About the post-truth scenario

There are so many people today raising the issues connected to the post-truth world we experience. However, I wonder why there are so few of these people bothering trying to understand why the "crowd" is not caring about the truth any more. It is easy and obvious to criticize, but how to manage it?

I think there are very many ingredients to it. But not all are properly discussed. The establishment and peoples reluctant feelings towards it is mentioned. But why are people angry with the establishment?

One thing I believe causes it is that people are dick for being thrown facts in their faces. Facts that they are not capable or willing to verify. So it all smears to a big "what ever".

Religion as a human activity

I think it is important to note that religious activity is a human activity. In that respect  it is no different than other activities performed by humans.
By noting this, claims and comparisons done on entities categorized to religion can be managed on the same footing as other claims and comparisons. It is really the argument the will win the religion vs. freedom of speech debate, to freedom of speed advantage.

On religion as a human activity and secularism

It is hard the argue against the fact that what is generally called religion is a human activity. What should be classified as religious activity can of course be dabated and which features of our society that should be attributed to religion is also so.
More fundamental activities, concepts and ideas can further be categorized to the activity of religion or not.
My proposition is then that the categorization of activities as religion is destructive. Religion is a very charged word. Further there are ideas claiming that religion and religious activity should be free from critique and the executor can often claim religion and be free of any responsibility for his/her actions.
It is slightly easier with culture and it us thus better to assiciate elements to a certain culture.

On a modellistic world view

I need to write something. Regarding materialism and all the fuzz about spirituality and non-materialism. Again the discuasion is messing the point. It is not a question of weather our being is materialistic or idealistis or something in between. The question is if it is modellistic. By that I mean that it is fundamentally coherent and can thus be modelled by proper language (in some Wittgensteinian way). This is what is interesting and where a so called atheis and a theist differ in opinion.

But having a non-modellistic world view is absurde and self-contradicting. You can never hope to have a coherent view of something that is non-modellistic and hence what can not be said clear can not be said at all.