The “Denial of Science”


These days, one frequently comes across the term “science denier”. It has almost become an accusation – a charge that even though one is an educated adult living in the 21st century, one has willfully opted to deny the all-pervasive, all-powerful supremacy of Science. It is as though “Science” has become a god, of sorts, and scientific materialism has become a religion. In this framework of the new religion of atheistic scientific materialism, the so-called “science deniers” are the new heretics and, it might be suggested by the science-fanatics, should be burned at the stake!

But what does it really mean to be a “science denier”? Does it mean denying the veracity of Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein’s theories of relativity? That is not the denial of science – that is merely ignorance about scientific matters. Can anyone seriously claim that, living in the 21st century, one actually denies these basic scientific truths? I can hardly imagine that to be the case.

The adherents of  modern scientific materialism allege that the so-called “science deniers” are regressive medievalists who are intent on perpetuating a theocracy rooted in superstition, witch-hunts and religious fundamentalism. That is an extreme caricature and can hardly be taken seriously by any rational adult in modern society. In fact, I would suggest, the term “science denier” is being used to attack those who question the ethics of what goes on in the name of cutting-edge science and scientific research. For example, are GMOs and the practices of Big Pharma ethical? Is the cloning of human beings ethical? Is transhumanism ethical? These are tough questions that, in my opinion, need to be debated in the public square. However, as long as there are powerful corporate interests who stand to lose a lot of money by the public disclosure of ethical issues such as these, one can rest assured that they will devote themselves to the cover-up of such ethical dilemmas and to perpetuating disinformation about them, such as labelling ethical dissenters as “science deniers”!

If being a “science denier” meant questioning the veracity of certain scientific ideas, then one needs to go no further than scientists themselves! The field of quantum mechanics, for example, has revealed the reality of the anomalous behavior of subatomic particles that frequently contradict long-held, established ideas such as Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. Indeed, science takes pride in such self-contradiction – self-denial, as it were! There is nothing more scientific than the denial of science, because if quantum mechanics can disprove Einstein’s theories of relativity, it implies that quantum mechanics has overthrown the established doctrine and proclaimed itself as the new “god” – all in the name of science!

But the “denial of science”, in its colloquial usage, means anything but that. It is, in fact, a politically charged term, used to label anyone who stands opposed, on ethical grounds, to a radical science-oriented agenda, as a benighted, regressive, superstitious luddite with medieval attitudes. And modern corporations like Monsanto (who sells GMOs and carcinogenic herbicides like Roundup), its subsidiary Bayer (who once sold heroin as a cough remedy for children and manufactured the Zyklon B poison gas used on concentration camp inmates by Nazis) and others get to push their questionable, if not utterly depraved, agendas as cutting-edge science.

To question the limits of our current understanding of the universe is not the “denial of science”. It is to suggest that our current understanding of science is inadequate and incomplete. It is to suggest that the universe is more complex and profound than we mortal human beings may ever be capable of understanding. Is that the basis of religious awe? Perhaps it is – but perhaps it is no different than the religious awe expressed by the likes of Einstein and Oppenheimer when confronted by the awe-inspiring wonders exposed to them by their own scientific work.

David Icke and the Limits of Human Perception 

banksy-canvas-prints-people-with-television-heads-73cm-by-50cm-1r177mRecently, I have been delving into the ideas of the reputed conspiracy theorist turned metaphysical philosopher, David Icke. I now own several of his books and have watched and listened to hours of video and audio footage of his talks and interviews, so I think I have some basic understanding of some of his more esoteric and mind-bending ideas.

One of his ideas that really speaks to me is what he says about the very nature of human perception of the universe. Complementing the ideas of such brilliant minds as Tesla and Einstein, Icke delineates his concept of the universe as a giant field of wave-form energy that we human beings inhabit as conscious, sentient entities. We interpret this field energy through our five senses and brain to construct the experience of living in a universe of three-dimensional space and time – physical reality, as it were. But this construct really only exists in our minds – it represents how we human individuals interpret the field of wave-form energy in which we are immersed. In its raw form, the universe is nothing like how we perceive it. Icke likens our perception of the universe to the video programming one might watch on a television screen. The TV interprets the electromagnetic waves that it intercepts via its antenna or cable to construct a recognizable experience of the world. However, in its raw form, the TV signal is simply electromagnetic wave energy.

