Introduction
The tendency to explain religious edicts in terms
of science could have been encouraged by the fact
that human beings are trying to see every aspect
of life within a scientific perspective. Often,
we are encouraged to believe that what is scientifically
tenable is true, while those things that cannot
be explained by science is pure falsity. Therefore
it is the inherent urge in us to find out the
truth about religion that often prompts us to
analyze religion within the parameters of scientific
reasoning. It is in this backdrop that we often
hear people say that some religions are more scientific
than others. This is because some religious traditions
follow a scientific path while others still adhere
to non-scientific ways. In this context we often
equate ‘scientific’ with modern practices
and ‘non-scientific’ with barbarian
practices. Therefore those traditions that have
the sanction of the modern man is considered to
be scientific while those that is distant from
the thought process of the modern human society
is considered to be barbaric.
Analysis
When we consider whether certain religions are
scientific or not, we would need to first discuss
as to what is meant by the terms scientific and
non-scientific. A scientific approach is one that
is bordered on solid proof. For example no theory
is considered as a theory if it cannot stand the
test of critical thinking and analysis [Price,
2000; Author not known]. Being scientific requires
you to question beliefs even if they are written
in stone. A truly scientific community believes
that only by asking questions can new frontiers
of human knowledge be opened and examined. Therefore
scientific attitude is very much dependent on
questioning what has been accepted or is in the
process of being accepted. Now, this is in stark
contrast to most religions, almost all of whose
common characteristic is that it discourages questions.
Although there are many definitions for a religion,
the most basic definition is that a religion is
an institutionalized set of beliefs, which are
taken for granted. Almost all religions with some
exceptions are very averse to answering questions
that concern its most important or cardinal beliefs.
History is witness to many incidents where people
were even killed for questioning religious edicts
and beliefs.
However, the counter argument as to whether religious
traditions may be subjected to naturalistic explanations
or not also has merit. Religion may be considered
as a basic set of practices that are aimed at
knowing and understanding that supreme force or
power, called God by some, and divine power by
others. The fact that religion deals with the
intangible is a very important fact that has kept
it separate from natural sciences. Religion is
often concerned with the higher mental faculties
of the human body. Religious feelings and teachings
apply to the intellect and has to be felt than
be seen; in short, religions do not apply to tangible
matter. In this context it can be argued that
our current sciences do not have the adequate
knowledge to develop tools that can at least experience
religious beliefs, let alone quantify them [ReligiousTolerance.org,
2000]. Religious people often criticize scientists
for refuting religious beliefs just because it
cannot be proved. For example they argue that
the mind is felt by all, but seen by none. Hence
it is not correct to say that we must believe
only in those facts that are proved by science.
There are many things that are beyond the realms
of science as we understand it with out limited
wisdom and grasp of the working of the universe.
In spite of the inherent and seemingly obvious
conflict between religion and science, there have
been many instances when both the disciplines
acknowledge each other. For example scientists
believe that many ancient cultures were scientific
in their approach to daily life. They believe
that religion was used to sanctify scientific
principles that our early ancestors found out.
For example, almost all scientific knowledge in
India was shrouded in religious practices so that
they were held in high esteem by the common people.
For example, astrology, architecture and other
sciences such as mathematics used very sound scientific
principles, which are in fact the basis for many
modern sciences. However, this knowledge was strictly
kept out of the reach of the ordinary people and
was circulated only among the upper castes. Further,
religious edicts prevented this knowledge from
reaching the wrong hands. Hence, we may see that
in this case, religion was used to prevent the
misuse of science. Similarly religion was also
used to make people practice scientific principles.
Perhaps the early Indians understood that religion
was a very powerful tool that could be used to
make people adhere to scientific principles. Many
aspects of the Indian daily customs and rituals
have a scientific reason behind it [Iyengar,1997;
Kulkarni, 1974]. An analysis of ancient scientific
history would show that the world has not progressed
much scientifically from what the ancient Indians
had discovered in their time. The basics of all
the modern inventions in different branches of
science had been discovered and codified by the
ancient Indians. The Hindu religion has given
rise to many scientific branches that are very
important. For example Astrology, Astronomy, Ayurveda
(Hindu medicine), Economics, Politics, Geology
etc are very important scientific branches that
were very important in the ancient Hindu society
and is still relevant.
Perhaps it would be right to say that the Hindu
religion, which has always encouraged enquiry
for the truth behind the veil of 'maya' (untruth
or impermanence) as its most important religious
duty, also encouraged ancient seers to seek and
find solutions to common problems much like what
modern scientists do. In contrast the Christian
religion and to a certain extent the Islam religion
went about preaching in the supremacy of the unseen
God and never encouraged people to find out the
truth. On top of it, these religions restricted
the free thinking process of the masses and concentrated
on creating more followers. That is perhaps the
reason why scientific enrichment in these countries
had to wait till recently, i.e. only since the
last 200 to 300 years.
The purpose of all religions is the discovery
of the self and the truth. While this discovery
of the self may be called by some religions as
understanding God, others believe that the supreme
liberates man from the mundane existence in life.
Hence it is the definition of the supreme that
makes a difference in the outlook of a religion.
A religion that sees God as isolated from nature
(often called as the principle of duality) will
have different perspectives from a religion that
sees the whole universe as one. In the second
case enquiry through any means is a necessity
to understand the truth. In the first, the truth
is already believed to have been proclaimed and
so there is no need for enquiry. The path of the
first approach is considered to be scientific
by modern man because it allows a person the freedom
to seek and find answers for himself. The first
path is restrictive and dogmatic. Hence, we may
say that the perspective of truth decides whether
a religion is scientific or not. In this context
it may be said that some religions are more scientific
in their approach than others.
|