Why are Potential Sources Of Controversy Still Accepted as True??

The human mind loves misery and the human mind loves controversy. And yet we have potential time bombs of controversy untouched by it.

Take Religion for instance. No I am not talking about the crusade types wars or the ones happening around the world in the guise of religion being actually the wars of ego and of territorial gain more than anything else. I am talking about religion being accepted by the general public , including the very educated section among them, as true. Many of them must know about the lack of historical evidence supporting their religion and have known about it only through childhood discussions at home/ in schools/ at places of worship. They may also be aware of the conflicting historical evidence contradiction the very truths they have ever known. Many of them would have also watched documentaries stating the inherent similarities in the rituals of the various religions around the world and about the suspicion that most of them had been copied from each other , probably from the oldest among them and documentaries stating facts about the religious leaders very differently than they were known to be. Their scientific brain may also believe the nature of conflict of the so called facts. And yet not many people choose to voice their doubts regarding the same.Not because they can't. They have time and again raised their voices against all forms of injustice from high profile court cases to political, economic and social injustice. Then one might wonder why not this? Aren't the conflicting facts reason enough?? As a matter of fact they are. They choose not to because they think what good would it do to declare religion as untrue?? So what if the facts are all jumbled up? So what if the figures we believe in never really existed in the form we believe them to? So what if our scientific brain knows otherwise? We don't because it is their spirit that we believe in , even if not their words. We believe that something called religion shall be able to imbibe in people a moral consciousness , to help them differentiate right from wrong , to help them build in them a value system which would be very difficult to imbibe using just science. It is for this reason we choose to let it be :)

Take also for instance the National Anthem Of India. Many of us must be aware that it was originally written in the praise of the King of England by Rabindranath Tagore. It however doesn't anger many of us enough to raise a voice to have it changed. Not because we don't consider it important enough. We do, hence we don't wish to destroy the effect it has on young brains to imbibe in them a spirit of patriotism. More important than the word-meanings is the symbolic spirit it carries in generating in the hearts of the citizens of the country a zest for their motherland.

Remember the Da vinci Code? The section of the book which talks about the intentions of the Priory of Sion not to release the extremely controversial religious documents at all only for the reason that people are doing some good in this world just by following the religion they believe true and that is the serenity the Priory doesn't wish to destroy in its quest for revealing the truth in contradiction of the generally held beliefs.