My cousin's comment on the long 3rd entry

I apologize for the length of blog #3, it was an important point to me and I got carried away.

Anyway, here is one thing my cousin said about it, which helps explain it:

As usual, there's the problem of definitions. You can get very confused by using the same words as other people but meaning something else. I think everybody is religious if you mean they have faith in something that they can't prove, or if you mean that they make rules for themselves to follow in all of life that they think aren't just things they made up (re - ligare -- to bind again, if that's even the right etymology), or that people have developed entire systems of thought that function as systems and which affect everything they do (I think this is maybe what Abraham Kuyper meant?) But then there's the Henry James definition, something like "related to experiences that are transcendental" (what you mean by "spiritual"?) and then "thinks there's a supernatural world". "Science" could just be any body of knowledge, or it could be induction + falsification, which both apply to religion somewhat, or it could be induction + falsification according to a particular social program (induction + falsification about things that everybody can access publicly, ideally repeatable) which gives rise to the "science" in "science class", which is really just information about the natural world. It seems the big division is between public experience and private experience, as to the popular distinctions between "science" and "religion". - James Banks