Why is there evil and suffering?

[patrice]

82. True, because changing your narrative/perspective does not necessarily change the nature of the

thing. It only changes perspective, which may or may not make perspective more valid and reliable. The thing, whatever it is, is whatever it is, no matter how one looks at it, whatever, more or less valid, angle. Additionally, some angles/narratives are more obtuse than others (and still other narratives are extrapolations from those skewed perspectives), so, especially if you're factoring out all of the other angles (or, at best, those which don't fit with the one that has been chosen), the narrative might as well be a fiction, for all of the relevance that perspective might have to any validity.

All of that is okay for rationalism, because rationalism does that within the context of its own epistemology and never claimed anything else and it identifies itself by what it does/its own processes, so what is included and what is excluded IS the point.

None of that is okay for religion, because religion says that it isn't doing that. Religion says it is doing the opposite of that, i.e. identifying absolute truths ir-respective of anything like perspective or context and yet each religion claims its own perspective/narrative as the ultimate truth. One of the main reasons that religion clings to what are very likely errors has more to do with organ -ization (i.e. a specific functional construct) than it has to do with what may or may not be truth.