JayLeClay on Nostr: This extra comment is a nice follow up to your other one, because I was going to ask ...

This extra comment is a nice follow up to your other one, because I was going to ask whether you acknowledged the relativism of your answer. And, it sounds like you are by recognizing that it’s “assessed individually.”
Lately, I’ve begun to see that epistemology, itself, is entirely relative, too. Or, at least, entirely subjective, which is basically the same thing, no? So, if all religious understanding (whether about god or gods, Confucianism or Taoism) is only *relatively* true, then they might as well be false. We’re looking for something that True, always and everywhere.
Since we were on the topic of evolution, I should point out that I wouldn’t say that “science” is True, here either. Far from it, in fact! Science is constantly being tested, updated, challenged, and questioned (as it should be). Science may tell us “how” but it cannot tell us “why.” Adherence to any religion that purports to have an answer to how and why by pointing to an imaginary entity possessed of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, should be only lightly held, if at all.
Again, I don’t want to poke at what you hold sacred. Your beliefs are yours, to whatever extent your conditioning creates them.