A myth is essentially a guide; it tells us what we must do to live more richly.

~ Karen Armstrong ~

As early as people could communicate, they developed stories to explain their relationship with the world and cosmos beyond what they could see. They wondered at the divine mysteries in their surroundings, venerating them in their daily lives. From the beginning, people seemed to appreciate that there was something more beyond their experience of daily life.

With the development of communication, cultures developed stories which gave life and meaning to the mysteries which surrounded them. These are myths which date back in one form or another to the earliest civilizations. These days, we tend to think of myths as stories which are untrue. The original meaning was stories which put into words the larger context for human, animal and plant lives, indeed the lives of the earth and the universe. They were not meant as literal facts but as a reverent way to speak of our home and beyond.

The Koran and the Bible were both initially handed down through oral tradition and eventually published. This makes it difficult to know what was revealed as editions have changed over the years. Just one brief example. In current versions of the bible, the Angel Gabriel is said to have greeted Mary with the words, "Ave Maria", or in English, "Hail Mary". The Greek version which predated the Latin presents the angel's greeting as "Kaire, kekaritomene" or "Rejoice, you have found favor." Before that was the oral tradition in Aramaic.

Versions of religious stories appear to have changed over the centuries to reflect the civilization in which the great religions were practiced. We now take for granted, at least in the United States, separation of church and state which until several centuries ago was not even a consideration.

Since the industrial revolution, we have moved toward scientific explanation of everything in our world and away from a mythical explanation which took into account our values, emotions and personal experience of the world. Many religions have also taken the position that they are the one true religion and the others are of no account. God has not ruled on this debate, at least not yet.

The major religions have also suffered distortions of their teachings to justify inhuman treatment of each other. The crusades and inquisition are historical examples. The jihad which is geared toward killing random civilians is a more recent example.

When we return to the core teaching of all religions as originally intended to be followed, we find that the common denominator is to treat others as we would wish them to treat us. The challenge now is to return to the basics of our various religions or commonsense beliefs among people of no particular religion. We can treat each other with compassion although this requires us to release our hatreds, rivalries and competition with each other on a human level.

Life Lab Lessons

• Decide how you would like to be treated by others.
• Try treating others that way.
• Be open to how others would like you to treat them.
• Try acting in a way they would like you to act.
• Be aware of the brotherhood and sisterhood of your fellow human beings.

For free email delivery of these posts, sign up at http://www.eepurl.com/mSt-P .

In all the recorded history of mankind gold holds a high position. It is found in economy as a carrier of value, in art as a symbol of grandeur and in social interactions as a sign of high status. Religions across the globe reinforce this key place for gold, using it either literally – in contexts linked with divinity – or metaphorically, as mark of purity.

Today’s most widespread religion, encompassing over two billion persons – we are, of course, speaking of Christianity in all its forms – is source rich in examples of this attitude towards gold. In one of the most lasting and enthralling legends of Christianity (see Exodus 25:10-22), God himself, through the voice of Moses, ordered His people to build a wooden box in which to hold the Ten Commandments; the lid of this box was made entirely of gold, adorned with two solid gold cherubs, so that from between them He could come speak to His people and appease their souls. The famous lost gold mines of king Solomon, believed to have existed (if, indeed, at all) in Africa, are mentioned in relation to building the first temple of Jerusalem. Also, gold, along with frankincense and myrrh (all signs of royalty) was presented to the baby Jesus by the Magi.

It is remarkable that one of the oldest religions in the world, Hinduism, hails wealth as one of four goals set to man during his life on earth. Next to righteousness (dharma), sensual pleasure (kama) and freedom (moksa), prosperity (artha) is even a duty for the Hindu man, who must gather as much wealth as possible without crossing the line of morality set by the Vedas. Gold is seen by Hindus as pure enough to hold their souls – Yama, god of justice, is depicted holding a mirror of fire and a set of golden scales for measuring the dead’s spirit upon entering the after-world.

On the more mischievous side of religious story-telling, the ancient Greek god Zeus, ruler of all other gods and men, known for being partial to earthly women, came to one of them (Danae), in the form of a shower of gold; the result of this union was the hero Perseus (who slayed the evil Medusa). The golden fleece, another famous piece of Greek mythology, is said to come from a winged ram fathered by the sea god Poseidon.

Many other religions and faiths treasure gold for its properties and use it to symbolize purity, steadfastness, divinity etc. Most depictions of gods, whether of monotheistic or polytheistic, include some element of gold: a crown most often, or entire limbs made of it, the throne, the book of scriptures etc. Clearly, since the dawn of the civilized man, gold has been associated with value, and so validated over any other type of material possession.

