I like Spinoza’s axiomatic approach to understand God. Perhaps my liking of Spinoza has also to do with the fact that I have a background in engineering where being nebulous about definitions leads to catastrophe. It also fits neatly into my social experiences in life. My thinking as you mention is also influenced by what some other people (like Muslims, but not just restricted to them ) think I represent. I try my very best to be neutral for I assume a important AXIOM, that every human being is born Innocent. Hence I conclude that most problems in the current world lie in Religion itself rather than one specific religion. This I say as third person observing the Human society.

Another interesting, philosophical discourse is the implication of a theorm in Mathematics called Gödel’s “incompleteness theorm”. Are you aware of the it ? When it was proposed by Goedel in 1931 it shook the mathematical community to the core of its foundation. It also influenced the philosophy of Bertrand Russell a lot. I suggest you do a small google search on it, if you are not aware of it. I also suggest you read the Pultzer Prize winning book called: Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid - by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

Gödel’s theorm essetially states that any consistent logical framework has to be incomplete. Conversely, it means in trying to develop a logical system that attempts to explain everything, one ends up with an inconsistent system - i.e Paradoxes abound. I would like to believe that this very mathematical law extends to social groups as well. A society that doesnt have paradoxes/conflicts/inconsistencies should in essence be incomplete. There will inevitably be some groups/ individuals left behind.

One of the ways that Goedel proposes to remove the inconsistencies in mathematical systems is to CHANGE the axioms of the logical system. (Its a different matter that the new system will develop inconsistencies at some other area). Socially speaking redefintion of our belief systems makes a lot of sense in resolving current conflicts.

i will say that on one level one can say yes - everything is a ‘prejudice’ - in as much as one can say what is ‘knowledge’ - and what is ’supposition’ but then as long as we are reflexive ( a key element of rationality as you will know im sure) about our ‘prejudice’ that’s not too bad then.

i dont know about you - maybe you don’t mind when you personally end up being treated a certain way because of other people’s prejudiced views about a group they imagine you to represent - but it leads to a lot of trouble for a lot of individuals. And at the end of the day - that’s what im interested in - real living individual personalities - not abstract representations of individuals in a ‘group’.

I will search for Pierre Bourdieu. Have you read the works of Spinoza?