The really fascinating insight that David Icke provides is that the human sensory apparatus is tuned to an extremely limited bandwidth of frequencies. We can perceive visible light and infra-red (heat) radiation through our senses of sight and touch, we can hear a limited range of sounds through our sense of hearing, we can detect a limited range of odors through our olfactory system, and so forth. But the senses we are capable of constitute an extremely limited range – other members of the animal kingdom, in fact, have their senses tuned to different ranges, so that cats can see in the dark, dogs have highly sensitive senses of smell and hearing, and bats have a highly developed sense of hearing that it uses as a form of acoustic radar to navigate through a world in which it is, essentially blind. Furthermore, while our senses are bombarded with signals at all times, our brain filters these signals so that only a fraction of what our senses perceive actually reaches our awareness.

The bottom line is that what we human beings know and experience as reality is only a tiny fraction of what is really around us – our interpretation of the vast field of wave-form energy that surrounds us is extremely limited. There is much that we cannot perceive simply because of the limitations of our senses and the capacities of our brains to process the information our senses receive. Even with the benefit of peripheral devices and technology, our perception of reality can only be slightly extended.

And this brings David Icke to the startling hypothesis that, potentially, explains much of what we conceive – and dismiss – as the workings of the supernatural. If our perceptions are so limited, how can we reasonably infer that what we see or hear or otherwise sense is all there is to the universe around us? If we are tuned to a specific channel on our TV sets, then we are limited to viewing only the specific programming to which we have access. But that doesn’t mean that all of the other channels don’t exist, simply because we are tuned to one specific channel. They do exist, and if we flipped the channel we would be able to access that programming.

But what if we lived in a backward totalitarian state, where the only programming we could receive on our cheap black-and-white TV sets was the government channel of 24/7 state propaganda? Because we would not have the capacity to flip the channel on our cheap one-channel TV sets, we would never be aware that any of the other channels or programming even existed. We would not be aware that there was such a thing as color TV or multiple TV channels!

Becoming aware of color television and multiple channels of TV programming and, in fact, the ability to flip channels on a whim, would be something like experiencing an expansion of personal consciousness. One becomes aware of other dimensions of reality, beyond what one had previously been exposed to in one’s very limited sphere of awareness.

That, in effect, is the profound metaphor that David Icke uses to explain his understanding of what we deem to be the “supernatural” – in other words, phenomena that we dismiss as incredible simply becauase they occur beyond our capacity to perceive them! When you really think about it, it seems perfectly logical, but the implications of this feat of reasoning are profound – and, indeed, terrifying! What, in fact, lurks out there in the universe, behind our very shoulders, perhaps – beyond the reaches of our ability to perceive it? David Icke makes some terrifying suggestions – he claims the existence of parasitic reptilian creatures who feed on human life-force energy. Apparently far-fetched, but is it really?

Having previously written about human perception on my blog, this subject is particularly interesting to me and worth thinking and reading about in greater depth!

Loud and Stupid: On Groupthink and Mob Psychology

We live in an age when, thanks to the miracles of modern technology, it is easier than ever before to express oneself and to make oneself heard. On the other hand, thanks to these very same technological wonders, the sad reality of groupthink seems to be more pervasive than ever before — people appear, at some level, to be more inclined to follow the herd and less inclined to think critically as individuals and ask difficult questions of themselves and others.

The media appears to have lost every shred of integrity, a fact underscored most recently by the Brian Williams fiasco, and is so much at the mercy of market influences that one cannot take it seriously any more. The public appears to be more misinformed and deluded than ever before — at the mercy of unscrupulous politicians, marketers and PR firms peddling their dubious wares. The disturbing levels of pervasive religious superstition and the lack of basic scientific knowledge in mainstream society are getting to be downright dangerous — the prevalence of apocalyptic ideas among the religiously minded is on the verge of turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy!

