|
The old adage 'believe only half you hear' is, of course, not even half adequate as a guideline for making up one’s mind about factual matters. Having trained as a critical thinker in philosophy and several sciences and carrying out the checking and rechecking of facts, the thorough analysis of reports, observational perception, reasoning and language, I became quite skeptical about the security of much scientific knowledge.
Ever on-going, expanding scientific discovery and understanding
Back in the 1960s and 70s, even the natural sciences had not yet achieved the exponential increases in knowledge that have resulted since computer technology was developed on a wide scale. Rapid changes in cutting-edge scientific theories like astronomy, astrophysics, microphysics, had the effect of creating further uncertainty, because new theories – often conflicting – about the universe and matter came and went in regular procession – even though the most general theories (relativity, quantum theory) remained securely unshaken by experiment or continued observation. However, I now judge what appeared as ‘theoretical antics’ of astronomers and physicists to be a natural result when operating at the outer rim of accumulated knowledge and research theory… a necessary trial and error method of hypotheses, however unlikely at the outset. The difference between this and religious speculation is that science eventually demands decisive tests of validity, which religions never do.
More and more uncertainties about the security of scientific knowledge are being gradually removed as science enters into the study of more and more subtle questions and beliefs. Computing power and sophistication has within two decades definitely led to a massive leap ahead in most of the sciences, and not excluding a fair portion of the human and social sciences (which anyhow are less open to experimental test and quantitative by the very nature of what they research, human being.). Add to this the fact that there remain questions about the mind and ‘spirit’ – including a range of what must yet be termed ‘paranormal’ or extra-scientific phenomena which no science at its current stage of development can satisfactorily resolve, though advances unimaginable before the advances in experimental neuropsychology and magnetic resonance imaging have pushed back the dark frontier of unknowing considerably. Another century of progress in understanding what now seem to be arcane matters can therefore be expected to open many windows.
It is argued that very few people in the world - a mere handful - have witnessed the most costly experiments in particle physics, or checked the validity of theories like relativity, yet everyone with a higher education seems to believe in them and that most of what we read about them are valid accounts, not mere deception. Religious believers often say this is simply faith, the same as they practice. Yet there is a great difference… science is a global communal effort and false theories cannot survive there for very long… but religions continue to propagate a spectrum of untested faiths - and even new beliefs – over which there is no global consensus, and no experimental test possible.
What recently prevailed in science is now and again corrected for error or inaccuracy. However, this does not invalidate the main body of science, particularly not in the physical sciences. In the human sciences, theories and paradigm shifts are more common, often mainly due to the particular problems of objectivity involved when human subjects study human subjects. That there is progress towards scientific objectivity in most areas of science is undoubted, for elimination of bias and cultural subjectivities from human knowledge is the very aim of science and the activity towards this end world-wide is enormous and becomes less partisan in approach and global interchange and understanding increases.
All the things we have been educated to understand and take on trust, and – though we can be confident that the larger part of it is reliable and well-researched (especially up to high school level) – the very limits of any person’s ability to see for themselves means that room is left for doubt. It is primarily upon this ‘vacuum’, the certainty that there remain things unknown, that religions have always thriven – and modern day ‘spirituality’ of the New Age and guru-oriented kind thrive. Without this, they would have very little left to stand on… and their theological basis everywhere has always been essentially the uncertainty, the doubts, the unknowing (and ignorance) of masses of people. This they replace with ‘faith’ of one or another kind…and historically it is seen that practically any kind of strange ideas can become the centre of worship and sustenance.
Doubts about the reach of science to cover human questions
Much is made by religionists of the claimed fact that the sciences cannot provide anyone with genuine answers to any of the most important human questions; why do we exist, what real meaning does anything have, what should I do? While it is a fact that these are often extra-scientific issues which no special science researches, it would be wrong to suggest that science has not increased the understanding of the human being and life in many important respects. Before modern science, absurd superstitions and religio-mystical assumptions ruled the scene the world over, which is definitely no longer the case to such an extent. Granted, it is a fact that science does not pretend or set out to answer emotional and existential questions on how best to relate to others, how to develop human understanding - including how to obtain mental equilibrium, peace of mind and lasting fulfillment - are all so-called ‘extra-scientific’ issues. But the different (and very often conflicting) religions presume to step into the vacuum this represents and fill it with doctrines, moral imperatives and a vast range of beliefs about matters which cannot be tested.
Without having had such doubts myself about the efficacy of science in solving problems about the human mind and esoteric subjects as distinct from technical ones, I might never have had reason to take the plunge into spirituality in the attempt to discover what might lie at the bottom of it, so to speak. My attempts to get beyond worldly common sense and knowledge had led me to investigate many cultures and the nature of paranormal (including religious) experiences. Early on, I was attracted to all thinkers and mystics who might be able to explain the experienced using mescaline as are described by Aldous Huxley, Gerald Heard and many other adventurous spirits. I became involved in Subud, then Zen Buddhism and began to look closely at a number of supposed spiritual masters and gurus of other faiths – including Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, Trungpa Rinpoche, Maharishi Mahesh yogi, Swamis Narayananda, Prabhupada and his movement. I became personally involved with an Indian Swami from Maritius (Swami Ambikananda) over a period of some 10 years. From him I discovered Shirdi Sai Baba, then the culminating figure, Sathya Sai Baba, in whom I came to believe as a major spiritual figure, eventually also that he was most likely a divine avatar (a sliver of doubt remained due to the nature of the case – as he says himself, no one can ever know such a thing except an avatar).
The rejection of belief and mere ‘faith’ wherever possible
I have briefly outlined the process through which I went in my book 'Source of the Dream'. There I stuck as closely as possible to direct reporting of my own outward observations and inwardly-perceived phenomena, though I interpreted in terms of faith and trusting belief in the rightness of Sai Baba’s teachings. Though I had experienced many paranormal events in connection with gurus - and this increased considerably in connection with Sai Baba - I could never entirely relinquish the critical-mindedness which my entire previous education and research had made part of my mentality. Devotee literature which is largely worshipful encomium is seldom very helpful in dealing with the doubts common to most educated people and especially those who, on rational grounds, have abandoned faith in the religion of their youth. My propensity not to take things simply at face value, together with the difficulty of observing Sathya Sai Baba’s activities and most of the circumstances that surround him in much detail or proximity also caused me a considerable number of doubts. This I know also to be a fairly common experience among persons who visit him and also those who placed a great deal of trust and faith in him over a period of many years. My doubts finally were justified in my eventually learning facts which convinced me that he is not all of what he claims to be, not by any means, and that he definitively carries out major fraudulence, besides other highly unsavoury actions too.
On the basis of my interest in various religions and deep involvement in Indian spirituality, I have come to regard them all as extremely flawed teachings in many respects, all building on major untested and untestable assumptions and demanding faith in what amount only to beliefs, often such that defy both fact and reason. Even the moral teachings of most churches and gurus are often impracticable and without sufficient nuance to be properly intelligible and applicable in real life situations. |