“Religion is the cause of almost every great evil ever committed by mankind.”

“Now, wait. It’s not religion itself that caused all those terrible things. It’s corrupt institutionalization of the religions. The old Catholic church is what made the Crusaders feel justified butchering innocents, not the teachings of Christianity.”

“What do you mean? The ‘church’ is a key part of religion.”

“No, no, if people just peacefully worshiped God, Zeus, or whatever and didn’t disturb, ridicule, or alienate others, there wouldn’t be an issue! Theology isn’t the problem, but churches maliciously using it.”

“Well, I think religion includes both the churches and the theology.”

“Wait, no. Religion is just what you believe. The definition nothing to do with church. Church is separate. Theology is religion.”

“No… religion is the whole thing.”

“Pretty sure religion is just what you believe. Institutionalization of religion is a different thing than religion itself.”

“Let’s go to the dictionary… oh. Damn. There are like six definitions of ‘religion’ and some agree with you and some agree with me.”

“So… what now?”

---

This is just a classic example of how the flaw of language takes over in a debate. This particular case, the definition of religion, is such a frequently debated topic that it even has its own Wikipedia page.

Some define religion as nothing more than whatever your beliefs are regarding intangible and divine powers. Others define it as an entire culture, with food, clothing, and more falling under “religion.” Many include the churches in their definition of religion. We get to a standstill where the sounds we are blabbering are not making the thoughts we are having appear in the brains of who we speak with.

There’s usually only two options: end the conversation or agree upon a definition of “religion.” Usually, it’s too difficult to communicate the flaw of language to someone who doesn’t already understand what you’re talking about (because of the flaw of language), so the conversation ends.

---

We are literally blabbering words at each other in hope that when we make a sound, the thought we are having appears in the brain of the other person. We trust that they understand the thought we are trying to translate to sounds (or lines, if writing) and for the most part, it works.

We associate certain sounds and lines with locations. Arizona. Olive Garden. Disneyland. Switzerland. Mom and Dad’s bedroom. Outside. Inside. There aren’t too many problems here because we agree almost entirely as to what the sounds are referring to.

With names and titles, it works well too. Jackson. John. Karen. Alex. Morgan. Mom. Dad. Cousin. Brother.

Almost all physical objects, actions, or even virtual objects have sounds that are relatively agreed upon. Book. House. Mirror. Backpack. Run. Swim. Cry. Laugh. Eyeball. Shirt.  Radio. Internet. Website. Smart phone. We agree pretty universally on most of these things and rarely have problems with this. Even when a new sound is proposed to associate with something (internet, etc), societies quickly adopt this sound. The process is almost seamless.

But when we get to words that require interpretation, things can get a bit complicated.

For some (most, actually), we’ve found ways to understand either through contextual interpretation or through creating more sounds to specify.

Doctor, for example, can mean so many different things. “I’m going to the doctor” creates a long set of unkowns. We luckily have context or other sounds to clarify. “I’m going to the doctor to get my digestion checked out” solves the problem using surrounding sounds, and mouthfuls like Gastroenterologist help us get more specific if context doesn’t do the trick.

Even with religion, there are things we can do. We have sounds like “theology” and “institutionalization” that we can just debate with instead if an association with “religion” can’t be agreed upon. The conversations can still happen in a high comprehension environment and since humans are excellent innovators, we figure it out.

What about more abstract things? A fantastic example is love. The question “What is love?” can be interpreted as “Using words, how would you define the feeling of ‘love’ toward another person?” As we know, this opens the door for thousands of answers. There definitely isn’t a universally agreed upon thought associated with the sound “love” and we don’t have too many other words to help us out (if you say “an intense feeling of affection and care,” you ask the question “What thoughts are associated with the sound ‘affection?'” It goes on and on and you get into a definition game rabbit hole), but there are still things we can do. In individual conversations, we can choose to agree on a definition for the sake of the conversation’s utility. This works pretty well and at least allows us to talk about love.

But then we get to even more sticky concepts. Happiness. What is it?

“A very good feeling.”

Well, what is good?

“A very good feeling is… pleasure?”

Hardcore drugs are pretty pleasurable. Are meth addicts happy?

“Well, no, but… ugh. Okay, happiness is when you have what you want.”

There are a lot of rich people who have whatever they could dream of and are miserable.

“Happiness is… being… happy! That’s the only way to describe it!”

Ah, seems we’re running into some problems. Shall we get into ethics and try to define “good” and “bad”?

Things that can only be understood by experience cannot be defined using dictionaries, because, by their nature, they are subjective to whoever experiences them. There isn’t much we can do other than use even more sounds to try to agree on a concept. After all, that’s what we’ve been doing all our lives.

---

We’ve identified the flaw of language. We make sounds with our mouths as we try to move our thoughts to the brain of someone else, and for some higher level stuff, it doesn’t work.

However, there is something that is a universal method of communication. It’s one of the most beautiful things we’ll ever see in our entire lives, and most of us don’t even realize how truly amazing it is. It’s an instinctual part of us to use it every time we feel a certain a way or think a certain thing. It’s absolutely spectacular and we rarely realize that we just “know” how someone feels, using this communication alone: