Nature of Islam - 2
Another Critic:-
There are two more
problems with Islam:- Its compatibility with Science on which modern knowledge
depends, and the disagreements and controversies not only between Islam and
other religions but between the sects within Islam itself.
It is claimed that
Islam is compatible with Science. But there is an obvious contradiction between
Religion and science. Science is based on reason and religion is based on
faith. For instance, the Quran states that Adam and Eve were created, but
science says mankind (and all other species) evolved. Science does not claim to
be the absolute truth, but the Quran does. So if the Quran is really the
absolute truth, then, I suppose you must reject the conclusions of science.
Comment:-
Not only is Islam
compatible with Science, but the scientific attitude is based on the Quran as
shown in previous articles (View-05). It is not, or ought not to be based on
speculation but on investigation. Science "asks" question from nature
as made by God and abides by the answer given by nature. That is part of surrender to Allah
(Islam), the Principle of Objectivity that applies to thought as well as to
motives and behaviour.
There is no
contradiction between evolution and creation. Creation took place in stages and
evolution simply refers to the stages of the process by which things are
created. To say it took place by mutation and natural selection is not
different from saying that God caused mutations and did the selecting. When an
architect is said to create a building does that mean that the building does
not arise by stages of construction?
"Who made good everything that He has created,
and He began the creation of man from dust. Then He made his progeny of an
extract, of a fluid held in low esteem. Then He fashioned him and breathed into
him of His spirit, and made for you the faculties of hearing, and sight and
heart; little is it that you give thanks." 32:7-9
"What ails you that you fear not the greatness
of Allah? Seeing that He has created you through various stages." 71:13-14
"....consider that We created you from earth,
then from a seed, then from a clot, then from a little lump of flesh, shaped or
shapeless, that We may explain to you. And We make what We please to remain in
the womb for an appointed time; then We bring you forth as babes; then give you
growth that you reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to
die early; and some of you are kept back till the most decrepit age, so that he
no longer knows aught of the knowledge he had. And you see the earth parched,
and when We send down water on it, it stirs and swells, and brings forth growth
of every beautiful pair." 22:5
However, there is a
difference in purpose between Religion and science. The Quran is not a book
about science, but about religion which is concerned with how people can live
in adjustment to Reality. It tells you what is required in general terms. It is
for man to seek knowledge and fill in the details. Science is concerned with
matter, energy, force and information whereas Religion is concerned with the
processes of life and death and explanations for experiences such as suffering
and happiness and the existence of spiritual phenomena such as consciousness,
conscience and will. The Quran is primarily interested in the soul, the seat of
consciousness, conscience and will. Nothing can exist for a person without
consciousness not the universe and not even himself. It is soul of Adam and Eve
that was created. And then it was put in man when he had been physically made.
Critic:-
However, like all
sacred books, the content of the Quran is subject to interpretation wherever
the verses are clear or not. Science does not make any attribution to any
creator, as it can not be scientifically proved that any God is behind evolution.
The theory of
evolution explains the origins of mankind as physical bodies, and most probably
also the human mind. The Quran's explanation of the origin of mankind is the
creation of the first couple, Adam and Eve. Even when considering humans as souls,
it is more plausible that human consciousness developed gradually rather than
appearing suddenly in the course of human evolution.
Considering the
views of science, and the statement of the Quran regarding the creation (even
as souls) of Adam and Eve, it is more plausible to regard the creation stories
of the Quran and the Bible as stories inherited from long ago that tried the
best to explain the world and our origins. That would explain why the stories
are similar.
The verse Quran
22:5, you quoted relates to the stages of
life of an individual. It does not refer to evolution.
Comment:-
A "Theory of
Evolution" is not Evolution. It is just a particular view about it. There
can be many different kinds of theories and the accepted theory can change as
knowledge grows, and it is changing. We do not accept the idea that evolution
depends on "blind chance". It makes no sense to me and to many other
people. We see a definite direction to evolution and even if small changes can
be explained by chance events, the whole series cannot. Chance is simply
another name for ignorance about causes or the inability to calculate. If one
were to rely on "chance" then one might as well give up science.
What does
"evolution" mean? It means gradual changes. Quran 22:5 certainly tell
us about the evolution of the individual from the fertilised egg to adulthood
and beyond. But everyone, even very primitive people know this from experience.
