Posted by Prem Kamble on 8/29/2004, 9:09 am, in reply to "Re: God and Religion - A New Look" Dear Aparthib Zaman, I read your comments on my article God and Religion A new Look, and although it is very late to react, I thought I would put my views. In the past two years, I have also added new thoughts to my article, and my thinking is little more clear. While I thank you for the detailed feedback, which was very valuable, given below are my comments on some of your thoughts. Your comment: This article didn't seem any different from what dianetics, quantum healers, or Maharishi University folks would want us to hear and believe
My view: Yes the article is for the layfolks, for the majority of common people whose views are important. It is their views and not of the learned (or spiritually aware) few that gives birth to the religious conflict and violence. The purpose is not to explain what God and religion is, but what it is certainly not. The purpose of my article is more to correct the common beliefs about religion rather than to present a researched answer to the big question. The article is targeted for the layfolks because it is their perception which is leading to violence and bloodshed. If at all there is an attempt to find an answer, it is only suggestive, and I have tried to place on the table ideas which may open the door to further research in that area. Your comment: Truth never appeals to the layfolks, truth has no therapeutic value for the average, so these pseudoscientific languages will always appeal to the resigned majority. These languages strike a chord with them since they use mystique, rhetoric and poetic expressions that layfolks can easily relate to. Your comment: Mental energy, spiritual force,quantum mind, etc are examples of the most popular of such expressions that all these pseudoscientific disciplines resort to. My view: The purpose of the article is not to seek the truth, but to show that what the layfolks believe is not the truth. The aim is to correct the current perception of Truth of the masses. Your comment: Ease in grasping, "feel good", etc are the prime motivating factor for resorting to these routes for the mass My view: The article is for the masses, so ease of grasping is of prime importance. Your comment: Although no claim is made about the scientificity of the approach, it comes out loud and clear that indeed attempt was made to caste the ideas in scientific language.
219.65.121.13
To email me Click here
.
All of them of course are peddling their ware in a very appealing language for the gullible layfolks, who are not so science literate, but are easily influenced by these mystical languages
My view: Yes, the ancient sages too used rhetoric, poetic expression, mystique and fiction to explain spirituality to the layfolks, but this does not mean they were not spiritual. They knew that they could not explain the spiritual phenomenon to the common man through reason. They used fiction and pseudo language. But the fiction which was used to explain to the ignorant common man of the ancient times has not changed at all over the times. It has to be tuned (re-engineered) to the modern times keeping in mind the current level of awareness of the common man, his current understanding of common science. Today, the common may can relate to abstract things like rays, waves, energies much more easily as he has seen the impact of it in terms of Radio, X Ray, laser, TV, etc. The ancient man knew only the physical world and could not even visualize abstract things , hence the fiction devised was relevant to his time. What my article tries to do is to change the same to suit todays times and tell the same story to the layfolks in a little more scientific (I may even call it pseudo scientific) language which the common man understands today.
My view: Yes it is a pseudo scientific language by design. There is no claim to explain using science. In fact I have stated that todays science cannot explain the spiritual phenomenon, and a new science based on Mentomatics (which again has to be invented) may explain it. My attempt in this article is to use common science which the layfolks understand today and attempt to explain the same concept in a language which the sages of the yesteryears could not afford to use.
Your comment: The resigned layfolks are not eager to pursue the objective and hard route to seeking truth, but would rather seek an easy and appealing way
My view: Not only no claim is made of the scientificity of the approach, I believe that current science may not be able to explain spirituality. We should not attempt to explain using the physical science. We can only draw a parallel with the physical science, give illustrative examples from physical science as my article has done, but not use science to explain spirituality. Yes it is possible that the new science developed may explain both the spiritual world and the physical world. Like quantum physics not only explains the fast moving particles but also encompasses the laws of classical physics and explains the slow moving objects, the spiritual science may explain both the laws of spiritual world and the laws of physical world.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread