The book disregards the progressive nature of divine revelation. It focuses more on the binding aspects of religion (customs, rituals, morality, etc.) and completely ignores the divine goal of finding God, which is akin to transcending these very values.
It criticizes the primitive form of religion, which had to be based on those binding aspects as a premise to something greater. Moreover, it is biased in assuming that belief in God is harmful because it reflects the immediate impression of the world, simply because the majority got it wrong.
If there had been constructive criticism rather than militant atheism, the narrative would have been more balanced. The following quote from “The Future Evolution of Man” demonstrates the approach that I believe is lacking if it were to put things in proper light.
“If religion has failed, it is because it has confused the essential with the adventitious. True religion is spiritual religion, it is a seeking after God, the opening of the deepest life of the soul to the indwelling Godhead, the eternal Omnipresence. Dogmas, cults, moral codes are aids and props; they may be offered to man but not imposed on him.” (Sri Aurobindo, The Future Evolution of Man)
A
You assumed incorrectly that God is complicated and composite when he is simple with only one core property—perfection, or perhaps the property of being a mind without limits. This makes it, therefore, much like evolution—reducing lots of complex things to one simple mechanism
A
No comments:
Post a Comment