It appears to me that most commenters missed the point of the article, which (to me) is more on the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's third law: " Any sufficiently ad

It appears to me that most commenters missed the point of the article, which (to me) is more on the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's third law: " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Replace magic by religion.) We have all these scientists trying to explain how sub-atomic particles have mass, and in course of that explanation, talk about the spin of a particle, color charge, Higgs field, et al. Thing is, I can really understand their explanation only if I know what these terms mean. And for me to know what those terms really mean, I might have to spend years (or maybe decades, depending on my mental capacity) studying theoretical physics. But I believe them because science if all about repeatable experiments. While I'm ill-equipped to check the results, I guess other domain-experts can. Now, let's take a look at Hindu spirituality. A yogi might try to explain, say, why we exist, and in course of doing that, talk about Brahman, karma, cosmic cycle, et al. To really understand what he means, I would need to really understand what the terms mean, and doing that might take years or decades. See the parallels? That's what the article is trying to emphasize.