Defining local, global, and religious variables.

First, I will define religion as I am using it in the below paragraphs. Religion is a system of beliefs, a life philosophy, which someone applies and lives by. By this definition "religion" does not just refer to formal religions in boxes, so to speak, but any structure, or lack thereof that a person might live by. Every person has their styling of religion by which they live by, which may or may not fit a name. The answer to the question, "Can we define religion," is "Yes!" and we absolutely must if we're to get anywhere! A definition does not necessarily have to be universal, but it is of the utmost importance that as individuals we are specific and precise about the things we mean when we speak. This is, if anything, more true for abstracts and importants such as religion.

Second, as promised, I will extend the hardware-software metaphor. I'm not claiming any of this is logically conclusive, but let this metaphor be accurate, then what would it suggest?

To summarize, briefly, what was said in class, the hardware and software of a computer can be said to symbolize the physical human and his religion, respectively. The essential idea here is that all computers are physicall built in a similar manner, in that they contain similar components to serve similar computational tasks. The abstract purpose of a computer might be very different. Computers might be used to pursue computational results in science, to connect together phones or other computers and serve as network enablers, or to provide a personal interface, for email, text editing, and numerous other features. Many kinds of software serve many different purposes, and so many interpretations of religion serve different people in different ways.

It is also clear that culture influences the shape that religion takes, and another extension of the metaphor in class relates how an operating system exacts parameters under which software must fit and be developed within. Furthermore, software local to a certain operating system tends to be more compatible with software sharing its operating system. religious within a culture tends to be more cohesive then religions across cultural barriers. With a little effort at understanding the underworkings of a piece of software, it can be altered slightly to be compatible with almost any other modern operating system. I certainly take stock in this and find value in striving to understand what exactly makes my religious "flavor" compatible with me, and what details, maybe unimportant, are incompatible with others.

Another reflection is that while software is the important part of computing... computers would be without value without software and algorithms... it is restricted by hardware. In science, the accuracy and speed of computation is limited by what technology is available. Software is constantly pushing the bounds of hardware, and faster processors and bigger hard drives are sought after to increase the capabilities of our software. Since software is abstract it has no limits, and hardware will always be the cause of the system bottleneck. Carrying through the metaphor, our bodies and minds limit what we can do with our religion, and the most capable minds can thus "run the newest version" and have the potential for the strongest use of religion. We should then strive to make the most of our minds. Of course, this is easy to say, but what exactly is making the most of your mind?

Software is produced mainly by either large companies, or by many users through open source. Commercial religion reflects greater planning ahead of time, is compatible with other software made by the company, and often has few or no (large) bugs when it is initially created, however, it is also often specifically made to be incompatible with competitor products. Open source, contrastingly, is user developed, and though system specific, is often developed in parallel for many systems. Bugs are fixed quickly. Changes happen rapidly to meet user needs. Occasionally it is harder to get different pieces of open source software to run smoothly together. Fortunately user demand results in rapid solution development. I would interpret commercial software as parallelling more formal "book" religion, our religion in boxes. Formal religions often intentionally denounce each other and are "incompatible." There adherence to rules and accepted practice make them slower to change. There is no strong modern parallel to "open source religion." Religious communities exist, but very few consciously work to dynamically change to suit the religious needs of their adherents. What would be necessary for a consciously dynamic religion?

Perhaps an overextended metaphor, but valuable nonetheless, at least to one person.