SCIENC AND RELIGION Albert Einstein: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”.
General thinking The term “science” as it is currently used also became common in the nineteenth century. Prior to this, what we call “science” fell under the terminology of “natural philosophy” or, if the experimental part was emphasized, “experimental philosophy”. William Whewell (1834) standardized the term “scientist” to refer to practitioners of diverse natural philosophies. Philosophers of science have attempted to demarcate science from other knowledge-seeking endeavors, in particular religion. For instance, Karl Popper (1959) claimed that scientific hypotheses (unlike religious and philosophical ones) are in principle falsifiable. Many authors (e.g., Taylor 1996) affirm a disparity between science and religion, even if the meanings of both terms are historically contingent Naturalists draw a distinction between methodological naturalism, an epistemological principle that limits scientific inquiry to natural entities and laws, *and ontological or philosophical naturalism,* a metaphysical principle that rejects the supernatural . Since methodological naturalism is concerned with the practice of science (in particular, with the kinds of entities and processes that are invoked), it does not make any statements about whether or not supernatural entities exist. They might exist, but lie outside of the scope of scientific investigation. Some authors hold that taking the results of science seriously entails negative answers to such persistent questions into the existence of free will or moral knowledge. However, these stronger conclusions are controversial. Sigmund Freud and other early psychologists aimed to explain religion as the result of cognitive dispositions. For example, Freud (1927) saw religious belief as an illusion, a childlike yearning for a fatherly figure. He also considered “oceanic feeling” (a feeling of limitlessness and of being connected with the world, a concept he derived from the French author Romain Rolland) as one of the origins of religious belief. He thought this feeling was a remnant of an infant’s experience of the self, prior to being weaned off the breast. William James (1902) was interested in the psychological roots and the phenomenology of religious experiences, which he believed were the ultimate source of all institutional religions. Christianity was unique and instrumental in catalyzing the scientific revolution. For example, according to the sociologist of religion Rodney Stark (2004), the scientific revolution was in fact a slow, gradual development from medieval Christian theology. Claims such as Stark’s, however, fail to recognize the legitimate contributions of Islamic and Greek scholars to the development of modern science, and fail to do justice to the importance of practical technological innovations in map-making and star-charting in the emergence of modern science. In spite of these positive readings of the relationship between science and religion in Christianity, there are sources of enduring tension. For example, there is still vocal opposition to the theory of evolution among Christian fundamentalists. In the public sphere, the conflict view between Christianity and science prevails, in stark contrast to the scholarly literature. The relationship between Islam and science is complex. Today, predominantly Muslim countries, such as the United Arabic Emirates, enjoy high urbanization and technological development, but they still underperform in common metrics of scientific research, such as publications in leading journals and number of citations per scientist, compared to other regions outside of the west such as India and China (see Edis 2007). Some Muslims hold a number of pseudoscientific ideas, some of which it shares with Christianity such as Old Earth creationism, whereas others are specific to Islam such as the recreation of human bodies from the tailbone on the day of resurrection, and the superiority of prayer in treating lower-back pain instead of conventional methods. This contemporary lack of scientific prominence is remarkable given that the Islamic world far exceeded European cultures in the range and quality of its scientific knowledge between approximately the ninth and the fifteenth century, excelling in domains such as mathematics (algebra and geometry, trigonometry in particular), astronomy (seriously considering, but not adopting, heliocentrism), optics, and medicine. Natural theology also flourished in the pre-colonial period, especially in the Advaita Vedānta, a *darśana* that identifies the self, *ātman*, with ultimate reality, Brahman. Advaita Vedāntin philosopher Adi Śaṅkara (fl. first half eighth century) was an author who regarded Brahman as the only reality, both the material and the efficient cause of the cosmos. Śaṅkara formulated design and cosmological arguments, drawing on analogies between the world and artifacts: in ordinary life, we never see non-intelligent agents produce purposive design, yet the universe is suitable for human life, just like benches and pleasure gardens are designed for us. Given that the universe is so complex that even an intelligent craftsman cannot comprehend it, how could it have been created by non-intelligent natural forces? Śaṅkara concluded that it must have been designed by an intelligent creator (C.M. Brown 2008: 108). Buddhists do not distinguish between human beings as possessing a soul and other animals as soulless. As we are all part of the cycle of rebirth, we have all been in previous lives various other beings, including birds, insects, and fish. The problem of the specificity of the human soul does not even arise because of the no-self doctrine. Nevertheless, as Justin Ritzinger (2013) points out, Chinese Buddhists in the 1920s and 1930s who were confronted with early evolutionary theory did not accept Darwin’s theory wholesale. In their view, the central element of Darwinism—the struggle for existence—was incompatible with Buddhism, with its emphasis on compassion with other creatures. They rejected social Darwinism (which sought to engineer societies along Darwinian principles) because it was incompatible with Buddhist ethics and metaphysics. Struggling to survive and to propagate was clinging onto worldly things. Taixu (1890–1947), a Chinese Reformer and Buddhist modernist, instead chose to appropriate Pyotr Kropotkin’s evolutionary views, specifically on mutual aid and