So it is in the Quran for a purpose. It is a "similitude" that also
refers to the evolution of the Universe and all things in it. The gradual
development of the Universe is also indicated in Quran 65:12. 71:14-17. It is
all a question of expanding your consciousness. Unfortunately, people
conditioned to a particular way of thinking are unable to think outside a small
box.
But as was pointed
out elsewhere the idea of Random Mutation and Natural Selection by which
evolution is supposed to have happened are unfalsifiable hypothesis which is
quite unscientific - i.e. what ever happens in Biology it can be attributed to
these two factors. But we can attribute both these to God, thereby creating a
much more comprehensive and self-consistent world-view. Evolution can be seen
as progressive adjustment to Reality, to Allah.
Science
congratulates itself for being based on reason unlike religion that is based on
faith. The fact, however, is that both require reason as well as faith. Faith
is not “blind belief”, but confidence in something. It is not
purely intellectual but also involves the feelings and action. No conscious
behaviour is possible without faith, love and hope.
Reason is often
false. All delusions are based on reason. It is perception that establishes
what we take as real. But even here we have illusions (based on inadequate
perception) and hallucinations (based on mistaking an image in the mind for an
external reality.) But even illusions and hallucinations exist.
So we require (a)
that an experience should be repeated (b) that it should be corroborated and
(c) that it should be consistent with other linked experiences. But even these
requirements are not provable.
We see
Consciousness as prior to perception, that prior to reason, and that prior to
science. To say that physical evolution also produced "probably the human
mind" is not science, but speculation. Science cannot prove the mind or
consciousness exists and, therefore, speculates about its physical basis. But
if it did admit that consciousness is an aspect of matter then that would
completely change the concept of matter. The absolute distinction between
matter, life and mind does not exist in Islam. For Islam there are only
different kinds of phenomena.
As it is in
science, matter can be defined by the property inertia - i.e. mass. This
requires that something else animates it, causes motion. Hence the notion of
force. This is defined as that which causes changes in motion. Sometimes it
does not but causes tension. But it turns out that mass is reducible to energy.
And energy is motion - motion of what? Even energy is definable as vibration of
various frequencies. Vibrations in what? It is reducible ultimately to
"information" order or negentropy.
The attempt to
explain the world and our origin is what Science does. In the future, the
present explanations will no doubt also be regarded as primitive. You say the
Quran is subject to interpretation about what it meant, but Science is also a
matter of interpretation of the data it collects.
Critic:-
But even if
observations are subject to "interpretations", scientists make
hypothesis about what they can observe. They can test their hypothesis and
prove them right or wrong. It's completely different from religion. Religion is
based on unproved things.
Comment:-
The ability to create
a hypothesis and prove it right or wrong is not a material observation.
Hypothesis are created by inspiration, insight or guesswork. They consist of an
act of synthesis, not deduction, but induction, that puts many data together.
Whereas you can go from "All A are B" to "This A is B", you
cannot argue from "this A is B" to "All A is B". This is
particularly so when the judgement that all A and B are always the same thing
depend on human discrimination that might be faulty. And I have indicate to you
that the fundamentals on which science rests cannot be proved or disproved -
they are not falsifiable as science demands, but on the contrary proof depends
on accepting them.
Critic:-
Yes, but proving
hypothesis right or wrong definitively requires material observation.
Comment:-
Three things can be
said about this:- (a) Often, what is observed is the effect on instruments,
these are interpreted and then inferences are made. This is not the same thing
as observation. (b) Evidence for something is not proof that it is correct.
There may be other facts that contradict the theory. (c) Apart from this there
are other kinds of evidence, not just sensory ones, and that is only one kind
of experience. We have experiential, rational and existential evidence (that is
compatible with the information of which we consist.
We find that the
evidence for the existence of God is (1) That the Universe exists (2) That
Messengers and Prophets have existed. (3) That we posses a spirit, namely
consciousness, conscience and will.
Your idea of what
constitutes evidence is as naive as that of the Biologist and critic of
Religion Richard. Dawkins. (a) He supposes that religious people believe
something merely because it is written in their scriptures. The fact is that
many people believe scientific statements merely because a scientist says so or
believe someone because he is an expert. But there is a reason why they believe
them and it is similar to the reason why they believe the scriptures. It comes
through experts, is corroborated by many others and makes sense to them. (b)
Scientific theories are based on evidence but nevertheless keep changing. This
is because each one is based on partial knowledge and knowledge keeps
expanding. You can prove anything if you select appropriate data as evidence
and ignore others. (c) Evidence is not sufficient to establish truth,
understanding and perception are needed and this varies between people.
