Suppose you are a science student and someone comes to you and says,"his grandfather painted the sky blue". What will you do? you will laugh at his ignorance.
Suppose someone else comes and says "it is blue because of reflection of ocean". You may now try to convince them that it is actually because of refraction of light. So at the same time another guy comes and says "you are talking rubbish, sky is not blue". Now what will happen, you will team up with two previous people and against this new person who says sky is not blue.
So, now starts the debate, which if is able to reach to any conclusion will end up with all four believing any of the assumptions above.
All 4 will say,
- person no 1's grandfather painted it blue
- it is due to reflection of ocean
- it is due to refraction
- sky is not blue at all
But does that debate and conclusion takes them any closer to the truth? Truth is sky looks blue due to refraction and actually sky is not blue! Imagine if someone with this knowledge had been in between these previous 4 idiots, what would have happened? Either they all would have agreed with him or person 3 & 4 would have asked him to choose either side rather than talking 2 things at a time.
And then suppose they all agreed on the last person's statement and then next person comes and says that sky does not exist. Sky has no colour, and one that has no colour can not be seen and why should I believe on existence of such a thing that cannot be seen?
Leave the discussion, but do you realise what is happening in this story? They all have their own assumptions about sky. They go through the debate thinking they will find out the truth but they are only finding common assumptions until someone else has something opposite to say. Neither of them agree with each other from the beginning, but as they go on meeting with new thoughts they are uniting but the unity is against someone and his new assumption.
I wonder, is something similar happening with people who believe in religion or call themselves atheist or some other beliefs? Are they really worried about truth or are they just trying to argue based on their own belief. Won't there be peace if all of them realise that there is no point in discussing about sky. Can't I realise that I don't need to write a blog post like this about the sky?
Does whatever they believe really matter? Will sky lose it's existence if they don't believe it? So why is there war in this world? all because of the assumptions. And the very problem with assumption is that it unites only against another assumptions. Why can't everyone drop their assumptions and be in peace?