Over years of observing them what struck me the most was how similar in principle are the two extremes of communism and religion. While the first is a modern form of nation dominance the second is probably the oldest. As people wake up to the facts about nature, the world, and the universe religion has lost its place as the great source of mystery while communism has filled the gap to enable powerful men to continue in power.

While Karl Marx is credited with the philosophy in the mid 19th century the main objective of state control leading to a collective ownership of wealth, property, and economic enterprise. His ideology sprouted wings and was successful in underdeveloped and poverty-stricken countries. The appeal was an overthrow of the rich and equality for all.

In Russia, the first communist nation, the Tsar and his family lived in luxury while the rest of the country struggled under the burden of the first World War. The Industrial Revolution of 1917 saw their removal and murder as the Bolshevik Party seized power. They had their eyes on the world as they saw their struggle as an International one. Their propaganda reached into most countries where governments fought to eradicate them.

Religion, on the other hand, has long been a nation dominating force with eyes on the world. In countries where it has succeeded the governments are virtually controlled by members of whatever religion they belong to.

The most striking example are the Muslim countries of the East and Catholic dominated nations of Italy and Ireland in the west. The Jewish religion dominates Israel while Hindi controls the population in India. Russia was Orthodox prior to the Industrial Revolution.

In today’s world a sizable degree of the global population is dominated either by religion or communism. China, which has something like 20% or one fifth of the world’s population is the largest and India with 17.86% is second. Combined these two nations hold one-third of all peoples.

The Muslim religion now cover 23% of the total and the Christian population makes up to 33% in 2017 of which some 16% or half of that number are Catholic.

The trend in all these systems is to grow by population growth, influence, and conversion. Where people are agnostic the birth rate is declining and so are church attendances. There is now a major shift in the world’s demographics and in the things people associate with.

It struck me that people only need strong leadership no matter what type it is. They also appear to be least worried about their spirituality. That may come from religion, communism, or politics. Whatever it is basically the world continues in the same manner and the situation in the world declines according to the loss of faith, readiness for war, aggression towards each other, and terrorism, which is based on a rush to get to heaven.

Whatever force has the most power it wins out, whether through revolution, murder of dissenters, the rise of dictators, or anything else. There is not one that is better than another as they are all after one thing – control of a bigger empire and ultimately the world.

Stephen Dedalus is a young man lost in the world; he spends the majority of his life in religious schools, divorced and detached from his family and his parents. The heads of the schools, the Fathers, become his real fathers. When in college, he remembers not his family but “Father Arnell… at Clongowes”, and his soul becomes “again a child’s soul” (116). His most prevalent memory in his childhood is the church, and religion becomes his parents. The Church’s teachings have been pressed so thoroughly into his mind that they become his identity. However, at the end of chapter three he begins to slide into a life of sin, and he begins to detach himself from the church. He resents the “dull piety and sickly smell.. the hypocrisy of others”, language that echoes his thoughts towards his real parents in later chapters (111). His break from the church mirrors the typical adolescent rebellion from a normal family. Instead of typical forms of rebellion, Stephen’s show of solidarity comes in the form of continual sins that shame him so thoroughly that he cannot imagine returning even if he had wanted, destroying his last parental figure. The void left by his lack of parental authority drives him to an infantile state and to the whorehouse, where he asks his prostitute to “hold him in her arms” like a child (107).

However, through a mixture of threats and promises of salvation, the preacher’s sermon encourages Stephen to atone for his sin and rejoin God, Stephen’s father, and the Virgin Mary, Stephen’s mother. Before, after disregarding the Church, Stephen attempted to follow the example of his biological father (who was known to be somewhat of a ladies’ man). Stephen leaves the most controlling structure in his life in order to attempt to forge his own separate identity as a thinker and an artist. He believes that sin and rebellion will “transfigure” him (61). Once he realizes his sin, however, he thinks himself “not worthy to be called God’s child”, and wraps himself in blankets as if he is a child hiding from the eye of an angry parent (148). He then confesses to a Father, who he equates with God, his heavenly father. The Virgin Mary follows his image of the perfect woman – though he shuns all those in church, the image of her “held his soul captive”, for she represents the ultimate woman, the perpetual mother, who he is not angry at but ashamed in front of (112).

