chownah wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:51 am
Oh, good. Now I understand. I know that english is not your first language....when you say "People who are into science seem to have the most intense penchant for superstition ..." it is usually taken to mean that scientists are superstitious.
Thanks for the clarification.
Now, can you explain what this has to do with what I was talking about?
I'll recap a part of a plot from an Indian soap opera because it really captures the essence of what I'm talking about:
Long story short, Gauri is a medical doctor, she is devoted to science and doesn't believe any of the Indian rituals and beliefs, she thinks they are mere superstitions. Jagdish is also a doctor, in a marriage with Anandi since they were small children. Gauri seduces Jagdish and they marry. Anandi is thus left disgraced and without means. Anandi's mother is so distressed over her daughter's fate that she gets ill and dies. Gauri has nightmares about Anandi's mother, and appears to be unable to get rid of them, feeling guilty that she hastened her death. Eventually, Gauri's mother, a traditional Hindu woman, goes to a brahmana to get help. The brahmana gives her some sacred ashes and instructs that Gauri needs to scatter the ashes where Anandi's mother died and ask her spirit for forgiveness. Gauri agrees to do that, but here's the twist: even though Gauri's mother relayed the brahmana's instructions correctly, all that sticks in Gauri's mind is that the ashes need to be scattered in the home of Anandi's mother. She completely misses the part that she needs to do it and that she needs to ask forgiveness.
The brahmana actually gave good psychological advice, but it's Gauri who sees only superstition in it and acts superstitiously herself.
You can see this pattern in scientifically minded people who omit some vital part of a ritual, thus effectively making it a superstition.
Like when people try to come up with common-sense explanation for how a bowl could float in the opposite direction of a river's flow, completely omitting the relevance of whose that bowl was, who spoke of it, and in what circumstances.