Evidence also has validity only within a particular Framework of Reference.
Different kinds of evidence are required in other Frameworks of Reference. (d)
As a Biologist he ought also to have known that organisms, as all entities,
also have inbuilt, inherent or Existential Information. People may have
different degrees of conscious access to this. The fact is that Religion is a
Universal aspect of man. There is some recognition that they are part of the
rest of the Reality, which is much more than what is known to them, with which
they interact and with respect to which they have a function.
We take it for
granted that there is a cause for everything including changes in motion and
the Big Bang from which matter, energy, life, order, mind, consciousness all
arose - these things were potentialities in the Cause of the Big Bang. We take
it for granted in the same way as Newton's Law of motion takes it
for granted that changes in motion are caused by a force. We call the origin of
that force Allah and the force the Word or command of Allah and do not
unjustifiably regard it as Mechanical.
As science deals
only with matter and with things that are part of something else or relate to
something else, it cannot prove any of the fundamental notions it itself
depends on. It cannot prove that force exists as that is an assumption. It
cannot prove that matter exists as that is a metaphysical notion. It cannot
prove that reason is valid.
Critic:-
Yet we can measure
force, feel it, and express it's effects with equations. We take for granted
the existence of matter as a part of our everyday experience. Science uses
reason everyday and it is fundamental in science and in philosophy also.
Comment:-
As I said, it is
based on unproved ideas. Given a different set of fundamental assumptions you
can produce different systems of thought.
The point is that
we have certain fundamental notions or axioms considered to be self-evident
that are connected with the nature of our minds and remain established because
they are useful in the conduct of thought or life. We do not have to prove them
because the proof of something is an explanation in relation to something else
that is already taken for granted. On the contrary things are proved in
relation to it. We need an all comprehensive fundamental idea that will explain
all things in a unified manner. The idea of God is one of these. Reality is
another. From the Islamic point of view they are the same.
Critic:-
Reason can be true
sometimes, that is why there is science. Humans make errors, but they can
correct themselves. Scientists know how to avoid illusions and delusions.
Repeatability and consistency are more likely to dispel false conclusions.
Comment:-
Scientists do not
necessarily avoid illusions or delusions. This requires insight,
self-observation and self-control. What generally happens is that mutual discussion
and consultation between a number of different scientists leads to criticisms
which tend to destroy those hypothesis where no common agreement can be found.
This does not dispel any commonly held prejudices. This is also why every new
advance in science is opposed by the established authorities. Einstein was
opposed by Scientists but even he could not accept Quantum Theory.
If reason is true
sometimes and false at others, how will you make your judgement? What criteria
will you employ? It depends on data, on perception and on motives, none of
which are part of reason. Reason goes where motives lead it. It is motives that
determine the search, selection, interpretation and organisation of data and
the direction of an argument. Scientific progress depends also on the actions
and interactions of the scientists and it depends on their intelligence and
insight and it depends on inspiration.
Critic:-
Scientists usually
do peer reviews, and experiments can be repeated for checking. Also, the
premises on which the hypothesis is based can be verified. In other words,
scientists check everything as much as they can. Data can be checked,
perceptions can be corrected if wrong. Scientists indeed may have motives of
their own, but it's also true for religious people.
Comment:-
But if the
assumption is unprovable how can you be certain that they are more likely to
dispel false conclusions. Individuals do observe things that only happen once
and there are such things as mass illusions and hallucinations caused by mass
suggestion. Much of what goes by the name of science is speculation.
Critic:-
What's wrong with
speculation?
Comment:-
It is not
knowledge. It means guessing and does not create certainty.
Critic:-
While divine origin
of sacred books rely on their claim to absolute and unprovable truths, they
have less chance to be true than the human origins of sacred books. On one side
you have the absolute truths mentioned without any proof and contradicting
themselves between and within religions. On the other side, you have the
findings of science that were confirmed by so many scientists from many
different branches all converge in favour of the theory of evolution.
Comment:-
Religious
experiences are also corroborated by many people. There are probably more
people agreeing on certain religious ideas than there are scientists in
agreement. On the other hand there is much controversy within science.
