Prof. Ghulam Qasim Marwat Before unfolding my views on the topic I wish to make some clarifications with respect to my own position and capacity on the subject and some operational definitions fitted with in the frame of reference which is specially developed for the discussion on Science - Religion relationship. First I neither claim to be a genuine student “science” nor do I have sufficient studies in the field of religion. However, as a student of social sciences I have always been in touch with the scientific method on the one hand and the world religions on the other. So, I do not claim to advance my views with authority. Secondly, in the present discourse the word of science is used in terms of scientific method in general without any reference to any specialized branch of science i.e. physics, chemistry or biology. Similarly the term of religion is also used in a general and comprehensive sense, based on the common characteristics of all the religions without any reference to any specific religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism. So the arguments developed in the subsequent discussion must be viewed from the stand-point of Science and Religion as such. The history of human intellectual development reveals that human consciousness has grown through three different stages of evolution. The early Greek civilization was dominated by philosophy which was characterized by the theme of reason. Still its final objective is to reach the ultimate Reality through the mediation of pure reason. The middle ages were dominated by Religion, which stood on the strong foundations of faith and belief. The Post – Renaissance period is dominated by science, which seeks to reach at concrete facts. The history of human thoughts further reveals that there has been constant conflict between the devotees of religion, philosophy and science. It goes with out saying that religion and science appear to be perfect strangers, which share neither language nor mores, values and norms. They are totally different world views and their outlook on life and of life is not only contradictory, but mostly antagonistic and conflicting. There is complete divergence in their approaches. So hostility is but natural between these two different modes of thinking. The history of relationship between religion and science is indeed the history of perpetual schism and constant mistrust. The reasons are quite obvious and self evident. Nevertheless, to understand the nature of relationship between science and religion we have got to understand the nature of science and religion in the light of their inherent features and characteristics. It is generally recognized that religion, science and philosophy endure to seek knowledge but the methods employed by each are different from those used by others. So here in lies the cause of contradictions. SCIENCE AS A METHOD OF APPROACHSo, first let us examine Science and its method. Science can be defined as a systematic study of the nature and the behavior of material and physical universe based on observation, experiment and measurement. It is a method of approach to the entire empirical world… It is furthermore an approach, which does not aim at “persuasion”, at the finding of “ultimate reality” or at “conversion”. (1) The essence of science is “fact” which is thought to be definite, certain without question and its meaning is to be self evident. (2) Fact is regarded as an empirically verifiable observation. Science begins and ends with facts; emphasizing demonstration. It is devoid of value judgment. It only tells us how to achieve goals. It can never tell us what goals should be sought. Science assumes that through our various sense organs, aided by extension through such devices like telescope, microscope etc, we can know the world. It depends upon the agreement of sense impressions for verification of its observations. Objectivity is the hallmark of every Scientific endeavour. Scientific theories, propositions and hypotheses are always put to a test to determine its validity. Science refuses to accept any statement without empirical verification due to its organized skepticism. A scientific attitude is more than dispassionate, objective, unbiased devotion to collection of facts. Scientist avoids personal and emotional interpretation. He is not a debater taking issues with a side. A scientist has a right to his opinion, but he has no right to be wrong in his facts. Scientific attitude rests upon one and only one fundamental article of faith – faith in the universality of cause and effect. (3) Science seeks to understand things in a day light of reason and rationality. It is the most advanced, credible and reliable phase of human consciousness. Science is extremely orthodox, puritan, and fanatic with respect to its method, laws, and principles. There is no room for compromise, give and take, and expediency on the fundamental truth of science. Science believes in open and free criticism. Without scrutiny and earnest criticism the scientist can not presume with authority. (4) Science begins with observation and must ultimately return to observation for its final validation. The universe presents an infinite variety of phenomena to be studied, but science limits itself and attempts to investigate particular section or aspect of reality. The unity of all sciences consists in their method and not in material alone. The man who classifies facts, who establishes relations between facts, and derives meanings, is applying the scientific method and is a man of science. The facts may belong to any aspect of natural phenomena… it is not the facts themselves which make science, but the method by which they are dealt with. (5) RELIGION AS A METHOD OF APPROACHNow let us turn to Religion. Religion is defined as belief in, worship of or obedience to a Supernatural power or powers considered to be Devine or to have a control over human destiny. (6) It is perhaps the most early and primitive source of human consciousness. The essence of religion is belief and faith. Faith is a strong or unshakable belief in something especially without proof or evidence. Belief is the acceptance of something as true or real without any proof. Faith means abandoning all trust in one’s own resources, casting oneself unreservedly on the mercy of God. Faith implies complete reliance on God and full obedience to God. (7) Faith is the conviction of things not seen and the assurance of things hoped for. A believer retains a firm hold on the promises of God without any outward evidence. In other words a believer walks by faith, not by sight. So, blind acceptance of things is the essence of faith and belief. The more it is blind the more it is strong and valued. Five religious ideas are recognized as God given and innate in the mind of man, from the beginning of time. - The belief in the Supreme Being.
- The need of His worship.
- The pursuit of pious and virtuous life as the most desirable form of worship.
- The need of repentance of sin.
- And reward of punishment in the next world.
