My idea of World
We have no other place to start in the fleeting world of our ideas and emotions than with faith. If there is any difference at all, we can only envision this religion in one particular form, such as the form of a supernatural event (such as the creation of the universe) or the form of a real-life supernatural being (such as God). Yet, it appears that if we develop the first type of representation consistently, then it appears to be some sort of science, and if the second - some sort of religion. There is no conflict or fundamental difference between the twin brothers. Paradox? Religions are sciences about various forms of the soul, just as sciences are religions regarding various forms of matter, with the distinction that the process, as opposed to the being, is inanimate.
This symmetrical way of depicting the ideal world appeals to me. Regarding the "traditional" religions, their level of development was stifled by dogmas and is correlated with that of contemporary culture. Hence, although having a more constrained definitional scope, art today takes better care of the soul than religion. Recently, art has moved past its natural harmony and toward the illogical, anharmonic, or somber, disagreeable, and in all genres—music, literature, and painting—it tries to inspire at least a flimsy amount of trust in its divine embodiment at a sufficient level of modernity. Art has done this because it feels the need to solve an overwhelming task for it. Perhaps this explains why we enjoy reading science fiction so much, how we listen respectfully to the creaking and screams about graphic situations, and how we happily cry over the heartwarming emotional experiences.