Critic:-
In the past
civilisations did not have the knowledge we have today. They tried their best
to explain it with what they had: stories passed on from generation to
generation. Present explanations do not use gods, angels or other mythical
creatures. Archaeology, palaeontology etc. do not rely on hearsay from previous
generations. Between science and religions, which explanation will they
consider less primitive?
Comment:-
So concepts change.
So what? Conceptual systems do change as knowledge grows and they depend also
on purposes. It is all a matter of interpretation. It is all a question of
expanding your consciousness.
We think that
revelations which depend on enhanced consciousness of reality are much more
likely to be true than theories based on partial knowledge. However, ordinary
human beings with ordinary consciousness may not understand these revelations
fully. But people with such enhanced consciousness do corroborate each other
even if the descriptions vary.
Science depends on
a set of scientists who are trained in the same way and do the same things in
the same environment in the field or laboratory with the same motives and using
the same conceptual system it is, therefore, not surprising that they should
reach the same conclusions. On the other hand the same considerations also
apply to those within a spiritual system.
Critic:-
Even if that was
true, that doesn't prove any particular religion to be true. While we know
that, many religions claim different creators for this universe. It does not
necessarily follow that the universe is a creation of God, and nothing obvious
in the universe points to any particular creator. All these prophets and
messengers claim divine inspiration while not being compatible with each other.
There is no obvious proof that the human consciousness was created by any God.
What scientists say is backed up with evidences. For example, geologists say
the earth is old based on rocks, fossils and radio dating methods.
Even if science is
based on ultimately unprovable assumptions, there is still the possibility of
alternate explanations to 'revelations'. For example, the Quran was originally
a recitation that was committed to memory, before being transcribed into
writing at a much later date. So the hidden assumption here is that those
original recitations were transcribed faithfully. Whatever really happened, I
will leave that to specialists.
Whether the cause
of the Universe is divine or not is still matter of discussion. There may or
may not be a god, but if there is, the question then is: which is the good one?
One then has to select a god from one of so many religions that may be man made
after all.
Comment:-
We do not select.
God is by definition the self-existing origin of all things. The exact
descriptions may vary, but even Polytheists admit that there is a supreme God
and that the other so called gods refer to aspects of the One. There is a
distinction between “gods” as a general notion referring to
anything tat people might worship or subordinate themselves to and
“God” regarded as the Supreme Being. There is also a distinction
between the different concept of God that various people including Christians
have and the concept of “Allah” as comprehensively described in the
Quran.
You appear to be
making the same naive mistake as many scientists do. God is not a man or an
object in the Universe though He pervades it. From a rational point of view the
belief that the cause of the Universe is God is just like the belief that the
cause of changes is a force. i.e. the Second Law of Motion.
All Prophets and
Saints have an experience of the transcendental, but experiences of anything
differ between people and they verbalise it and convey it differently through
the mundane mind.
You are speculating
about the Quran. As the Quran says conjecture is not the same as truth. The
Quran was written down as soon as recited as well as memorised. Revelation
means that something is "revealed" that was not given to the senses
or invented by the ordinary mind. It refers to consciousness. Something enters
into consciousness that was not there before from what was sub-conscious or
unconscious before. But all of us are most certainly in interaction with the
rest of existence at the sub-conscious and unconscious levels. But people
differ as to how much conscious access they have to these. That is why we can
speak of higher states of consciousness, namely self-consciousness, objective
consciousness and cosmic consciousness.
You want rational
proof when it has already been shown to you that proof refers to experiences,
to sense data or conscious perception. Have you not understood that the rational
faculty is controlled by motives? It will go anywhere that your motives take
you. It dictates what facts you collect, how you interpret them, how you
construct your premises and how you string your premises together to reach a
conclusion. If you have a goal already in mind, a problem to solve, then it is
a good instrument. But if you wish to support a delusion or deny a truth then
it will do that for you also.
No. In so far as we
are all constructed from the materials, energy and information that also
accounts for the Universe and we have arisen by a process of interaction with
the Universe, then as conscious human beings we ought to have some inkling of
our ultimate origins. It is this fact that makes religion into a Universal
phenomenon. But as the degree of this awareness differs there tend to be
different ways of expressing the experience.
If you have no such
experience or what is more likely, you have suppressed it under a great amount
of sensory experiences and rationalisations through cultural conditioning or
diversion of interest and motives, then there is nothing much that can be done
about it.