altruism. The Russian anarchist argued that cooperation was central to evolutionary change, a view that is currently also more mainstream. However, Kropotkin’s view did not go far enough in Taixu’s opinion because mutual aid still requires a self. Only when one recognizes the no-self doctrine could one dedicate oneself entirely to helping others, as bodhisattvas do (Ritzinger 2013). Jewish thinkers have made substantive theoretical contributions to the relationship between science and religion, which differ in interesting respects from those seen in the literature written by Christian authors. To give just a few examples, Hermann Cohen (1842–1918), a prominent neo-Kantian German Jewish philosopher, thought of the relationship between Judaism and science in the light of the advances in scientific disciplines and the increased participation of Jewish scholars in the sciences. He argued that science, ethics, and Judaism should all be conceived of as distinct but complementary sciences. Cohen believed that his Jewish religious community was facing an epistemic crisis. All references to God had become suspect due to an adherence to naturalism, at first epistemological, but fast becoming ontological. Cohen saw the concept of a transcendent God as foundational to both Jewish practice and belief, so he thought adherence to wholesale naturalism threatened both Jewish orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The discovery of many hominin fossils, including *Ardipithecus ramidus* (4.4 million years ago), *Australopithecus afarensis* (nicknamed “Lucy”), about 3.5 million years old, the Sima de los Huesos hominins (about 400,000 years old, ancestors to the Neanderthals), *Homo neanderthalensis*, and the intriguing *Homo floresiensis* (small hominins who lived on the island of Flores, Indonesia, dated to 700,000–50,000 years ago) have created a rich, complex picture of hominin evolution. These finds are supplemented by detailed analyses of ancient DNA extracted from fossil remains, bringing to light a previously unknown species of hominin (the Denisovans) who lived in Siberia up to about 40,000 years ago. Taken together, this evidence indicates that humans did not evolve in a simple linear fashion, but that human evolution resembles an intricate branching tree with many dead ends, in line with the evolution of other species. Genetic and fossil evidence favors a predominantly African origin of our species *Homo sapiens* (as early as 315,000 years ago) with limited gene-flow from other hominin species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans (see, e.g., Richter et al. 2017). In the light of these scientific findings, contemporary science and religion authors have reconsidered the questions of human uniqueness, *imago Dei*, the Incarnation, and the historicity of original sin. Some authors have attempted to reinterpret human uniqueness as a number of species-specific cognitive and behavioral adaptations. For example, van Huyssteen (2006) considers the ability of humans to engage in cultural and symbolic behavior, which became prevalent in the Upper Paleolithic, as a key feature of uniquely human behavior. Other theologians have opted to broaden the notion of *imago Dei.* Given what we know about the capacities for morality and reason in non-human animals, Celia Deane-Drummond (2012) and Oliver Putz (2009) reject an ontological distinction between humans and non-human animals, and argue for a reconceptualization of the *imago Dei* to include at least some nonhuman animals. Joshua Moritz (2011) raises the question of whether extinct hominin species, such as *Homo neanderthalensis* and *Homo floresiensis*, which co-existed with *Homo sapiens* for some part of prehistory, partook in the divine image. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another. How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. (Einstein) These ancient scriptures are classified into two major texts: Shruti and Smriti. Shruti (“that which is heard”) primarily refers to the Vedas, which form the earliest record of the Hindu scriptures’ and are regarded as eternal truths revealed to ancient sages. The most notable of the Smritis (“memory”) are the epics and the Puranas. The epics consist of the Mahabharata (the Bhagavad Gita is an important part of this epic) and the Ramayana. One has to search these scriptures diligently to find the links to science. Nonetheless, Hinduism has been called the “oldest religion” in the world and some practitioners and scholars refer to it as Sanātana Dharma, “the eternal law” or the ‘eternal way” beyond human origins. Hinduism includes a diversity of ideas on spirituality and traditions, but has no ecclesiastical order, no unquestionable religious authorities, no governing body nor any obligatory holy book; Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic, pantheistic, humanistic, conservatism, or liberalism. Based on this diversity of worldviews, there is plenty of room in which science can fit into Hindu philosophy. For instance, in the Veda texts, Chaplain Gadadhara Pandit Dasa at New York University and Union Theological Seminary and Sri Devasthanam, the Sanskrit Religious Institute find where science and spirituality intersect. Dasa notes that there are many examples of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in the Puranas texts. Einstein’s hypothetical experiment known as the “twin paradox” suggests that if one of a pair of twins travels to outer space at light speed, while the other remains on earth, when the space traveling twin returns, he will be younger than the twin on earth. A passage from the Bhagavat Purana communicates relativity: One’s life endures for only one hundred years, in terms of the times in the different planets. Eternal time is certainly the controller of different dimensions, from that of the atom up to the super-divisions of the duration of Brahmās life; but, nevertheless, it is controlled by the Supreme. Time can control only those who are body conscious, even up to the Satyaloka or the other higher planets of the universe Sri Devasthanam believes that interpretation of the Veda texts is based on the individual’s political leanings. For instance, conservative Hindus accept the Vedas as the direct revelation of God and, therefore, free from error regardless of any non-scientific content, while liberal Hindus admit the great spiritual nature of the Vedas but are willing to reject those parts that contradict reason or science. The