These fundamental religious beliefs had been the possession of the first man and they are basic to the entire worthy positive institutionalized religions of the later time. (8) These fundamental beliefs are regarded to be the cardinal principles of a religious experience as a method of approach to the Universe. Religions view and understand the world through the spectrum of these beliefs and principles of faith and explain the mysteries of existence. Religions attempt to explain not only the material universe but also explain the non–material, Spiritual and that - worldly existence. Revelation, intuition, dreams and other extra-sensory sources are considered to be the most reliable, credible and authentic sources of information and knowledge. The devotees of religion believe that the knowledge of ultimate Reality can only be obtained on the basis of Divine revelation and Inner experience. SCIENCE – RELIGION: RELATIONSHIP After having explained the nature of science and religion with their respective methods of approach and central concerns we are now in a position to understand the history of bitter and uneasy relations between science and religion. As it has seen stated earlier, it was a relationship of constant conflict and antagonism. Since the centre of conflict was Europe, as the modern science emerged on the soil of Europe, therefore, the non-European history did not take a serious view of the conflict. The dominant religion of Europe i.e. Christianity had an experience of frequent encounters with the emerging world view of science. At the emergence of modern sciences great scientists like Bruno who was an Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician, whose theories anticipated modern science, were censured by Church. Bruno was the first scientist who suffered terrific death at the stake because of tenacity with which he maintained his unorthodox ideas at a time when both the Roman Catholic and Reformed churches were reaffirming rigid Aristotelian and Scholastic principles in their struggle for the evangelization of Europe. On Feb. 8, 1600, when the death sentence was formally read to him, he addressed his judge by saying, “perhaps your fear in passing judgment on me is greater than mine in receiving it.” (9) Bruno was the first martyr of science. The second victim was Galileo who was punished for his blasphemous utterances on June 21, 1633. The sentence remained in effect throughout the last eight years of his life. (10) Since then the relationship between science and religion has always been tense and strained. After Galileo every big stride made by science was matchingly apposed and resisted by religion. It has been recorded that when Kepler, on whose planetary laws Newton based his theory of gravitation, wanted to account for the motion of the planets, he had to assume a “Soul” in each planet which made it revolved around the sun. Thus science was distorted through the fear that it may displease the bigoted devotees of religion. (11) Even Ghazali has referred to the “difficulty created by bigoted follower of religion, who think that in order to save religion, it is essential to deny all sciences.” (12) The next significant leap forward in the world of science was made by Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) who was tooth and nail resisted by religion from the stand point of morality and is still held as unacceptable by theo-centric scientists like us and theologians of the world. Similar is the case with Karl Marx who for the first time employed scientific method in the study of sociology, economics, history and philosophy. Marxist ideology, stands refuted and repudiated in the theological decrees of almost all the religions of the world. The history of science-religion reveals that there is perpetual conflict in their relationship. In the age of classical physics the relations between science and religion were quite tense and the movements of materialism agnosticism and atheism gathered momentum and people started testing religious beliefs and practices on scientific principles and criteria. (13) Science was making tremendous advances with gradual encroachment on the territories of religion. Religion seemed to be reduced to the choice of capitulation. Even those who did not reject it entirely relegated it to the background as private affairs between man and God. (14) This tense relationship was, however, relaxed at the end of 19th century when classical physics was replaced by the physics based on the Einstein’s ‘Theory of Relativity’ and ‘Quantum Mechanics’. The new stride in science heralded an epoch which restored the rightful place to religion as co-existent with science and philosophy. It provided congenial environment for science religion dialogue and interaction for modus vivendi. But the Post Einsteinian century is evident to the fact that no worth-while improvement in science religion relations has been witnessed, nor any mechanism has been evolved to ensure and facilitate communication between them. It is perhaps due to methodological checks and contradictions that religion and science can not reconcile their contradictions. They do not talk, negotiate and reach at compromise. In such a situation they need mediation through the auspices of a third party and that third party can ideally be philosophy. In dealing with religion and science, it is often said that philosophy is the necessary gatekeeper or even that religion and science discourse is neither religion nor science but rather philosophy. There must be three corner relationship among religion, science and philosophy. Philosophy is committed to analyzing both of the other two members of this partnership and to clarifying what each is “really about” in ways that will facilitate conversation between them. (15) This thinking and conclusion may be characterized thus: “Religion and Science cannot go on a date unless philosophy plays Chaperone.” (16) So philosophy can resolve and dissolve rigidities of science and religion and can bring about harmony and understanding in their stand-points. REFERENCES - William J. Good, P. K. Hatt; Methods in Social Research (Mc Graw Hill book company, Singapore, 1952), p.7
- Ibid. p.7
- A. B. Wolfe, Conservatism, Radicalism and Scientific methods; (The Macmillan Co. New York, 1923), p.203
- Pauline. V. Young; Scientific Social Survey and Research; (Charls. E. Tuttle Co., Tokyo, 1960), p.110
- Ibid.
- Collins English Dictionary (William Collins Sons & Co. Glasgow)
- New Bible Dictionary(Intervarsity Press, Leicester England), p.638
- New Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 26, edition 15, p.568
- Ibid. Vol. 2, p.580
- Ibid. Vol. 19, p.639
- Anwar Dil (ed.) Science, education and development: Life and works of Mr. Raziuddin Siddiqi (intercultural forum, Islamabad, 2002), p.163
- Ibid.
- Ibid. p.164
- Ibid.
- Phil Hefner Interview in Research News and opportunities in Science and Theology (Vol. 2, No. 2, Oct. 2001), p.6
- Ibid.
Back to Table of Contents
|