However, there do
exist a number of techniques by which awareness can be enhanced. But those who
do not have the appropriate motives will not undertake them. (One can show the
horse some water but cannot make it drink). That being the case any further
discussion is clearly futile.
Critic:-
I do not believe
that they all have the same transcendental experiences. So then, we can believe
in Joseph Smith, Rael and plenty of others? Certainly, speculations are not
necessarily true, we do not need the Quran to know that. However, it is a way
to come up with hypothesis such as: "how is it plausible that the Quran
really is from divine origins rather than being written by mankind?".
The mind being what
it is, there may be experiences of higher consciousness - and scientists can
make experiments regarding these states of mind- claims of such experiences, or
maybe some mental dysfunction. I am aware of such things as "Out of
Body" Experiences, claims of alien abductions, "Near Death"
experiences, telepathy, etc. Some of these things can be investigated by
science, and the explanation may not necessarily be spiritual. I heard some of
those effects (OBE,NDE) were reproduced by drugs.
Comment:-
Your non-belief is
an assertion about your own state. I can see that you do not believe.
If they are telling
the truth, then all these people have some kind of experience. They may have
misinterpreted this. We judge them by the consistency of what they say with
everything else we know. However, it remains true that there are people who do
believe in what others regard as illusions and delusions on the basis of
inadequate knowledge. The only way one can know that it is an illusion or
delusion is by expanding ones knowledge and integrating it into a
self-consistent system.
You have to
discriminate between people who are dysfunctional and people who achieve a
great amount. The Quran is a most sophisticated system of ideas presented in a
most sophisticated manner.
Regarding the
scientific experiments: the question is: when no drugs or electrical
stimulation is used what is the cause of these inspirations? Is the fact that I
can imagine a tree imply that trees do not exist?
But you have to
satisfy yourself about your beliefs. It does not make any difference to that of
others. People's beliefs and experiences are their own.
Critic:-
I was saying that I
don't believe all "prophets" have an experience of the
transcendental. By the way, Rael did not claim such experiences, as far as I
remember. Also, considering these transcendental experiences as a way of
knowledge is risky. If there is only one god, all those "revelations"
would be consistent between themselves.
Comment:-
We define a Prophet
as one who does have transcendental experiences.
But it is a fact
that the same event is reported in different ways by different reporters. They
see things differently according to their interests, conditions and position.
As I said:- It also depends on degree of consciousness and point of view. You
can look at a house from different sides and reach different conclusions. You
must have heard about the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
The ordinary mind
has limited perception and people differ as to the amount of knowledge they
have, and the direction of attention and what they select. This means that as
everyone has only partial knowledge, then different people have different parts
and they organise the data in different ways. Given a subject of experience S
consisting of a number of elements a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j.....etc. if we
have four observers such that
O1 perceives
elements a, b, c, d
O2 perceives
elements f, g, h
O3 perceives
elements d, e, f, g, h
O4 perceives a, b,
c, d, e, f, g, h.
Then,
O1 and O2 have
mutually exclusive perceptions
O3 bridges the
perception of O1 and O2
O4 contains the
perceptions of both O1 and O2, but whereas he can agree with both, these two
cannot agree with O4.
Expansion of
consciousness is necessary to progressively approximate to Truth.
In my discussion
with "Z", I was trying to tell him that he must expand his
consciousness to understand Islam instead of fixating it on the exclusive
Jewish doctrines. But as he was more like O1 rather than O4, he was unable to
comprehend.
Critic:-
I believed for a
long time in all the spiritual stuff (OBE, etc.) and the Bible, but I came to
question many doctrines such as Hell.
It is not that I do not want to believe, it is rather that I do not want to believe in something unsubstantiated.
Or some of these "prophets" may be just fraudulently exploiting the
credulity of people. Rael and scientology are obvious cases.
Comment:-
How did you
investigate? Did you simply reject things you did not like or because you liked
something else which it seemed to contradict?
We do not know
everything. We mostly depend on experts on any subject who have greater
knowledge about the subject. Though even experts can be wrong about something
because they too have partial knowledge, we must have evidence that they are
wrong. This often requires us to be an expert on the subject also. In the case
of Prophets and Saints we have to have the same expansion of conscious. This
means we have to undertake the appropriate discipline that will do so. The fact
is that we will not see "China" unless we undertake
the journey to "China" and we will not do so
unless we believe that "China" exists. We must have
some evidence that it does exist.