And yet, the tools for widespread education and enlightenment are readily at our disposal. It is easier than ever before to educate oneself — one can even audit lectures from the world's leading universities online for free, and great works of literature have never been more accessible, thanks to their publication in digital form by such ventures as Project Gutenberg, Google Books and others.

So what keeps us in this state of pervasive ignorance? What prevents us from achieving the enlightened state that would keep us from being manipulated and exploited by politicians, marketers and religious con-men? Perhaps it is about recognizing that mere access to tools and technology is only the first step in a very long process. There needs to be a cultural shift away from ignorance, groupthink and a mob mentality, and towards education and critical thought. There needs to be greater awareness of the tools and technologies at our disposal that enable us to better ourselves and others. We need to learn to think for ourselves and give less credence to loud-mouth talking heads on TV who try to tell us how and what to think!

The truth is probably that we are in middle of a cultural paradigm shift — a fundamental transformation that is at least as significant, in many ways, as the invention of the printing press. Technology changes so rapidly that it hardly has the time to be fully appropriated by society before it makes yet another quantum leap! And the exponential rates at which technology continues to advance means that the problem is likely to get worse in the near future before it gets better!

I guess, in the end, the only thing that will save us is our own human individuality — our human capacity to grow, learn and adapt to the rapidly shifting circumstances around us — to develop the faculty for critical thought and the ability to learn empirically as well as theoretically.

In the end, I believe that we, as human individuals, can do a great deal to shape our destiny.


A Question of Belief

I take my beliefs seriously, and sometimes, I feel compelled to express what I believe and why. I’m not sure if it has any impact on the rest of the world — maybe it’s a way of clarifying my own thoughts about my beliefs in my own mind.

In the 21st Century, the biggest challenge — really, the only significant challenge — to Christian ideas and beliefs is science and the scientific method. As Neal Degrasse Tyson stated in the first episode of the brilliant new television program Cosmos, the scientific method is so powerful that, in a matter of a few centuries, it has taken us from Galileo’s telescope to the moon and beyond — to nuclear power, Wifi and to the edge of quantum computing and biotechnology. Who can honestly foresee where it will continue to lead us?

But even though science continues to push the boundaries of explanation of the observable universe, and pushes the limits of observation of the universe itself, there still remain some kinds of questions about human experience that science is incapable of addressing adequately — philosophical concerns such as the purpose of human existence, the nature of human consciousness and identity, the metaphysics of human morality, the role in our lives of the humanities and arts, and, most notably, the nature of the human heart.

I don’t want to delve into the details of the philosophical questions I grappled with on my journey towards my Christian faith because doing so would be an arduous trek into some obscure conceits. Ultimately, what I personally find most compelling about Christianity, is an intangible, undefinable sense of veracity that seems to transcend any purely intellectual attempt to grasp it. Perhaps that is what a leap of faith amounts to — making a decision to believe in something without complete knowledge, but with a reasonable, reasoned sense of the authenticity of the object of one’s faith. At the same time, one must be careful to keep an open mind and always ask questions, not allowing oneself to become trapped by dogma.

Like Giordano Bruno, whose life and vision were dramatically portrayed in episode 1 of the television show Cosmos, I guess my own faith is inspired by a sort of personal vision or insight that helps me reconcile what I know in the context of my scientific background and education and what I believe in the context of my faith. The difference is that my vision seeks to transcend science and religion (even as it is a concrete idea, not a mystical vision), and I hope that I do not meet with the same level of derision among skeptical scientific thinkers as Bruno did among religious people for his vision of a universe modeled after Copernican ideas.