Most people I talk to seem to agree that forcing religion on others, whether children or adults, is not a good thing. The problem is that people do not necessarily agree on what constitutes forcing religion on people, vs. genuine teaching or sharing of one’s faith or religious beliefs. This article focuses on the line between positive sharing or teaching, and coercion or forcing one’s belief on others. It particularly focuses on children, but many of the same concepts often apply to adults as well.

This page represents my own personal opinions or beliefs, but I try to keep it more general, without referring to one specific religion or denomination. I hope the advice here can be useful to people from a wide variety of different religious backgrounds.

How are beliefs being presented?

I personally think there is a huge difference between presenting religious beliefs as “This is what I believe.” vs. “This is what is globally/universally true.” An example would be saying: “This scripture means X.” or “God wants you to do X.” I find these statements to come across as forcing your own views on others.

If, on the other hand, you say things like: “I interpret this scripture to mean X.” or even “In this community, people usually interpret this scripture to mean X.” it comes across as less forceful. It presents a more global truth–not claiming that everyone believes something, but instead admitting that it’s either one person’s opinion, or perhaps the perspective or collective belief of people in a certain community.

I find this is very helpful for teaching children healthy boundaries about their own religious community’s beliefs: instead of just presenting a belief as true, it sends a message like: “This is what we believe, but not everyone out there believes this.” I find this not only is more respectful to the kids receiving the message, but it will help them to be more respectful when they come into contact with people from other religions later.

Are you sheltering your child or controlling their access to information about other beliefs?

It makes sense that parents would want to raise their children in such a way that exposes them to and instills the values that the parents see as most important to them in life. But there’s a difference between presenting information, and trying to keep your children from being exposed to any conflicting information.

Attempts to control information can often backfire, and in more ways than one. Children can and do rebel against their parents, often when they are teenagers, but sometimes younger or later in life. When they are exposed to new information and realize that their access to information was controlled and that they were kept highly sheltered at an early age, they can feel betrayed.

Even when the children are not overtly rebellious and do not overtly reject what is taught to them, sheltering them can make them vulnerable to things in the outside world. Some ideas or beliefs out there can be harmful or dangerous, and if children are not given some sort of exposure to harmful or untruthful ideas, it is possible that they will not have much of a way to protect themselves against them.

Not requiring children to participate in religion without their consent:

Especially as children become older, it becomes important to obtain their consent, and not force them to participate in religious ceremonies or schooling. If a child does not object, there is nothing wrong with sending them to a religious school, or taking them with you to church or to any other religious community or gathering on a regular basis.

But if your child speaks up and says that they are uncomfortable with what they are being taught, or do not want to attend or participate in a religious ceremony, tradition, or community, it is important to listen to them, and respect their wishes.

If you force your child to attend religious services or schooling against your wishes, it is my belief that you are forcing your religion on them. Not only do I personally think this is wrong, but I think it is likely to backfire, alienating them from your religion and possibly creating a rift in your relationship with them as well.

In summary:

Not everyone agrees about where to draw the line between legitimate religious schooling or the passing down of traditions from one generation to the next, and forcing your religion onto your children. I personally believe that some of the key aspects of this distinction are not requiring the child to participate in religion against their will, not controlling your child’s access to information, and not presenting your own personal beliefs or the beliefs of your religious community as if they were the only thing that people believed.

If you obtain your child’s consent for the ways in which they participate in religion, and if you allow your child to learn about different beliefs and viewpoints, and if you present your own beliefs as what they are–your beliefs, rather than a truth that everyone believes–then I think you are sharing your religion in a way that is much healthier for your child.

The author has nicely constructed the plot of one of the thought provoking intellectual discourse in his book “Through Science and Philosophy to Religion”. The author has started his discussion by highlighting the problems of human life which he has categorized between immediate and ultimate. According to him immediate problems are concerned with the day to day affairs such politics, economics and social welfare while the ultimate problems are concerned with humans and the universe. Multiple questions about the origin and objective behind the creation of human and universe and about the relationship between both of them have propelled in the brains of human.

According to the author Science, Philosophy and Religion are the three possible approaches to find out answers to these critical questions. In the next part the author has questioned the validation of science and philosophy as the optimum source of knowledge and he has presented multiple reasons to declare that, since within the parameters of scientific experiment and philosophical discourse the infinite universe is studied as an object by the finite observer whose mental capabilities are insufficient to deduce an appropriate conclusion to these ultimate problem. It would be unjust to classify scientific knowledge or philosophical discourse as the most favorable step to obtain solutions to these ultimate problems.