Critic:-
I would say science
is such a self-consistent system. It is not perfect. It is not the absolute
truth, but it works. And what is remarkable is that the findings of so many
branches of science converged into the theory of evolution and showed the age
of the universe to be much older than what was taught in the sacred books. On
the other hand, sacred books are subject to interpretations because of their
claim to inerrancy, their limited content, the language gap between
generations, etc. As a consequence, we see sects, each with their own
interpretation of the supposed "Book of Truth". In the end, one may
wonder if these books were really divinely inspired in the first place.
Comment:-
Yes science is the
best way by which we approach truth. It "asks" question from nature
as made by God and abides by the answer given by nature. That is the position
of the Quran. But it is far from comprehensive. It is not a complete system
that deals with all aspect of life. I get the "New Scientist"
magazine every week and I see there is much speculation in it and I see that
new facts are constantly discovered that contradict established Theories.
Science is progressive so that at any given time it only has partial knowledge.
The scientist is like O1 and trying to become O3. But even he must expand his
consciousness by means of a discipline.
The study and
interpretation of sacred books is subject to the same limitation as Science.
People have partial knowledge. Some are like O1, others like O2 and others like
O3 or O4.
Muslims are by
definition those who surrender to Allah. Sectarianism is wholly forbidden
(30:30-32, 21:92-93, 42:13, 98:4-5). Those who call themselves Shiah or Sunni
or anything else, must be regarded as not really being Muslim as they surrender
to a particular sect, doctrine or interpretation and not to Allah. By doing so
they also cut off their possibility of expanding their horizon.
Critic:-
You ask: And when
no drugs or electrical stimulation is used what is the cause of these
inspirations? Scientists know that there are natural hormones: endorphins for
example. The brain produces its own electrical stimulations by way of
chemistry, as you may know already.
Comment:-
When you look at
anything or have any experience whatever then there are certainly physical
process involved. Similar physical processes also take place when we recall the
event in memory and or when someone or something does something that triggers
the memory. There is psycho-physical parallelism. The question is: Is the
physical event prior to the psychological event or vice versa? In fact, the two
may well be different aspects of the same thing. Apart from all this, why do
you consider mental or spiritual events to be unreal? This is based on the
false idea that only the physical event is real. In fact all these are simply
experiences.
Critic:-
Regarding the
inspiration of the so-called prophets, we can not prove anything. The sacred
books ask us to take their word for it without questioning.
Comment:-
That is not true.
They make statements which we are required to verify it in life, on which we
are to meditate and try to understand and apply. The Quran is an education, a
book to be used. It is part of religious technique. The books are sacred
because they are regarded as containing the Truth. In order to understand them
and extract the Truth we must accept them as something that contains the Truth.
You cannot reach "China" if you do not make
the journey and you will not make the journey if you do not believe it exists.
Critic:-
You say: But you
have to satisfy yourself about your beliefs. It does not make any difference to
that of others. I do not understand what you mean here, but beliefs are
beliefs. When someone claim his beliefs are true, these beliefs must have some
root in reality.
Comment:-
What do you mean by
Reality? If it is something other than what you experience, then how do you
know it? Your experience is your own and not that of another. It affects only
your behaviour and modifies only you. From the Islamic point of view Reality is
Allah and what He has created and is not the same thing as experience.
Something is true if our experience corresponds to Reality. This requires
interaction with Reality.
People believe
because they think they have evidence. Belief and truth are connected.
Conversely, if people did not believe something they could not think it is
true. But it is also true that when people believe something they make it come
true. Not only because they interpret the data of experience in that way but
also because inventions such as cars, aeroplanes, computers require a degree of
belief. This belief is based not on "what is", but on "what can
be". It is a knowledge and belief in potentialities. There is a third kind
of belief that transcends potentialities and refers to Fundamental Principles
that determine potentialities. In other words, it is also possible to change
(enhance or reduce or divert) the potentialities that exist within you and in
the environment.
Certainly Religion
is different from science, and they are different from economics and business
and these from Poetry and art. Why do you want to understand Religion as if it
was Western Empirical Science. This is as absurd as the Scientist trying to
understand a poem using scientific principles. Religion deals with the conduct
of life.
----------<O>----------
Contents