Any scientist who claims that the mind is only a reflection of the operation of the brain would no doubt reject my experience of having had a chat with the spirit of my uncle, as not proven through the scientific method. How would he prove his claim, which is only a belief in the negative? In a universe in which anything can happen, often defying current views of what is knowledge, how would anyone prove that something is not, or cannot be? How could anyone also prove my experience as faulty, an aberration, as something which cannot happen?
Then there is a religious leader (in a succession of such leaders) who seemingly believes that a zygote formed in a female human through the fusion of ovum and sperm is a human. Thereby abortion is killing a human being. Societal repercussions follow. But, how would he prove his belief? Representatives of a much older civilisation focussing upon more spiritually uplifting concerns, and with no associated political ambitions, have generally accepted that the human soul enters the body at birth or near birth. Since this culture is not authoritarian, there are no societal consequences. I prefer that to pronouncements by allegedly infallible men. However, again, it is only a belief.
It is very easy indeed to deny anything that one has been taught to deny. Priesthoods must protect their man-made dogma, a sheaf of unproven beliefs. Many politicians ride on the coat-tails of the dogma vendors in order to achieve power, some pomp and (possibly) wealth. Strangely, there are scientists who are prepared to die in the ditch to protect their frameworks of attempted explanations. Are all such people barriers to understanding a very complex Cosmos, in which anything can happen? I do not believe that an open mind causes any problem to anyone. Understanding may then be able to find its way into our psyche.
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 