The idea that inspires me is that the creation of the universe may be analogized with a more mundane act of creativity that we are more familiar with. If God’s creation of the observable universe can be thought of as something like, e.g., J.R.R. Tolkein’s creation of middle earth or C.S. Lewis’ creation of Narnia, it somehow makes more sense. If we think of God as existing beyond space and time and creating the universe as a continuity, in the way that an author writes a book, then the universe may have a history of billions of years, even if it was, in a sense, created only a few millennia ago, from God’s point of view. This would be similar, in a sense, to Tolkein writing his books 60 years ago, but his middle earth having a chronology or history of, perhaps, thousands of years.

We human beings, trapped in the continuity of our universe, would be incapable of comprehending or appreciating the space-time continuum that God might operate in even as the characters in a book might be incapable of comprehending the continuity of the universe inhabited by the book’s author and readers. The difference, of course, is that the drama played out in our universe is seemingly impromptu and unscripted — real life happens as a product of human free agency, not, as far as we know, because it has been pre-determined or scripted by God (though some philosophers might argue to the contrary).

Anyway, to speak in simple terms, it helps me to think of the universe as something between a novel and a dream — a product of the creative imagination of an omnipotent intelligence beyond space and time, i.e. God. But because the characters in God’s “novel” have free will and, as such, could influence the “plot” of the story with their own actions, things started going wrong when the “characters” started violently attacking and killing one another — depicted in the Bible as being initiated by a primordial act of fratricide — the story of Cain and Abel. Naturally, God, the author of this “imagined” universe, becomes concerned and attempts a series of interventions, which the characters in the “novel” perceive as supernatural events. Ultimately, God decides to write himself into the story as the protagonist to bring order to the chaos — and so, he creates Christ, who, though he is no different from any of the other characters in the story, happens to have God’s own consciousness projected onto him. God identifies with the protagonist of his story, even as an author might identify with the lead character in his novel, and, in that sense, Christ is perceived as the very son of God, with a Divinely inspired mission to redeem mankind from its unfortunate condition.

Do I have any evidence to support these ideas? No, but it is a theory that attempts to explain certain facts about the universe, such as the origins of human consciousness and morality, man’s relationship with God, etc. And even though it may not have any mathematical underpinnings to elucidate its meaning, it has the virtue of providing a coherent explanation of some Christian ideas. Much as the theories posited by major scientific theorists (Newton, Einstein, etc.) attempt to explain the observable scientific facts of our universe.

In that context, the miraculous and the marvelous are well within the realm of possibility. If one is limited only by the extent of our imaginations in our power to disrupt the fictional universes we might create, then a God, with an infinite imagination, would have an infinite power of intervention into the universe of his creation — our universe. Perhaps, some day, we might see such a display of his powers! In any case, it remains interesting to note that one of the New Testament gospels begins with the phrase, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God . . . .”

Thus, I am inspired by this somewhat grandiose cosmological vision, which may appear to be bordering on the fantastic, but is, ultimately, no more fantastic than one of Einstein’s thought experiments! And while it is lacking in specificity, it is, at least, no less empirically verifiable! Ultimately, it inspires me and gives me faith along with some speculative answers to some of the questions that I am faced with. And while it may be far from the truth, at least it works as a theory, providing an explanation, however imperfect, of the observable facts, in a way that, perhaps, Newtonian physics provided answers before Einstein appeared on the scene!

Meanwhile, even as we reflect on these profound themes, I encourage you to check out Horizon Cybermedia‘s current, ongoing production — a multi-part web series entitled American Castle: The Secret World of William Randolph Hearst. I hope you enjoy it!

Wishing you the very best,

Uday Gunjikar
Founder and CEO,
Horizon Cybermedia, Inc.


The Medium is the Message

In my previous blog post, I promised that I would be making a major announcement about my friend, novelist Ashwin Sanghi’s first novel The Rozabal Line, and my reconnection with him after several decades.

So here goes:

For the last several months, I have been developing a feature-length screenplay based on the novel. I have collaborated with the novelist, Ashwin, on this project, in an attempt to capture his authorial vision as authentically as possible in the cinematic medium and language of screenwriting. If you happen to have followed the news in India, you might even have read a news article in the Indian newspapers in which Ashwin made press statement to this effect.

