Importance of Science and Religion
Modern science and religion are arguably two most powerful influences in our society today, leading and guiding the life and destiny of people. This is particularly true of India where traditionally both science and religion have flourished and enjoyed great respect and wide support. In the past many outstanding scholars and scientists have pointed this out time and again. For instance, Alfred North Whitehead already in 1925 in his well-known Science and the Modern World, wrote: “When we consider what religion is for mankind, and what science is, it is no exaggeration to say that the future course of history depends upon the decision of this generation as to the relations between them.” Max Planck in 1932 in his book Where Is Science Going? said: “There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony.” In more recent times, well-known scientists like Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Francis Collins, etc., and great religious leaders like Swami Vivekananda, Pope John Paul II, Dalai Lama, etc., also have held similar views.
However, consensus with regard to how to relate true science with genuine religion creatively and constructively still remains elusive. Late Ian Barbour who did pioneering work in this field of interrelating science and religion proposes 4 models: conflict, independence, dialogue and integration. John Haught, Distinguished Research Professor of Theology at Georgetown University, has a similar view although his nomenclature is slightly different: conflict, contrast, contact and confirmation. Ted Peters of CTNS (Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences) gives a more detailed eight-fold view: scientism, scientific imperialism, ecclesiastical authoritarianism, scientific creationism, the two-language theory, hypothetical consonance, ethical overlap and New Age spirituality. There are many other models presented by other scholars in the field. It seems to me that these differences should not be considered as a mark of weakness or unclarity about the relationship. Rather I consider this as something natural and expected – both science and religion are exceptionally rich and resourceful fields and involve many aspects, and so no simple model or classification can capture adequately this richness.
My Personal View on the Relationship between Modern Science and Contemporary Religion
Personally I believe that the views or classification presented by various scholars are on the right track – historically and logically. However, I wish to consider the matter in a simpler way in terms of 3 dominant views: conflict view, coexistence view and complementarity view. It is my contention that the more detailed views presented by other scholars can be subsumed under one of these 3 models.
According to this view, science and religion are enemies at perpetual war with each other. Science is claimed to be in the winner’s seat, and it is only a matter of time before religion will be vanquished, and science will have established its supremacy. The motto of this camp is “The boom of science is the doom of religion.” The stock example of this group is the oft-repeated Galileo controversy and the Darwinian debate. Some of the prominent proponents, over the centuries, of this view are David Hume, Karl Marx, Frederick Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Kai Nielson, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc. It may be noted that, although even today some sections of the popular media still continue to present this view, many well-informed and well-recognized contemporary scholars have raised serious objections to this view.
The basic stand of this group is that science and religion are two independent systems, in which each one is right and justified in its own domain. But they remain independent and unrelated to each other in any meaningful way, and have nothing to contribute to each other. Conflict comes only when one trespasses into the other’s territory. The often quoted example of this view is: “When Faraday opens the door of his laboratory, he closes the door of his oratory.”
Many scientists in the past subscribed to this view. A significant number of Indian scientists even today hold this view. In more recent times Abdus Salam, Stephen J. Gould, etc., have strongly supported this view. Although this view can get around the problem of antagonism between science and religion, it does not seem to be a happy position. Since one and the same person is expected to play two different roles – be a scientist and be cut off from all matters religious, while doing science, and be a religious and forget all matters scientific, while engaged in religious matters – this can lead to internal tensions.
The complementarity view, in some ways, can be looked upon as a middle position between the conflict and coexistence views, with certain significant differences. Like the coexistence view, it admits that science and religion are different, but unlike it, the complementarity view refuses to deny close relationship between the two. Like the conflict view, it admits that there are marked differences between science and religion; but, unlike it, this complementarity view looks at these differences positively – as enriching each other, rather than advocating any form of rivalry or antagonism with each other. This view believes that both science and religion are good and beneficial, even necessary, for humans. But they are different, but these differences, instead of negatively pitting one against the other, positively united them together. These two meet and interact actively, usually not directly with each other, but in the person and life of the scientist and believer. That is, usually religion may not make science better science by its interaction; conversely, science may not make religion better by its interaction. They meet in the life of the person, and when they both are allowed to influence the person, a better and richer person is formed. This comes about because humans need both the rich resources of science and the deep insights of religion. Science brings to the person involved something very precious and necessary which religion may not be able to provide; similarly religion contributes certain things to the person which science may not be able to supply. Thus when scientific resources and religious values are allowed to influence the human person constructively and creatively, the result is a more wholesome, more balanced, fuller person. This interaction allows the human person to develop and fructify more and more the numerous potentialities of the human person. Fritjof Capra in his The Tao of Physics has captured this point beautifully: “Science does not need religion, religion does not need science; but humans need both.” Albert Einstein’s view in this context is well known: “Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame.”[i] In his Letter to George Coyne, SJ, then Director of the Vatican Observatory, in 1988, Pope John Paul II shared the same sentiment: “Science can purify religion from superstition, religion can purify science from false absolutes.” Today more and more scholars are moving towards this view, although each expresses it in his/her own way.
East-West Meeting
I am very much in favour of the Complementarity View. However, I go one step further. The meeting of genuine science and true religion in a person is a very special type of interactive process: it is expected to touch and transform the person – the person becomes better and richer. The person is not only better informed since the person receives data from both sources, the person is also better formed – the harmonious blending of scientific data and religious insights can shape the person better. Furthermore, the person gets transformed, with an enriched personality and ennobled attitude. This three-tier enrichment process of information, formation and transformation involves not only the sapiential, dominantly intellectual and academic dimension, but also the affective, dominantly intuitive and mystical aspect. With regard to the intellectual and academic dimension scholars in the West have been doing a marvellous work, and science-religion dialogue has been benefiting immensely. However, it seems to me that this contribution has remained very much at the academic level, the affective level has not been touched sufficiently. For science-religion dialogue to touch and transform persons, the affective, mystical dimension also has to be put in full action. It is well accepted that the East has been rich in the affective, mystical dimension, and so the East can make a substantial contribution to science-religion dialogue in this area. This means that the Eastern segment of science-religion dialogue also will have to be developed further if this dialogue is to become a true vehicle of human transformation. One of IISR’s primary concerns is to develop further this “Eastern Wing” of science-religion dialogue.
IISR (Indian Institute of Science and Religion)
Indian Institute of Science & Religion is an attempt to bring together the latest findings of modern science and deepest insights of religions to build up a better humanity and a better India, particularly in her multi-religious, multicultural and multiracial context. Established in 2000 at Jnana DeepaVidyapeeth (JDV), Pontifical Institute of Philosophy and Religion, Pune, India, IISR has been a pioneer in science-religion interfacing in the Indian subcontinent. in 2014 the headquarters of IISR was shifted to Delhi. Currently it is located at Navjivan Renewal Centre, 4 Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi 110054.
Vision of IISR
Recognizing and appreciating the complementary and mutually enriching roles of both science and religion, IISR promotes a scientifically well-informed, open-to-the-Divine and value-based humanity.
Mission of IISR
In the multireligious, multicultural and multiracial fabric of the world, especially India, IISR attempts to bring together the latest findings of modern science and the deepest insights of religions to build up a better humanity. Keeping itself abreast of the ever growing scientific developments, it attempts to integrate them with the time-tested and ever growing insights and values of religious traditions through serious research, international/national seminars, scholarly publications, etc. Keeping the strategy of ‘influencing the influential’ and collaborating with likeminded organizations both nationally and internationally, it focuses primarily on university/college/major seminary professors/lectures and senior college students, both men and women, urban and rural, Christian and non-Christian.
[i] See Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1954 & 1982), pp. 41-49.
