As human beings we have a natural inclination to make sense of the world around us. Whether it’s through science, art, philosophy, or religion, we create models that help us understand the infinitely complex world around us.

But models are never perfect representations of the original. There’s always compression loss.

What do I mean by compression loss? Think of a map of a city. There will always be less detail in the map than there was in the original city—otherwise the map would be as big as the original, and so not a useful map any more. When you compress the original into a map, some of the original stuff gets lost. As long as what’s left helps you understand the original in some way that you couldn’t before, it’s a useful map.

Religions, in particular, can be seen as maps or models for understanding the divine, the infinite, and the transcendent. The spiritual aspects of religions provide us with a framework for understanding the world and our place in it. Our human minds can only comprehend a fraction of all there is to understand about the universe it exists within, so we create these models to help us have some semblance of understanding, and a framework for navigating.

The value of these models lies in their usefulness. They provide us with a way of making sense of the world and our place within it. Each person or group might have a different model, that works for them, and that’s perfectly valid. The very concept of a “right” model is flawed. It’ll always have involve some degree of compression loss. And, it can still be useful.

I think the cause of a lot of the problems with religion today is that people have forgotten this. We believe our model is “right” and someone else’s is “wrong”… but that misses the basic nature of models. Each person or group may have a different model, and as long as it is useful to them, it’s valid. The key is to recognise that all models involve some degree of data loss and to respect the diversity of models that exist.