I write in reference to a well written letter by Mr. Harold K. Jamesson in the Guyana Chronicle of July 16th (The ancient religions do not conflict with science.) I agree with the premise laid out by Mr. Jamesson and wish to point out that I have, on many occasions, advanced the view that Eastern religious thought do not necessarily contradict modern scientific principles.

In a previous letter I wrote, “Religion has been around from time immemorial with Hinduism being the oldest known to mankind. Coincidentally, many of the principles of Hinduism

Mr. Jamesson explains that “religious people use the language of the natural sciences to try to explain their positions since many of their modern readers easier relate to the metaphor of natural sciences than the usual language of religion.” While this is true it is not applicable to the argument Mr. Permaul was making. He had detailed the workings of the empirical Scientific Method and then insisted that this same methodology be applied to his religious beliefs. Mr. Permaul had moved beyond co-opting language; he had, rather arrogantly I thought, moved his faith into a scientific laboratory.

While Eastern belief systems are all-encompassing and mostly do not conflict with science, it does not necessarily mean that the practice of empirical science should be applied to all aspects of Eastern faiths.

My position is that religious belief, by its very nature, does not require the kind of testable/provable/repeatable evidence that empirical science demands. The two, as Stephen Jay Gould once said, are “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”. But very often, religious people do not content themselves dealing with matters of the human spirit; they cross over and attempt to distort factual reality with non-testable ideas of supernaturalism. (See the Creationism VS Evolution debate for instance.)

“Mr. de Freitas’ comment on Lord Krishna’s blue color shows that he needs to be exposed to the study of iconography,” Mr. Jamesson says. “For Mr. de Freitas to talk of melatonin in respect of the Krishna icon shows a simplistic literalness uncharacteristic of so informed a writer as de Freitas.” Admittedly, I do need to brush up on many aspects of Hinduism. However, Mr. Jamesson misses the context of the comment. I was explaining to Mr. Permaul why the methods of modern science should not be applied to the principles of his faith. Empirical science would not indulge iconography but would rather investigate the nature surrounding it. I was attempting to show Mr. Permaul the folly of applying the scientific method to his religious faith.

Mr. Jamesson astutely observed that, “none of the ancient religions like Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism or Confucianism conflicts with de Freitas’ ‘science’; it is only the Semitic religions which have difficulty or conflict with ‘science’ since these religions are dogmatic and they each claim for itself a monopoly of Truth.”

Most mainstream religious faiths are capable of extracting a workable interpretation of life from the environment, but religious fundamentalists must be confronted in their efforts to undermine rational thinking, hence the debunking of the alleged pastor, Daniel Singh continues in the press.

Fundamentalists take particular advantage of those who are poorly educated and others who are socially destitute. Such believers delude themselves by thinking that they have found the answer to existence, when in actuality their worldview threatens modernity and human progress and their apocalyptic end-times vision undercut humanity’s inherent drive for self-preservation.

I agree with Mr. Jamesson that fundamentalists of all sorts wrongfully believe that they have privileged knowledge of God’s will. This makes them think they have the right to use whatever methods are available, (including the Instruments of State and acts of extreme violence) to impose that will on others. These people are a growing danger to civilised society.

Finally, I wish to thank Mr. Jamesson for not only reading my letters but also for spending some of his time pondering the things I wrote.
JUSTIN de FREITAS.