Two spring to mind - lack of control over that happens in the world and uncertainty about how one ought to act or react.
The only constant is change.
Books are acceptable and I agree with the need for stability.
The point is whatever ‘book’ that is to be introduced must not be made immutable, e.g. in Islam and the Quran;
Quran 50:29. The sentence [word, l-qawlu الْقَوْلُ ق و ل ] that cometh from Me [Allah] cannot be changed,
18:27 There is none who can change His [Allah’s] words, and thou wilt find no refuge beside Him.
Quran 30:30 There is no altering (the laws [revelations] of) Allah’s creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not.
Quran 10:64 There is no changing the Words of Allah that is the Supreme Triumph.
Quran 6:115. Perfected [watammat: perfect, complete, fulfil] is the Word [Quran] of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words [the Quran].
What is wrong with Islam [in part] is the Quran contain loads of evil elements that can influence and inspire SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence around the world. Such a doctrine of evil is made immutable and thus eternal within Islam.The evidence of the actualization and reality of the above is very glaring.
Religions are a critical necessity for the majority of humans but that is only for a certain era and not meant to be eternal.
What kind of psychological experiences?
The existential roots of religion is existence itself, i.e. the fear of non-existence while in existence which generate a cognitive dissonance.
It is the seeking of cognitive consonance that drives the majority of people towards religion as a balm to soothe the psychological angst of DOOM.
I believe atheist Aldous Huxley [I mixed up earlier] had better views on the above subject than J. Huxley.
When one start off one’s premise with the idea of God [which is ungrounded and illusory] the rest of the premises will fall into pieces ultimately.
One of the problem is the altered-states-of-consciousness experiences by people who have had experiences of the so-called ‘enlightenment’ [divine or spiritual] are usually no different from those who have similar experiences from drugs, madness [various sorts], brain damage, out-of-the-blue, etc. which has nothing to do with the divine nor recognized spirituality.
As such if one were to rely on experiences on the altered-states-of-consciousness, then there is a possibility of danger and a threat to humanity when mad people [schizophrenics, epileptics, etc.] who have had altered-states-of-consciousness are wrongly recognized as divine people and are worshiped by the masses.
In the past many of the wrong recognition has happened and people are misled to commit evil of scams, scandals, false gurus etc. The most notable case at present is Muhammad who had experienced altered-states-of-consciousness and was attributed with the founding of Islam. It is on the basis of this error and wrong recognition that has manifested terrible evils and violence by SOME evil prone Muslims who are awashed with the evil ethos of Muhammad running through the doctrines of Islam.
To avoid the above mistakes of promoting false religious leaders, we should dig deep to find out the ultimate root causes of religions. As I had proposed the ultimate root cause of religions arise from the unavoidable existential DOOM spreading its tentacles through the neural web of the individual life that compel him/her into clinging on to a religion.
Psychological sources of the need for religion may include the following:
- Religion includes a desire to return to the womb wherein all physical needs are met.
- Religion is a search for something personal and immobile in a world of impersonal flux and change.
- Religion is a search for belonging, for being able to glean a sense of self-worth or substantiation from communication with what is other than the self.
Of the three basic existential experiences–Being, Becoming, and Belonging, Belonging appears to describe the essential goal of the religious search.
I think Aldous was an agnostic as was his brother Julian. Yes, both come to the conclusion that certain states of consciousness appear to be spiritual, but are actually natural. But, both conclude there is more to mysticism than can be rationally explained. Both men were primarily concerned with how to achieve morality in a society without relying on organized religions with their threats or enticements.
How can there be morality without some sort of consequences for behavior?
False, and so very yuppie cliche´ (yet expected).
There are things about nature that can never, ever change regardless of recent propaganda and secular religiosity. And in a better world, such things would be recognized as eternal truths and thus the foundation of understanding and religion. Unlike your mis-education, religions are founded upon what are considered at the time to be eternal truths. Of course people make mistakes concerning such things, much like your “the only constant is change” silliness. But people being in error concerning a truth does not constitute the lack of a truth, just as people misunderstanding what it is that never changes doesn’t change it fact that it never changes.
That is really how you should have introduced yourself (for next time).
Seriously??
You don’t think that a yearning for hope and dependability in a heinous and chaotic world aren’t involved?
What is the root cause for this?
What is the root cause for this?
What is the root cause for this?
If you dig deeper there are more fundamental root causes for what you have proposed.
Belongingness is driven by the emotions of love and happiness, yearning for security, etc. But there are deeper causes for these emotions.
This statement is verifiable from observation of reality. Show me proof of anything that do not change?
You are the one who is mis-educated by insisting there is some thing in nature that can never ever change, i.e. unconditonally and absolutely constant or absolutely permanent?
My usual charge against your views is they are narrow and shallow.
As above, show me proof where in nature [thus empirically] there is a thing that do not change, unconditional or absolute within nature.
Why people are grabbing at some thing that never change is due to psychological insecurity arising the need to suppress the unavoidable existential DOOM and its subliminal compulsions.