The author, in the concluding session, talks about religion in which revelation is the most important element. In religious transaction the infinite object itself casts its details towards the finite observer which is considered, according to the author, as the best source of knowledge.

To contrast religion vs spirituality gives us a clearer understanding and appreciation of spirituality. The main differences of religion and spirituality lie in the traditional areas of doctrine, rituals and morality. All religions have these three basic components: 1) doctrine or beliefs; 2) rituals or ceremonies; 3) morality or a set of laws governing conduct. It is in these areas that I will make the contrast of religion with spirituality.

Doctrine Versus Experience

Religions have a set of teachings which all members are enjoined to believe in. If a member believes differently and teaches others to do so also, he or she is labeled as an unbeliever and may be excommunicated or put out of that religious group. Thus Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions have a different set of doctrines. In the religions oneness of doctrine is of paramount importance.

In spirituality while there are certain teachings these are not emphasized so much as personal experience. Spiritual persons may be members of different religions but they have the same or similar experience. Christian mystics focus on the experience of union with the divine. So do Hindu or Muslim mystics. They may differ in the means of attaining this union with God but they agree that this has to be experienced as the goal of their spiritual life.

Rituals Versus Intimacy

In religions there are certain rituals or religious ceremonies meant to express human relationship with the divine. In Christianity we have the sacraments and the religious services like the Mass, preaching service, worshipful singing, etc. In certain religions this is so important that a person is obliged to perform these rituals as a means of salvation, like the ritual of baptism.

In spirituality the emphasis is not so much on these rituals as a personal intimacy with the divine, usually attained through personal prayer and meditation, activities which in a sense are the opposite of rituals. Rituals are done in a crowd or group of people. Meditation is usually done in solitude and silence.

You can see now that there really is a contrast between religion vs spirituality.

Morality Versus Compassion

Religions produce a set of rules to follow. This is usually expressed in written laws and oral traditions. Thus the Catholic Church has a Code of Canon Law. The other Christian churches have written policies or a system of precedents. The Muslims have the Shariah Law. The Hindus have their own laws, particularly the laws which regulate their conduct in their respective castes. After a while the tendency is to increase the number of laws and to codify these.

In spirituality the central focus in human conduct is on becoming compassionate to all of creation. I was about to write “love” instead of “compassion” in the sub-heading. But over the years the word “love” has lost much of its real meaning. In almost all seminars, conferences on spirituality compassion is accentuated as the most important attitude required of human beings toward creation. This compassion begins with realizing our oneness with the divine and with all of creation. It is not just a matter of feeling but is expressed in actions of kindness towards all we meet, human beings or other parts of creation. The tendency in spirituality is to simplify the laws, just like what Jesus did, reducing all of them into two: love of God and love of neighbor.

The question I would like to pose is: Which do you think is better, religion or spirituality? My opinion is that both are necessary to human life. Religion functions as a cement in human culture. But with the recent ongoing studies on spirituality we are going to see an increasing number of men and women who are becoming more spiritual rather than more religious. Perhaps churches which have lost their active members, as in certain areas in Europe, can shift their focus from religion to spirituality and give meaning in life to more and more people. Religion vs spirituality will increase the awareness of more people to learn more of the enduring values in life.

First we have to understand why we should believe that a God actually exists. You could say it’s in the creation itself. It’s illogical to assume that chance really created rationality, so since we were actually created with a desire for meaningfulness, which is a part of rationality, and a creator is always greater than his creation, our creator must be greater in personhood (a God) than we are. Also without a God, we will never have Love because God is Love. Another argument for God’s existence is that we being imperfect as we all know, but continually striving for perfection, must have developed this idea of perfection from some place, and the most logical place that we developed this from seems to be from a higher power (a God, for instance). Also, can you imagine a planet spinning around the universe in perfect unison allowing human life to evolve as it has for as long as it has without completely breaking up with all its earthquakes and volcanoes taking place without a God being in control. And finally Parapsychologists, who have studied Near-Death experiences, have reported that these people have seen visions of an After-Life during their experiences, which suggests that someone must be in control of all of this.

