>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On May 23, 2006, at 5:06 PM, sparaig wrote:
> >
> > > Insomuch as humans show the same patterns of behavior in every
> > > society, the analogy
> > > with Christian Fundamentalism may be useful. However, since
> > > Hinduism is usually a far
> > > more flexable and accomidating religion or set-of-religions
than
> > > Christianity traditionally
> > > has been (for instance, there's no Nicene Creed test for Hindus
> as
> > > far as I know), the
> > > analogy can only go so far.
> >
> >
> > The reasons it would be important would be the same or very
> > similar reasons it was important to question teaching intelligent
> > design in our schools. In other words, it raises the
> > question 'should Hindutva based initiatives be allowed to teach
> > Vedic Intelligent Design in the public school system of India?'
> > Of course that's probably already what's happening at schools
> > like the Maharishi School for the Age of Enlightenment
<snip>
> MMY's version of intelligent design is much closer to
> the original than the corrupted version proposed by
> fundamentalist Christians. To the extent that he
> proposes it to be "scientific," it's in the sense of
> a science of the *subjective*.
Addenda:
I'd be interested to know how closely the Hindutva
version of intelligent design resembles MMY's version.
As to whether any version should be taught in public
schools, in either India or the U.S., certainly it
should not be taught as scientific in the Western
sense of objectively based science, because that
just ain't what it *is*. And clearly it should not
be taught in U.S. public schools except in the
context of a survey course in philosophy, as one
view among many. (The fundamentalist version should
be taught only in a survey course on religion, in
the unit on Christianity.)
Whether and how it should be taught in Indian
public schools I think should be left up to the
Indians.
The New Jersey appeals court case ruled against the
teaching of TM/SCI, in fact, precisely because the
intelligent design aspect of SCI was considered too
close to a religious view for constitutional comfort
(a ruling I support).
One more point: the original version of intelligent
design, like that proposed by physicist Paul Davies,
is so abstract that it doesn't even imply a
Designer. The intelligence and the design said to
be found in nature may exist on their own terms, not
necessarily administered through some divine Being
(although the notion of a Being behind it all is not
foreclosed but rather left to individual preference).
(Me, I lean toward the abstract, impersonal idea of
intelligent design; if this abstraction should ever
become experientially personalized for me, fine, but
a divine Being is not part of my belief system.)
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