mass majority of Hindus, however, believe that the Vedas contain divine revelation but the interpretation is not free from errors because human beings are imperfect, and those parts of the Veda that contradict reason or science must be reinterpreted in a way that conforms to reason or science. Einstein looked at space and time and saw a single dynamic stage — spacetime — on which matter and energy strutted, generating sound and fury, signifying gravity. Newton’s law of gravity had united the earthly physics of falling apples with the cosmic dances of planets and stars. But he couldn’t explain how, and he famously refused to try. It took an Einstein to figure out gravity’s true modus operandi. Gravity, Einstein showed, did not just make what goes up always come down. Gravity made the universe go ’round. Gravity’s secrets succumbed to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, unveiled in a series of papers submitted a century ago this November to the Prussian Academy in Berlin. A decade earlier, his special theory of relativity had merged matter with energy while implying the unity of space and time (soon to be christened as spacetime). After years of struggle, Einstein succeeded in showing that matter and spacetime mutually interact to mimic Newton’s naïve idea that masses attract each other. Gravity, said Einstein, actually moved matter along the curving pathways embodied in spacetime — paths imprinted by mass and energy themselves. As expressed Decades later by the physicist John Archibald Wheeler, mass grips spacetime, telling it how to curve, and spacetime grips mass, telling it how to move. Einstein’s theory explained a famous observation that Newtonian gravity could not: a subtlety in the orbit of the planet Mercury. And his equations implied further slight deviations from Newtonian calculations. Over the last century, general relativity’s predictions have been repeatedly verified by modern precision measurements. To physicists today, general relativity and gravity are essentially synonyms.Therefore, I end with a simple phrase written by celebrated theoretical physicist Albert Einstein: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. The claims of incompatibility between the findings of science and religion are wrong. It is religious fundamentalism that is incompatible with science. This is why it is imperative that scientists and religion scholars work together to stem the tide of religious fundamentalism. The main theme of this writing here is to re-emphasize this balance between science and religion and to show that the scientific method was almost never violated by these classical scientists who were indeed very religious. In fact, their worldview was quite healthy – doing science to show the glory of God. This worldview removes the “noise” in the arguments on the incompatibility between religion and science leaving the clarity of a beautiful accommodation. This may be the “key” to a greater acceptance today of this conceptual compatibility between science and religion. I discuss these ideas in great detail emphasizing the fact that these classical scientists laid the foundation for the science and technology we presently enjoy despite their devotion to God. I re-emphasize the argument of a lasting conceptual compatibility between science and religion, because on an epistemological level, these belief systems are generally two views of the same reality. On a practical level, an alliance generates sensible information which stifles the growth of religious fundamentalism. No one should have to surrender their religion for the good of science. KR IRS 26 7 23 On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 18:45, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < [email protected]> wrote: > > > -- > *Mar*Life as Lie > > In the Body Language, you cannot lie. Breathing, smelling, sensing, > perceiving and understanding, express in body language and it cannot be > even hidden. One teams up with nature and you cannot make the Biosphere lie. > > In the language of words you cannot tell the truth. You can only lie. You > automatically edit, cut, prun, lie, half disclose, control, unspontaneous > and most important you often cannot even know the truth. Knowing the truth > has become speculation. Nature intended us to be part of nature and part of > the free and healthy nature. Truth is the flow of nature. Nature intended > us to continuously feel and often experience profound revelations, via > breathing, smelling and sensing in free and lush nature. > > Truth is natural, not mechanical. But today we have made Brihaspati, a > machine. For every question we want answer from machines or a technological > answer. At the most ultimate fundamental level, the arena of non-volume, > atoms, particles etc are continuously functioning and you just cannot > locate causes and effects. At that level the gigantic vacuum itself is > active. You can only feel from nature. Actually you perceive along with > every other organism. Perception is collegial; every organism is a student > of that college. You spontaneously exhale your perception through smells > which the other organisms inhale and then respond by exhalations, which you > inhale. > > Today, we are asked to keep all emotions under arrest and look at facts > without emotions to know the truth. But with your eyes you can see only > 00.0037% (visible spectrum), of the truth; the rest is in the invisible > spectrum, 99.67%, the arena of feeling and emotion. How can you look at all > facts, when 99.67% of them are in the invisible spectrum and when you dub > feelings as bias? > > Thanks to Economics, the very meaning of God has changed. God is made into > a Super human who can give us economic and political boons. Prayer is no > longer feeling. It is just singing demands on God. We have religions that > protest that they are sciences, amenable to mechanization. Even without > knowing what they are telling, they are telling that they have taken to > technology after divorcing nature, which means taking divorce to God. > > When we are destroying nature, we are destroying truth. All economic goods > are contaminated goods. Lies are bludgeoned on us. Life without feelings > and emotions is simply lie. > > There is need to urgently create areas where nature is free and free > without human tampering. > > YM > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorFmpGDaEr-YWh3g9sBrc-%3Dpg5N8mgGCuTVChjOayCnzw%40mail.gmail.com.
