[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Reply to HKS's Comments on Tolerance Towards Other Religious Viewp
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Reply to HKS's Comments on Tolerance Towards Other Religious Viewp
-
From: mpt@mail.utexas.edu (michael tandy)
-
Date: 21 Jul 1995 01:22:08 GMT
-
From news@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu Thu Jul 20 21: 16:43 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
-
References: <3um2u5$r7s@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
In article <3um2u5$r7s@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Ram Chandran <CHANDRA2%ERS.BITNET@VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU> says:
>Religion begins where Science ends. Scientific facts can be
>logically tested and either can be rejected or accepted. There are
>no logical way of testing religious viewpoints and we can neither
>accept nor reject them. I do not believe that one can logically
>convince others to accept his or her viewpoints.
I think it is a valid question to ask whether there is even
a need to do so. After all, we should recognize that we live
in an age and a society which postulates reason above every
other epistemology. There is no escaping the effect of this.
A very common complaint among young people raised in Hindu
families, especially those in the West, is that they are expected
to conform to rituals that have never been explained to them. Of
course, one must certainly be convinced about something to be
able to wholeheartedly participate in it--in fact, that is the
very reason we study the Gita and other sastras--the restless
mind has to be cajoled. But the point that I am making is that
even if we carefully peruse, say, the dharma-sastras or smrtis,
we won't often find an explanation at every step of the way for a
given practice. My assumption, and I may be wrong, is that these
literatures were composed in a society that was less doubtful,
perhaps less 'once burnt, twice shy,' and perhaps more at peace
with itself, due to its spiritual security. It is often our painful
experience that impels us to question authority as much as it is
the bias of the endeavor for materialistic progress behind
most science and the influence of both that makes us demand logic
in any given circumstance as if that were sacred writ.
Any comments?
-m
