Science, like art, is concerned ultimately with the quest for truth and reality. Every scientist questions what he notices and tries to analyse it. He breaks things down and separates the constituents for deeper study because, unlike superstitious people, he does not accept dogmas or traditional be­liefs, whether spiritual or material.

Science does not simply sit down and pray for things to happen; on the contrary, it seeks to find out why things happen—all in a spirit of enquiry and the quest for reality. So the scientists experiment again and again. Through both failures and successes they add to human knowledge, surely and confidently, bit by bit.

There is no doubt that the modern world has been made by science. Nature did its bit long ago; religion also spread over the centuries, gripping the people’s minds through preaching and dogmas, and filling them with superstitions and engendering myths and metaphysics. But these had their limitations; the vision and scope were narrow.

Nehru characterised religion as a prison of man’s own making. Science, on the other hand, is boundless; it has opened up vast vistas, many of them still waiting to be fully explored.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

While religious attitudes in ancient times were narrow and born of fear and superstition, science is wide, courageous and totally free from bias, prejudice and superstitions. While religion and the spirit have a limited field, science encourages the spirit of enquiry and an open mind. Thus, the attitude and the approach of science and the spirit are totally different.

It is not correct, however, to say that science is inimical to the life of the spirit. The approach, the scope and the content are obviously different, but science does not seek to interfere with religious and spiritual matters. If spiritualists seek to approach and please some imaginary beings by prayers in temples, mosques and churches, the scientists, though disapproving of such practices, do not check them, nor do they come into conflict with them, but let them please themselves.

We have never heard of a scientist sitting “dharna” at a temple, mosque or other centre of worship or spiritualism, in order to thwart a religious practice.

In fact, scientists remain preoccupied with their research and analysis. They prefer to be left alone and not to be interrupted or bothered by non- scientific or other extraneous matters. A life of the spirit is totally different from a scientific life, but there is no conflict or animosity between religion and science.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is true, however, that as science advances, and technological innovations dominate the lives of countless people, religious and spiritual beliefs tend to weaken. With the progress of science and civilisation, priests of various categories, even those who belong to families performing reli­gious duties for many generations, are losing their hold on their clients.

The force and compulsions of spiritualism are not totally eliminated, nor are they vanishing, but their intensity and popularity are no longer what they used to be.

Those who assert that science and spiritualism are mutually contradictory and wholly irreconcilable apparently take a short-sighted view of things. Even though religious methods rest on beliefs, not on convictions, the scientist’s approach towards them is not aggressive. They are not authoritarian, while the spiritualists are assertive and dogmatic. Hypocrisy and supposition are not compatible with science, but these are not uncommon in religion.

There are some people, however, who have held the view that science has always been inimical to a life of the spirit. In support of their stand, they quote the animosity of the Church in olden times and in the Middle Ages (1100-1500 A.D.) towards science. Churchmen go all out to defend what God has ordained or what has been the custom or tradition for ages.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Science has brought in rationalism. The Pope and all Catholics even now denounce modern and scientific methods of family planning, in the firm belief that what is natural should not be checked. But the impact of these and other traditional beliefs is distinctly weaker now. These shows that even without any aggressive move by scientists to enforce their viewpoint, the vested interests are losing their strength.

The old Church would not even let pain and suffering of patients in hospitals be relieved by scientific methods. The Catholics argue that God had intended women to suffer; else, He would not have made birth of infants a laborious, painful process.

Pain killers are not approved by the traditional Church, but even faithful followers of Pope accept modern medicines to relieve themselves of avoidable suffering. Traditional and unflinching devo­tees of religion would not even favour surgical operations to remove un­usual growths in the human body because, so the argument runs, nothing can grow without God’s will.

Actually, religious crusaders and blind followers of priests have done much havoc in the course of history. People have been massacred, burnt alive or lynched, and immense property recklessly destroyed in the name of religion. The well known Crusades were series of wars between ardently religious people of various beliefs. In ancient Indian history there were wars between Hindus and Buddhists.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Indian mythology is full of accounts of wars between gods and devils. The Gita has been described by critics as a big sermon on war. The Thirty Year’s War (1618-1648) was a wild struggle in which most German towns and villages were destroyed, and many areas plundered, all in the name of religion, with no trace of science or the scientific, rational approach.

But there are also people who recall the horrible deed done by the religious genius Calvin, who readily burnt the Spanish scientist, Servetics, on the stakes.

There have, in fact, been countless atrocities committed on human beings by over-enthusiastic religious devotees, generally because the latter stuck to their principles and failed to accept the dictates of religious preachers. But these are essentially aberrations, and it is unfair to condemn all religious men as collaborators in perpetuating cruelties.

True, scientists would prefer to let religious men conform to their scriptures. Science does not bother about scriptures, which religious leaders regard as the word of God. Scientists rightly hope that superstitions would gradually die out with the growth of modern civilisation, which is rational and based on science.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Religion very often amounts to a fantastic faith in gods, goddesses, angels and spirits. It has no scientific foundation. Thus viewed, science and religion may be regarded as antithetical. But science as such is not inimical to religion.

It has also to be admitted that science is not opposed in any way to belief in God and His ways. It is incorrect to think that science encourages atheism. If there are atheists (people who do not believe in God), it is not because of science, but because of the disillusionment caused by the self­ishness of the priests and the self styled, hypocritical dogmatic followers of various creeds. Many of them pose to be men of God and His emissaries on earth, and thus they exploit ignorant masses.

At the same time, it would be unfair to condemn all religious preachers. Religions and their founders have played a great part in history; in fact, the founders of the principal religions have been among the greatest and noblest men the world has known— Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha, Lord Mahavira and Guru Nanak. These angelic per­sons possessed innate strength of mind and reason.

Who would deny that reason is the ultimate standard by which we ought to arrive at knowledge of all truths, scientific or spiritual? Saints and sages have performed great deeds, and no scientist has questioned them or become a heretic. The outward, superficial ways of religion may not appeal to scientists, but that is a different matter.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Religion, deals with areas of human experience which are uncharted by positive scientific knowledge. Moreover, the dealings of science with the visible and material things of the world and the various allied processes are not wholly compatible with psychic and spiritual affairs.

Hence, science has gradually shrunk the sphere of the spirit; as scientific knowledge advances, the domain of the spirit and religion shrinks. Even without consistent advocacy, science and the scientific way of life are bound to triumph, but not necessarily at the cost of religion. True religion and true science can work in their own respective spheres, without coming into conflict with any school of thought.

As Einstein said, science without religion (or the spirit) is lame; religion without science is blind. People may or may not believe in God, but this makes no difference to the pursuit of science. A good religious man with deep personal convictions can also become a true scientist, because no branch of science rules out religious beliefs and practices. In fact, both science and religion enrich life in various ways.