, another mass killing (2 Dec, 2015 edition) I have a question: Why do guns get greater protection than people. I am registered as an individual and the state can find me very easily. Why, then, do I rate lower than someone’s Glock? Defenders of the the 2nd Amendment rely on the Evangelical teachings of Christianity to defend gun ownership in the face of daily mass shootings. In 2013 the SJ published a column by Rob Toornstra is pastor of Sunnyslope Christian Reformed Church, in which he addressed gun control: “In the face of a crisis, the immediate temptation is to call for change. “Generally, those on the left side of the social and political spectrum tend to seek change to rules. They push for more restrictions on who can purchase guns or more control over the kinds of weapons a person can purchase. Meanwhile on the right are those who insist that the solution lies in changing the individual by teaching people to behave better, by improving morals or by returning to old-fashioned family values. “While both sides may offer ideas that may help manage the evil in our world, neither approach will ever be able to address the root causes of the violence around us.” He wrote that “rules can only restrain us. They cannot change our hearts.” Why, then, did God summon Moses to the top of Sinai? Why is most of the Old Testament and most of the new from John forward, little more than rules and injunctions on humans? Is this the best answer he and those who hold the 2nd Amendment above civil relationships can give? Or do they say that we cannot know God’s intent and that there was a reason only He could know as to why they were called to Him? If so, we should honor the shooter, as we should honor all such people because they evidently are the agents of God. He wrote that “When we realize that it is ultimately our guilt that is responsible for driving the nails through Jesus’ hands and feet, and when we trust that even so, Jesus prays for our forgiveness, we begin to grasp the love that God has for us.” Our guilt does not prevent us from imposing our own constraints in order to prevent the destructive manifestations of guilt; that is why communities exist. We impose restrictions on ourselves in order to reduce the level of violence that is inherent in our sinful natures; we impose collective restrictions on our sinful nature in order to assure that we all are able to live in peace with each of us having a fair chance of doing some good or finding a good and wholesome existence. When fervor becomes evangelical it becomes dangerous. I am concerned. In part because I fear that some gun owner will use his trigger finger to solve a problem rather than his head (as in Waco; as in San Bernadio; as in Roseburg). A second concern is the inverse relationship between civil discourse and advocacy of an untrammeled Second Amendment that occurs when an opinion such as this is expressed. Though we are stuck with what we have, and which I accept (as a still civil member of society), we are not precluded from advocating for rational changes within the constraints of the Constitution. When we make a civil observation; rebuttal should also be civil. I would have fewer concerns if I thought there was any positive relationship between one’s freedom of speech and the response of NRA types. There isn’t and that is why I distrust swaggering gun owners out of fear of those who would think with their fingers rather than with their heads. Hotheads I can deal with; hotheads with arms I cannot (nor should I)

I wonder how Hereclitus and the Epicurians would respond. Seems to me there would be a lot with which they would agree.

The usual suspects will say that Islam "is only one fundamentalism that does this!" There was a time and a period when Christians routinely did this. Today, Christians just kill with their words, narrow, bigoted, and spiteful people who will hold entire groups at fault for the actions of groups no one has contol over. These pious and self-righteous paragons, though, have no problem whatsoever using the tools of the state to use the state to impose on others values they can find only through their reading of scripture. If this is not sharia-type fundamentalism, I don't know what is. On another forum, I made the following comments, which I think are germane here: I cannot do anything about your narrow-minded bigotry. It is your right as an American to be bigoted as it is your right to hold values that undermine the principles upon which this country was created. I don’t respect your values, but I have to accept your right to hold them. I weep that four out of ten of us believe as you do. I weep that another four out of ten are utterly ambivalent to the values you hold. It will cheer you that there are so few of us willing to stand up to the toxic principles you represent. I weep that there are those like you whose faith is so strong they would use secular legislation in order to impose religious values upon the rest of us while despising those who believe other than yourself. I weep that there are so few who will not stand up in defense of the pluralism of American values that allow people to co-exist, working together to make this a society based upon respect rather than rejection. Rejection seems to be the direction this country is headed, and if so, you have to accept the consequences. But I will not accept your accusing me of supporting the vicious actions of ISIS simply because I respect the religious values of others. As much as I disagree with your faith-based values, I do not condemn all Christians. Nor do I condemn all Muslims for the infection that plagues their co-believers.

When you are at the apex of the sentient pyramid, and you are also without hubris, isn't there a contemplation that there may be something else beyond our limited perception? If you are at the apex and you are full of hubris, isn't there a response that I have to survive simply because of my magnificence? Sort of a timeless dilemma.