The human brain has been brainwashed within the conventional perspective to affix on some thing constant to stabilize the human’s psychological state. This in reality and logic is illusory.
Note the examples of imprinting in animals and face/smell/sense affixation between a child and the mother to ensure “constancy” to facilitate survival. Note the instinctual resistance to change which facilitate basis survival but is a hindrance to progress.
When the above is translated into religions, certain spirituality or secular ideology, the consequences are terrible evils and violence around the world. If you promote any of these ideas you are indirectly complicit to the related terrible evils and violence.
To prevent and void the above terrible evils, one has to to shift out of the conventional perspective to understand reality.
That is called revelation. Are you now a prophet?
Proof is always in the eye of the beholder. I say, “X is proof.” You say, “No. X doesn’t prove it to me”. You have no standards. Anything can be proven or disproved to an idiot. But also nothing can be proven or disproven to an idiot. It always depends upon the idiot.
Forgiving merely name changes and attempts to obfuscate, 2+2 will always and forever equal 4.
With more education on your part, there are quite a variety of other more directly physical principles that can never, ever change (such as the speed of light in an absolute vacuum). Of course, since you know very little of why light travel at that speed, you can see why it could never change. As I said, proof is in the eye of the beholder. The less he knows, the more freedom he has to accept or deny anything. That is why they have religions.
Everything observable in nature is subject to change. This is very basic.
Show me proof what elements in nature do not change.
That is the point.
Where proof is always in the eye of the beholder, indicate the proof always changes relative to the beholder. Thus there cannot be 100% certainty to any proof.
However a proof can be 100% certain within a framework which is conditional.
Note scientific theories are not 100% certain by themselves but they are 100% within the Scientific Framework.
Your claims and views are idiotic because you are making claims that are baseless and groundless.
2+2=4 is based on principles abstracted from nature. Principles are not nature per-se. The numbers used are merely symbols and not reality. The map is not the territory.
2+2=4 is conditional upon a certain mathematical system. The result for 2+2 is not 4 if we look at it from another mathematical system. Note 2+2=5 where 2.3 +2.3 =4.6 are rounded to the nearest number. 2 drops of water plus 2 drops of water in nature is one drop of water.
Aliens in other parts of the universe may not agree with 2+2=5. In a binary system 1+1 is not necessary 2. Again, the map is not the territory.
What you claim is a conditional constant but not an absolute constant. There are changes relative to the defined systems and framework.
I am sufficient educated in this sphere whereas you are not.
The speed of light is conditioned by a Scientific Framework with its assumptions, limitations, rules and procedures. Therefore the speed of light as accepted by Science is a conditional constant, just like absolute temperature.
Whatever is deemed absolute within Science is never an absolutely absolute but merely a relative absolute thus subjected to change.
In addition, as Popper had asserted Scientific truths are merely polished conjectures, thus whatever is claimed by Science as a constant or absolute is never absolutely absolute but are merely conjectures that subject to further polishing and thus changes.
The only constant is change.
If you think otherwise prove it with sound arguments and justifications.
Note my assertion of everything is in flux is not my own but gleaned from and supported by ancient philosophies from the Greeks, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism which has been polished and affirmed with sound justifications and evidences for over 1000s of years.
What is the basis of your claim? Based in your personal intelligence? theology? or what??
What are these "deeper causes?
You are confusing the physical reality of light moving in vacuum (which is at a constant speed) with the ability to measure the speed of light in vacuum (which will change over time due to better technology and techniques).
Subatomic particles(protons electrons, neutrons) have a stability estimated to be in trillions of years. They are a constant. The forces that they exert (gravitational, electric, magnetic) are also constant. The nature of their interactions is constant.
Show me proof that all “elements” do change.
You being such a confused and somewhat hypnotized person, there is no proving anything to you over the internet. You are going to worship the same things for the rest of your life regardless of all evidence to the contrary that you will avoid seeing.
And with that, you again demonstrate your confusion. Which arguments are called “proof” easily changes with education and attitude (that “change of names” that I mentioned). The arguments don’t change at all, merely whether they are called a “proof”.
Another part of your eternal obfuscation excuse:
“It is 100% true within the framework that I propose, but the framework that I propose is dubious.”
Seriously?
Seems more the other way around. You are not proving anything, but merely making claims that you just admitted are only true within the framework that you propose and yet that framework is uncertain (which seems to be another of those constants of never changing).
So you don’t even understand what mathematics is actually about.
Given 2 apples in one hand and 2 apples in the other hand (all being physical apples), you will have 4 [physical] apples. That will always and forever be true (despite your attempts to obfuscate).
Mathematics is merely the language we use, much like these assertions and claims that you are making. Should I claim that everything you have said is merely the map, not the terrain and thus untrue to nature?
You have your ideas seriously conflated, confused, and generally screwed up apparently to merely justify your preaching.
Not true. As I stated, math being a language, changing the names or speaking another language (perhaps binary) does NOT change the facts. Your assertion, “Everything changes but change itself”, might mean something totally different if heard within a different language. Does that make what you said also conditional and thus never actually true in nature?