If you have read The Rozabal Line, you would have noticed that, in spite of being a pretty brief novel, it is extremely dense and complex–packing more ideas into its two hundred or so pages than most novels do in twice as many. As such, adapting the novel into a screenplay, with its interweaving plot-lines and its non-sequential structure, was particularly challenging. However, I am proud to say that I think we have succeeded in developing a really engaging and enjoyable fast-paced thriller screenplay that is currently undergoing its final edits and should be complete very soon.

If you are familiar with this novel and the content of the story, it would be pretty apparent to you that it is very controversial in its subject matter. It is the sort of story that challenges all your assumptions and dares to take you to places you might never have imagined before. Truly, the story is about challenging and engaging you at every level, daring you to question your belief system and ask yourself some pretty tough questions, such as, “Why do I believe what I do? Am I accurate in my beliefs and assumptions?” and so forth.

This story is not and never has been about undermining anyone’s faith or beliefs. However, I realize that when one asks difficult questions or addresses sensitive issues, such as religion, one will inevitably provoke a hostile response from some quarters. In an attempt to anticipate and preempt any such misinformed or ill-informed assessment of this screenplay, I am going to attempt to clarify some points here and, hopefully, prevent the kind of uproar generated by novels like The DaVinci Code, which, in fact, treads on similar territory as The Rozabal Line, though the two novels are completely different in most other respects, such as theme, style and structure.

Firstly, this is a work of speculative fiction. Spelling out what that means–it is a story, a narrative, meant to entertain you, the audience, while, hopefully, broadening your horizons at the same time. So in no way should this story be regarded as factual or journalistic, though it contains many factual and historical elements embedded within its narrative thread. Basically, it is intended to be a fun exercise in which one speculates on certain possibilities and, in doing so, one comes to a deeper understanding of the way things are by asking oneself some tough questions through the process of suspension of disbelief.

Secondly, this story is not intended to preach any kind of doctrine to you or dogma at you. I fully understand that there are people out there who don’t get what this means and who perceive any sort of narrative as some sort of religious tract or testament of faith. That’s not what this is! Rather, it is designed to challenge and encourage you to think critically! “The medium is the message,” to quote Marshall McLuhan. There is no explicit message here other than the challenge to ask difficult questions! If you pay close attention, you will notice that the story undermines itself at every level. This is by design–it is about challenging you, the audience, to play the detective and dig up the clues to what’s really going on here!

Finally, as I suggested earlier, this story should not be regarded as a statement of our personal belief systems. The words and ideas expressed by any of the characters in the story cannot and should not be ascribed to the novelist and/or screenwriter themselves! Personally, I consider myself to be a moderate Christian (who believes in the tolerance of all religions, philosophies and belief systems–even ones I may disagree with or object to–as long as they don’t violate the law or human rights). And as for Ashwin Sanghi, I believe he is a practising Hindu, who shares many of my own points of view on matters of tolerance and human rights.

One of the central themes in this story is the distortion of words and ideas, and how a nuanced, accurate view of history and current events is essential to promoting peace and understanding across the world. I can only hope that the same principles apply to my words and those of Ashwin Sanghi! The reality is that we live in an age of mass media, and in this echo chamber, distortion and oversimplification are inescapable! I can only hope that when people realize the true consequences of distortions and inaccuracies, they will make a greater attempt to discover the truth!

That said, I hope to get this movie made in Hollywood, once the screenplay is completed. Stay tuned for further announcements!

Meanwhile, please feel free to check out Horizon Cybermedia’s website,, for our ongoing video series, Exploration with Uday Gunjikar. A new episode is currently in the editing room and should be online pretty soon.

Wishing you the very best,

Uday Gunjikar
Founder and CEO,
Horizon Cybermedia, Inc.

300 Years

300 years is a long time.

300 years ago, America was still a British colony. There was no Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution. 300 years ago, France was still ruled by an oppressive monarchy and aristocracy. 300 years ago, the steam engine was considered to be cutting-edge technology. 300 years ago, the British Empire was expanding world-wide and Europe was just entering the Age of Enlightenment.