Now let us see how the Major Religions, with the exception of Christianity, view their interpretation of what God is like and how to approach him. The Buddhist believe that God is really unknowable, so that we should only live in the present and become our own Gods as we understand Him through Meditation and Yoga. The Hindus believe that at one time our Immortal Souls were all Perfect like God, but we lost that Perfection for some reason so we had to come down to earth and try to get that back through Meditation, Yoga, or Reincarnation as a final Solution. Reincarnation is that when we die we enter another body so that we can improve a little bit each time. The problem here is that if this were true, the World should be getting better and better from generation to generation. Muslims believe in only one God as described in their Sacred Book called the Koran written by Mohammed, who is thought of as the Messenger from God. Its adherents have to follow certain regulations as proscribed in the Koran, but interpreted differently by various leaders in the Muslim Religion. Muslims don’t believe in inherited Evil or Sin. They only believe that Evil or Sin is between man and God, and that if man asks God for forgiveness, He will forgive. And finally the Jewish adherents also believe in one God as described in their Sacred Book called the Bible, or within Christianity called the Old Testament, but written by a number of Religious Leaders some of whom were called Prophets or Messengers of God. And here they have to follow the God-given Commandments. At the end of time a Messiah will come and all will be saved. In the meantime all we have to do is to ask God to forgive us for our Sins or Evil Actions and He will do so.

Now how does Christianity compare with the above major religious groupings? The difference between Buddhism and Hinduism with Christianity is very distinctive. In Buddhism and Hinduism, it teaches you how you can save yourself to lead a better life, whereas Christianity teaches you that you can only be saved through Jesus Christ to lead a better life.

Between Muslims and Christians, one of the biggest differences is that Christians believe in Inherited Sin or Evil whereas Muslims don’t. Because of this, Christians believe they need a redeemer and they found one in Jesus Christ. Now His story can be found in the Sacred Book of Christians called the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, where one can find a tremendous amount of Historical Authenticity. The Christian Bible says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and also God Himself (Math 14:28-32, Luke 9:28-36 John 5:16-47, etc.). He is also our Savior in that He saved us from our sin by suffering and dying on the cross and being raised from the dead (Much Proof of the Resurrection is found in my Book “Who is Jesus Christ” published by Amazon). Actually He became Sin for us if we Believe in Him. This is the way we were Forgiven. He was God’s sacrifice for us. It was like perfection saving imperfection. But as I said we actually have to believe in all of this so that we can then become wrapped up in our belief, or Jesus Christ, just like a Christmas package, so that when God looks at us, all that He can see is His Son (perfection), or Himself as if He were looking into a mirror. It is interesting to note here that the Koran was written by one Messenger of God whereby the Christian Bible was written by many Messengers of God who were quite reliable and consistent in their message.

And the Jewish belief comes from their Bible (The Old Testament in the Christian Bible) and included in it is the story of the Inherited Sin or Evil, but the Jewish seem to ignore it and their need for a Redeemer, because from a Jewish website they believe that the Messiah will come at the end of time and that all will be Saved and live on earth Forever. They don’t believe in the prophecies found in the Jewish Bible about the coming of Jesus (2 Samuel 7:16, Isaiah 7:14, 9:6-7, & 35:4-6, Micah 5:2-5, Psalms 41:9, and Zechariah 12:10.

In John 1:1 it states that the Word was God, or in other words that Jesus was God, and in other places in Scripture it states the same. And the Holy Spirit is the third manifestation of God as mentioned in Scripture who is the one who directs us to do the righteous things that God wants us to do. So in a way God took a human form in the person of Jesus to intermingle with us for a while before dying on the cross and being resurrected to go back to His Heavenly Home taking our Sins with him. After all, the consequence of Inherited Sin is Death for all unless you believe in Jesus Christ and who He really is. And the more aware you are of having this Faith in believing all of this, the more Loving and the less Sinning you’ll be doing. The Biblical Book of Romans summarizes the Christian Belief quite nicely.

Countless people, standing in neat, long queues, and waiting for just a single entry pass to sneak a peek of their favorite cricketer, all in front of them.

What is this?

This is the love, dedication, enchantment and devotion that is hard to be expressed in words. And it won’t be an exaggeration if you term ‘Cricket’ to be a religion in India.

On a match-day, expect the roads to be vacant, the offices to be quiet, the students to be missing from the classes and most of the people glued to some digital score-provider.

Do not mind if you are watching the live streaming of the game on your digital device and any unknown person approaches you to ask, “Dude, what’s the score?” Believe me, you tell him/her the score and you are doing a deed of kindness.

Such is the fever of cricket in Indians and this runs in their blood similar to any kind of normal cells of the life-liquid.

The God Of Cricket:

If we consider this as a religion, we have also a deity whom we worship as The God. And this God is none other than our very noble and popular ‘Sachin Tendulkar’.

Synonymously known as the ‘Little Master’ and the ‘Master Blaster’, the God of cricket is a living inspiration for innumerable aspiring enthusiasts almost all across the globe.