Does that being a fact change? According to you, it does, and thus it cannot be a true assertion: “All statements of certainty are certainly false.”
That is a joke, right?
No, it certainly is not. You are, as you say, “confusing the map with the terrain”.
What science believes the speed of light to be, or in what manner they express it, is irrelevant to the actual speed that light travels. When Einstein said that it is constant, he didn’t say "What we believe the speed of light to be is forever constant". He was correctly referring to the actual, the nature, the real speed, not what anyone might believe it to be or how they might express it.
Silly excuse obfuscation again. Is that assertion you just made an “absolute absolute”? If it is, guess what. And if it isn’t, guess what. You are merely confusing yourself with such justifications.
You are the one who keeps bringing “Science” into the picture, not me and usually claiming it to be the source of all knowledge. Now (at your convenience) you claim that Science is merely temporary beliefs, subject to change. And yet you still claim that everything you say is absolute (such as “the only constant is change”). Science has never proven that one.
You made the assertion. Prove your preaching:
So are the religions with all of their constants that you claim to be false.
As had stated all the views you gave are shallow and narrow. I will just address one point to show why your views are shallow, narrow and very simple minded.
You insist there are things that are absolutely constant.
I don’t agree with your views. What you claim as absolute constant are at best relative constant subject to a framework and not upon higher philosophical deliberations.
2 physical apples + 2 physical apples = 4 physical apples.
The above is true subject to basic mathematical rules, physical observations and conventional understanding.
But the above is not a representative of a more truer reality from another philosophical perspective.
The above could be represented as
1 bundle of apple molecules + 1 bundle of apple molecules = 1 bundle of apple molecules if you put all 4 apples into a basket.
This statement is also true.
If you can count the number of molecules then,
X number of apple molecules + Y number of apple molecules = X+Y number of molecules
This statement is also true.
If you can count the exact number of different types of molecules, i.e. carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. you can also form a mathematical statement for them.
If you could count the number of electrons you could also form a statement from them. But note the ever changing electrons between particle and waves depending on how one measure them. The results will change all the time, thus no constant.
Thus your conclusion that is claimed to be an absolute constant cannot be a constant in reality when subject to the different levels of perspectives of reality.
Note all physical things are reducible to electrons and sub-atomic particles. Electrons can either be a wave or particle depending on the basis of observations and thus no one can be certain what the reality of some thing is because reality is always changing subject to the beholder [Kant].
So far, you have failed to prove that.
No. That one isn’t about mathematics, merely counting.
Well yeah, “2+2=4” doesn’t meaningfully represent the creation of the universe … so what. The point is still that it is always and forever true.
No. You really are new at this, huh (or is it that you are just horribly slow). What you stated is called a “strawman”. Look it up.
…and irrelevant except for providing yet another absolute constant.
You seriously need to stay out of physics for your own sake. First what you say is false concerning physics. But secondly and more to the point, your argument here is completely irrelevant. Who has said anything about all things always being absolutely constant?
Again, a strawman conclusion. “I can make what you said into a completely different argument that is false, therefore what you say is only relatively true” - a bit moronic.
Give us a break. 
Not true either. But also irrelevant.
Pseudoscience BS. An electron is never anything but a particle (actually by definition). The fact some experiments reflect that an electron behaves as a particle while others reflect that an electron behaves as a wave, tells you that something is a bit amiss with the presumptions in your experiments and are not very helpful in revealing the truth. I could tell you what those mis-presumptions are about, but what’s the point.
So far, you have represented nothing but strawman and irrelevancies as your proof that 2+2 is not always 4.
If this was true then science itself would not exist. It would be impossible to figure out anything about the physical world.
It’s a point of view which is held by the eastern philosophies and it’s why science never developed in the east as it did in Christian Europe.
Some phenomena are more easily abstracted into a wave model and some are easier to abstract into a particle based model.
The phenomenon light for example is neither wave nor particle in itself but these are two ways of abstracting the phenomenon and depending on the particular circumstances, it is easier to apply the particle model or to apply the wave model, as to calculate or imagine certain interactions.
Light has properties which behave like a wave and properties one would expect from a particle.
The atom, which is itself already an abstraction has also properties which are like that of an idealised particle but also properties of a wave-like nature.
The idea/theory about something will always be only the abstraction, the simplification of the phenomenon. Nevertheless some theories are more accurate, more predictive, more all encompassing than other theories. Sometimes one theory might be not as precise in one area but cover a wider range of interactions.
For someone who comes up with a theory about something it’s often more obvious that what it is, is being a theory based on certain observations and these and those experiments and so on. He will also accept that there might be limitations, like very small scales or very large scales, where the theory stops being accurate.
For somebody who is only learning about a particular theory about reality it is often seductive to think of the theory about something as being interchangeable with the phenomenon itself, the theory becomes the same as the phenomenon.
In some cases it is even thought of as the ‘true’ reality, the ‘secret(esoteric)’ truth or teaching about reality.