And yet, the earliest complete extant version of the Christian New Testament dates from about 300 years after the crucifixion of Christ. The Codex Sinaiticus was probably commissioned by and produced at the behest of the Roman emperor Constantine, after the First Council of Nicaea was convened to establish Christianity as the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

This leads one to wonder—how much does the familiar figure of Jesus Christ from the modern editions of the Bible actually resemble the historical figure of Yeshua, the Nazarene (or Essene)—the Hebrew prophet who preached in Jerusalem in 30 AD and was brutally executed by Roman occupying forces for heresy at the behest of the orthodox temple priests of Jerusalem? The prophet who subsequently came to be known as “Kristos” (or “Christ”)—Greek for “anointed one”—when he came to be widely renowned as the “Son of God?”

How much of Christianity, as we know of it today, is an accurate reflection and representation of the life and teachings of Yeshua? How much of it is a distortion, possibly inspired by political propaganda, cultural shifts, errors in translation (from Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek to Latin, the Romance languages and, finally, to English)? Not to mention centuries of religious pogroms and inquisitions and the banning and destruction of who knows how many texts!

The simple fact is that we don’t really know. For centuries, Christianity has based its knowledge of the life and deeds of Jesus, the primary architect of the Christian faith, on the authority and credibility of the New Testament. But how credible is the New Testament when we really take a long, hard look at it? The version that survives today dates from the time that Christianity was adopted as the state religion of the Roman empire. When we think of Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of the separation of church and state, one has to wonder about the very origins of modern Christianity, arising out of the politicization of a persecuted religion. The irony is that Constantine, the Roman emperor who established Christianity as the Roman state religion, was, in many ways, no less ruthless and psychotic than his predecessors, such as Caligula and Nero, who were notorious for persecuting, scapegoating and murdering Christians whenever it was politically expedient for them.

When you think about the fact that Christianity is, in its origins, the most apolitical of religions—as epitomized by the Biblical story of Jesus being tempted by the devil in the wilderness—the devil offering Jesus all the world’s kingdoms as a reward for Satan-worship—one has to wonder to what degree Christianity itself was distorted and corrupted by the very political forces that made it such a powerful world religion. By becoming a “world religion” or “state religion,” did Christianity, in effect, become worldly and corrupt, thereby undermining its own message of rejecting worldly corruption in favor of the spiritual “kingdom of God,” at the very moment it began to take shape as the modern religion we know of today?

In essence, would it be too radical to suggest that “Jesus Christ”—a Biblical personality with a Latin name—is, in fact, a pagan idol and that Christianity, as we know of it today, is a false religion? If the modern “Jesus Christ” is a corrupt, distorted representation of “Yeshua, the Nazarene,” the Hebrew prophet who preached in Jerusalem in the first century C.E., then perhaps millions of ardent Christian believers worldwide are inadvertently worshipping a false, pagan idol!

These are some of the ideas entertained by Ashwin Sanghi’s ingenious and fascinating novel, The Rozabal Line. The novel examines the intricacies of religion and human motivation, against the unfolding tapestry of history, all told in the vein of a nail-biting modern thriller.

Stay tuned to this blog for an upcoming announcement concerning my association with this novel and my reconnection, after several years (decades, even), with the book’s author.

Until then, check out Horizon Cybermedia’s website at for the engaging travel video series, Exploration with Uday Gunjikar. The current video in the series visits Big Bear Lake, CA. The upcoming video in the series visits the Buddhist sculptures of the Kanheri cave temples at the Borivli National Park near Mumbai, India.

Wishing you the very best,

Uday Gunjikar
Founder and CEO,
Horizon Cybermedia, Inc.