If you ever approach an Indian kid that has a bat in his hand and ask him of what he dreams of for his future, do not be surprised if he says that he wishes to become ‘Sachin Tendulkar’ one day.

This little man is the uncrowned ‘king of the hearts’ of almost each and every Indian who worships cricket. And though the God has retired from all the formats of this game, he still keeps motivating others, not to become ‘Sachin Tendulkar’, but to earn a name of their own.

So, this is again a proof for the value of this sport among the Indian fans.

India-Pakistan Matches:

There are very less entertaining events in the world which could be compared to the entertainment, thrill, enchantment and enthrall offered by a cricket match between India and its ever-existing rival Pakistan.

Both the countries have a history of producing cricketing legends and when these two nations fight to win a match, even a non-cricketing-fan is bound to get lured. Each and every ball, almost every over and each inning of these kinds of matches is filled with countless emotions; the emotions that we bear for this sport.

And on the bottomline, cricket could undoubtedly be called as the lifeblood of the Indians which tends to engrave its roots better in the hearts.

India is a secular country with due respect to each and every religion. And amongst the popular ones, cricket too stands one, with a head looking more towards the skies.

The idea that science has replaced religion has become popular these days. Some put religion to one side as now of date. People are noticing a huge development in research into the working of the human brain which seems to support this view.

New imaging technologies allow science to measure blood flow and neural activity whilst people are meditating and praying. Science claims it can predict and measure religious experience in this way. Atheists like Richard Dawkins are saying this is evidence that religious experience is nothing more than natural activity in certain parts of the brain. From this they conclude that there is no such thing as any supernatural reality.

What science has found

It has been found that intense or mystical experiences associate themselves with co-ordinated activity in certain areas of the brain and absence of activity in other parts. For example both meditating Buddhist monks and praying Catholic nuns demonstrate a decreased activity in the parietal lobes. This is a brain region responsible for spatial orientation. They also show increased activity in their frontal lobes. This is a brain region responsible for concentration. Similar patterns of brain activity are observed for singing, meditation and prayer regardless of the specific spiritual belief of the people studied.

Alternative explanation

There is an alternative interpretation. Just because religious experiences are accompanied by predictable brain activity, why should this mean they are caused by it? When two things go together, either of them influences the other. Alternatively, some third factor influences both.

One cannot expect science to investigate spiritual factors that might be involved. Quite rightly researchers depend on using natural tools to measure phenomena. Science practices methodological naturalism. This is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes – even as a remote possibility. So, science does not theorise about any unnatural causes of what it studies.

Drug induced religious experience

Those who are sceptical about religion say if psychedelic drugs can produce mystical and religious experiences then religion is due to brain chemistry and not to God. Users of such substances report that they have remarkably spiritual experiences.

These drugs produce a wide range of often extraordinarily vivid perceptions. The kind of experience depends on several factors including the individual’s type of spiritual orientation, and the expectations of the social setting, as well as the specific drug and its dosage. Since the early 1960’s researchers have shown that, for many, such chemicals have induced positive benign and blissful mystical and religious states. However some have agonising encounters with loneliness, hopelessness, guilt and visions of dark forces.

When we are in an altered state of consciousness something releases the mind from its attachment to, and its rational awareness of, the external material world. I would suggest then we become more aware of a normally hidden inner world of spirit. I would say this inner world consists of both a presence of timelessness and unity but also a presence of dark forces. So these drugs expose full awareness of this inner world which is not observable using our physical senses.

To my way of thinking we make a huge mistake to suppose that the mere swallowing of a pill can yield the same results as years of spiritual discipline and growth. Also it is an error to suppose that religious experience is nothing more than a brain in a certain chemical state.

Science and religion

So do you think that science invalidates religion? Or do you think, as I do, that when some argue that only science has the truth, they are not arguing scientifically at all. Actually, I would say they are stepping beyond the scope of science into discourses of meaning and purpose.

It is good for us to have factual knowledge. Without it we cannot build up our rational understanding of ordinary things. Science provides many opportunities to look for and find God in nature and to reflect on belief.

Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs.

According to Emanuel Swedenborg Christian philosopher, the danger comes when we only see things in a natural light. We also need to use a spiritual light which is available to us. In other words, the worldly and bodily-minded individual makes a mistake to imagine one can use sensory evidence alone to see what is really important in life for oneself.

I rather like the view of the son of the founder of the Bahá’í religion. He said that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism.