View source for People in the past gave religion an enormous importance and science was practically unknown. Now they're going the other way around

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"people in the past gave religion an enormous importance and science was practically unknown. Now they're going the other way around"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Mangalavati}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|20May11}}
{{last|20May11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}

[[Category:Prabhupada Responding to Comments]]
[[Category:Prabhupada Responding to Comments... 1971]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1971_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="4" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1971 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1971 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithDrWeiroftheMensaSocietySeptember51971London_0" class="quote" parent="1971_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="25" link="Room Conversation with Dr. Weir of the Mensa Society -- September 5, 1971, London" link_text="Room Conversation with Dr. Weir of the Mensa Society -- September 5, 1971, London">
<div class="heading">That scientific spirituality, that is advancement more than the animals. Otherwise if you simply remain on the (indistinct) eating, sleeping, mating and defending scientifically, you remain animal. But when that scientific research goes to the spiritual thing that is special prerogative of the human.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Dr. Weir of the Mensa Society -- September 5, 1971, London|Room Conversation with Dr. Weir of the Mensa Society -- September 5, 1971, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Dr. Weir: But at the same time he's a spiritual animal. It's interesting to find that in this twentieth century, science is rather replacing the spirituality. You know people in the past gave religion an enormous importance and science was practically unknown. Now they're going the other way around.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That scientific spirituality, that is advancement more than the animals. Otherwise if you simply remain on the (indistinct) eating, sleeping, mating and defending scientifically, you remain animal. But when that scientific research goes to the spiritual thing that is special prerogative of the human.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: This replacement by science of religion has proven inadequate also in the twentieth century because how can it satisfy ultimately the questions?</p>
<p>Dr. Weir: In the same way, how can you satisfy a person's lack of emotional content in his job by giving him more money? Half of the trouble starts with the jobs, is they have no emotive content now because there's no rapport between them and their boss. They have practically no intellectual interest because they've a routine job in a factory. And you know they are really deprived in a sad way.</p>
<p>Mensa Member: Then what worries lots of people about lots of religions is the (indistinct) for example of pointing a finger at the (indistinct) choosing the finger with the (indistinct)</p>
<p>Dr. Weir: One of the difficulties, and I think this is true when I was saying simple people, using that in a broader sense, some people cannot get anything at all unless they have a little picture. You know, it helps them; not like the dear old lady who found...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That we give, the picture. Here is God.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Just like Christ. He came to speak with a very ignorant class of men. He was forced to speak in parables and stories.</p>
<p>Dr. Weir: Ah, yes. Now parable is better than analogy. An analogy is an intellectual thing whereas a parable is a human thing. It's a warmth thing. It's in three dimensions, not a cross-section. And He was, of course, awfully clever at choosing them.</p>
<p>Mensa Member: I don't think your friend, Christmas Humphries will agree with either of those statements.</p>
<p>Dr. Weir: Knowing him very well, I don't... One would be surprised (indistinct) perfectly happy to feel that I was disagreeing with him. I think he (indistinct) himself to Kṛṣṇa at times.</p>
<p>Mensa Member: Well, is that absolutely (indistinct)</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: The Buddhist thinks that everyone is God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: In Buddhist theory there is no acceptance of God. There is simply to diminish, or to nullify the sense of pains and pleasures. That is called nirvāṇa.</p>
<p>Dr. Weir: The atheist is the person who worries most about God. I mean, he really... God must exist but he tries to deny it all. Rather like, I had a lecturer at Oxford who wasn't interested in women. He was a misogynist. He talked, you know (indistinct) and he spent all his time telling you he wasn't interested in women. He thought about nothing but women and the fact that he wasn't interested in them. His lectures were full of it. It was pathetic.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Just like Kaṁsa!</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hiraṇyakaśipu. Gold and women.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Kaṁsa hated Kṛṣṇa and he wanted to kill him but all he could think about was Kṛṣṇa. So somehow or other it boils down that one somehow has to become Kṛṣṇa conscious under some process.</p>
<p>Dr. Weir: (indistinct) even other people, not using that name.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: (indistinct) It's God consciousness.</p>
<p>Dr. Weir: That's what I say Unitarians apparently by having so much of this in their (indistinct) in quite a different way from a different philosophy. And, of course, you begin to feel that they must be very (indistinct) because they were so persecuted. If a person is no real menace to you, you don't have to persecute him. I think Socrates and Christ are perfect examples of that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: (indistinct)</p>
<p>Dr. Weir: I think that's been most fascinating, Swami, very kind of you, indeed.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Thank you.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>