– Posted using WordPress from my iPad

Science and Religion

It’s been way too long since I last updated my blog, so I figured it was about time I posted something—even if it’s just filler material, pending the next major project that I’m currently working on for Horizon Cybermedia. A quick update on what’s to come—I recently started editing the next film in my Exploration series, which will visit the outstanding rock-cut Kanheri Buddhist cave temples located in the Borivli National Park near Mumbai, India. At the same time, I plan to post a review of a fascinating novel I have been reading, written by a friend I have known since childhood. The novel is The Rozabal Line by Ashwin Sanghi. It is a remarkable work of speculative fiction that delves into the deepest, hidden recesses of the human psyche and dares to address one of the most controversial, difficult subjects of all—religion! The novel ties in very neatly with my film, as Buddhism plays a crucial role in the story—one that I will address in greater depth when I am ready to publish my review.

As it happens, I have also been reading another very interesting book on the subject of comparative religion, namely God is Not One by Stephen Prothero, in which the author does a comparative analysis of the eight major world religions, emphasizing their differences. He suggests how unlikely and even dangerous it is to assume that it is at all possible to envision a world in which all the world’s major religions could be unified into some sort of harmonious whole or molded into a global world religion. He strikes many interesting chords, and I am inclined to agree with his point of view in many respects. 

However, I think he neglects to address what I believe to be some basic truths—namely, that, in the end, all religions, however diverse they may be, are essentially the product of the human psyche, which is fundamentally similar. So at the core of all religions are some very fundamental, universal truths and these truths, I think, could be a foundation to establish some sort of common ground between religious systems—not so much in an attempt to promote a “global world religion” as to promote understanding, peace and fellowship among human beings of all creeds, backgrounds or ethnic origins. As a Christian myself, I interpret Christ’s message to be this very theme—after all, wasn’t Jesus Christ most critical of doctrinal orthodoxy and dogma to the exclusion of basic humanity and human decency? Would not Christ, if He was with us right now, be sharply critical of so-called religious authoritarians, whatever their credo, who use doctrinal orthodoxy to justify or rationalize a basic lack of decency, humanity and compassion? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the whole point of the Christian message is to move away from the head and towards the heart—away from petty doctrinal divisiveness and towards basic humanity and compassion.

Interestingly, another project I am currently working on, quite independent from anything to do with Horizon Cybermedia, is a novel based on a screenplay I had written a couple of years ago. This novel is more about science than religion—it tackles the other great subject of our age. It brings to my mind how fundamental this dichotomy between science and religion is—the more so in this 21st century, when science and technology continue to advance at an ever increasing pace. For some reason, nevertheless, religion is proving to be no less relevant even in this era of supposed enlightenment—an enlightenment to be inspired, in part, at least, by scientific and technological advancement. So where will it all lead us? What does the future hold? The end of religion, in a world where scientific knowledge reigns supreme and abolishes the superstitions of the past? Or will religion make a dramatic comeback and have the final say? After all, in a world in which “Scientology” is itself a religion, one cannot—one dare not—underestimate the power of religion over the human psyche! Truly religion is a force to be reckoned with, but even so, does it have a place in a progressive, technologically advanced society, and if so, what is it’s role?

These are some of the questions I hope to address in future blog posts. Consider this one to be a starter—a foretaste or foreshadowing of blog entries to come!

Meanwhile, I welcome your feedback. If you happen to be reading this blog entry or following this blog, I welcome you to reflect on these weighty issues and post a comment or two with your insights. Religion is a sensitive subject and is liable to provoke a passionate response from some quarters, so I urge you to measure your words carefully before posting them. Of course, I will be moderating all comments to ensure that nothing offensive or inflammatory gets posted on my blog so that the spirit of congenial dialog is in no way compromised!

I look forward to hearing from you! Meanwhile, do keep on the lookout for the next film in the Exploration series, coming soon, and, of course, my review of Ashwin Sanghi’s brilliant novel, The Rozabal Line and even, possibly, of Stephen Prothero’s book God is Not One. Meanwhile, do continue to visit and check out the current and archived videos in the film series Exploration with Uday Gunjikar, which takes you to fascinating sites around the world right from your armchair by the fire at home!

Wishing you the very best,

Uday Gunjikar
Founder and CEO,
Horizon Cybermedia, Inc.