From: "Santosh Helekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- On Sun, 6/15/08, Fr. Ivo C da Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But it will enlighten Science in the meaning of the world and in the
realm of values.
I hope most people will reject interference of this type. The meaning of
scientific concepts and explanations as they relate to the natural world
should never be corrupted by any particular religious ideology. Scientific
findings must be interpreted by science alone, in a dispassionate and
unbiased manner. None of the multifarious conflicting supernatural
ideologies should serve as a filter in interpreting anything that has to
do with science.
For example, the scientifically determined brain basis of mental illness
should never be reconciled with or reinterpreted in the light of
preconceived supernatural explanations justifying the belief in
reincarnation or the practice of exorcism.
*1.This answer does not contradict my statement, namely that Religion "will
enlighten Science in the meaning of the world and in the realm of values".
Science should work with responsibility, but in itself it is value-free. It
is Ethics that sheds its light on it. Religion and Philosophy entail ethical
teaching. Therefore, Ethics should enlighten Science. This is not unlawful
interference of Religion within the domain of Science.
2."Scientific concepts and explanations" are not "corrupted", but enriched
and guided by Religion. "Scientific findings" have not been "interpreted by
science alone, in a dispassionate and unbiased manner". It needs light from
Religion. That is the drama of today's scientific-technological world. As
Albert Einstein has well predicted:
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the
aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however,
springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in
the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are
rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine
scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an
image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
(Cf. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954, p.46; Einstein
also says: "The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are
given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition." See Max Jammer,
Einstein und Die Religion, Konstanz, 1995, p.43: cf. the discussion,
reported by Max Jammer, which Einstein once had with Rabindranath Tagore
about his book The Religion of Man, when Einstein said: "I am more religious
than you are!"). In this line of thought, I have said in this Forum that
there is no atheist scientist. The problem is with the anthropomorphic
language applied to God. Hence, Einstein found it difficult to accept a
"personal" God...
3. Comparative study of Religions enlightens us. Distorted elements in
religions should be corrected, if they are "multifarious conflicting
supernatural ideologies". Basically, Religion should be based on Love.
Destruction in the name of religions is baseless, a contradiction...
4. Religion does not question that mental illness is a disorder of brain.
There should be dialogue. Science together with religion should discuss the
phenomena that led to the acceptance of reincarnation and exorcism. It is
unscientific to discard them blindly...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