Brian: I want to extend my thanks for your critiques of the Statesman-Journal. I am not a journalist and have found myself rebuffed by Dick Hughes for pointing out basic editorial issues along the lines that I would be more understanding if I could only walk in his shoes . Mike Davis has no time to defend his paper on OPB, but he always wants me to call him when I've tried to point out to him similar issues. We regularly watch Rachel Maddow. She frequently emphasizes the importance of on-the-ground print journalists and the vital importance of local newspapers. I had typed "the role newspapers play" but felt that "play" is what the SJ does, as in "playing games;" "play" is not what journalism is about (though I can be criticized for this as I am not a journalist and hence am not qualified to pass judgment on those who are initiates). I also thank you for seeking to distinguish the work that the reporters do from the paper itself. We sometimes unfairly lump the likes of Zach Urness, Henry Miller, Victor Panichkul, and the trained reporters with Hughes and Davis. The paper's decision to be USA today with a spattering of what passes for local reporting as determined by the editorial staff may now be the best part of the paper. I wouldn't know. For several years, we've augmented our subscription to the SJ with the New York Times. I simply pitch the USA today part, and the balance becomes what I call "the moment of silence" as that is about the amount of time that it takes to read. I am especially galled at the paper's use of their two balancing (?) columnists, Ron Eachus and Dan Lucas: column inches printed without any editorial responsibility. Again, good job.

Might want to look at what happened during the Partition when the sub-continent was partitioned between India and Pakistan. I had always thought Buddhists were the only faith committed to non-violence and respect for others, but have been proven wrong there. I'm starting to conclude that we must have two genes: one for irrationality and a second for killing others whose irrational beliefs are not the same as ours.

It was easy for those you ably critique to rip apart Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." I wonder how they will react to the Papal litany of inconvenient truths?

I think there is one overarching principle that applies to all societies at all times in our history, and which is the basis for all government: hubris. Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, but I think that hubris, or overweening pride is the human failing, which all strictures hope to help us avoid. Plato has Socrates and Glaucon discuss Gyges' Ring which I interpret as hubris without consequences. I could argue that all human transgressions (upon which values, morals, laws, and the state ultimately exist to constrain) derive from acts of hubris.

Thus there is no basis for moral values? The late Ronald Dworkin wrote that “No government is legitimate unless it subscribes to two reigning principles. First, it must show equal concern for the fate of every person over whom it claims dominion. Second, it must respect fully the responsibility and right of each person to decide how to make something valuable of his life.” (Dworkin, Justice for Hedgehogs 2) “. . . [I]n a genuinely democratic community each citizen participates as an equal partner, which means more than just that he has an equal vote. It means that he has an equal voice and an equal stake in the result.” (Dworkin, 5) These two principles place boundaries around theories of distributive justice - theories that stipulate the resources and opportunities a government should make available to those it governs. There can be no politically neutral distribution. A laissez-faire political economy that leaves unchanged the consequences of a free market does not show equal concern for everyone. The opposite fails to meet the second principle. Distributive justice calls for a solution to simultaneous equations - balancing the two underlying principles that are the basis of a legitimate government.

I would suggest AV is caught in the paradox that bedeviled Luther: there exists and utterly transcendent and unknowable beyond man's comprehension yet man is also stuck with the concrete words of Scripture. If what you can know is delimited by Scripture, then everything we see and measure that is inconsistent with Scripture is what? The work of Satan? Some so think. On the other hand, if you take Scripture as metaphor, then it ceases to be the word of the deity and you have to fall back on faith, which cannot be seen, measured, or weighed. There will always exist the question you cannot answer, nor can I, nor can AV: where did it all come from? You cannot disprove the existence of an unknown. Nor can you prove the existence of an unknown. All one can do is hypothesize.

There is an excellent book I recommend: Burning to Read (James Simpson, Harvard University Press). The book challenges the idea that the Reformation spawned the Enlightenment. The book deals with the issues around the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. Central to the book is a discussion of Martin Luther and the struggles (theological and psychological) Luther when through when faced with translating and promoting the message of the Bible. He clearly understood the transcendental nature of his god. He understood that transcendental nature intellectually in a sense utterly at odds with Evangelicalism and Christianity as practiced today. Ironically, you write about the very issue that tore Luther to pieces intellectually. Luther was faced with a paradox. Here is the Bible, the unexpurgated and final word of god, not one word of which could be added, not one word of which could be subtracted. He understood that his deity was so vastly beyond the powers of human conception that no one could ever know what god was or had in mind for the universe. He very clearly knew that no amount of prayer could alter the course god had set for a person. He knew that no one could ever know what fate (god) had in store for a person upon their death. He considered certainty as to what god intends to be utter hubris. He also accepted the principle that man is damned, saved solely by the grace of god, a grace he could never know because of the utter transcendence of god. You very clearly set out that, when faced with the transcendent, your understanding of that transcendence is yours alone, as anyone who has ever had a psychedelic experience can affirm. It can never qualify as knowledge. I have knowledge of a hydrogen atom, though I have never seen one. I can share that knowledge with you because both you and I can measure and weigh the atom and verify its existence. Experience of the transcendent (or beliefs there regarding) are contained solely within the person. The only possible knowledge I can have is your assertion of that experience. Faith may be real, but it has no existence beyond the mind of the believer. I do not understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp. The recognition that faith inheres solely to the individual or to a community of individuals is why we maintain a separation between church and state. This is a paradox solely in the mind of the faithful who think we should be required to follow the obligations their faith places on them, even though it is utterly impossible for us to grasp the nexus between their faith and behavior and their seeming desire to impose it upon us.