Religion And Science : Conflicts

Mr. H.S. Ahmad

RELIGION AND SCIENCE: CONFLICTS Mr. Halim Ahamad, HOD, Dept of Physics, SFS College, Nagpur "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

Religion is spiritual belief. It starts from general principles and values, usually recorded in a book or books, which is then applied to particular facts. In old times, people were taught to just accept the truth of their professed beliefs without question, whether verifiable by science or otherwise. If anyone asserted that the beliefs differed from scientific principle or were illogical, the person was treated as atheist. In modern times there is a much greater tendency to question certain spiritual beliefs. Science on the other hand is the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. These facts are then the backbone of the technological progress. In the recent time the technology have become so advanced that you can see and talk with a people thousands of kilometers away with the mobile and satellite phone technology , diseases can be cured with full satisfaction due to the advances in medical sciences and technology. A question is often raised by some extroverts, is this technological progress in tune with the religion or it is demoralizing it. Though many scientists, Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg had a passionate interest in religious questions, science itself has always kept at arm's length from religion. With different religion there are different views and different faiths .However basic faiths are almost similar in all religions. A major source of conflict and disunity in the world today is the widespread opinion that there is some basic opposition between science and religion, that scientific truth contradicts religion on some points or other and one must 1

choose between being a religious person, a believer in God, or a scientist, a follower of reason. More recently, a Nature survey of American scientists found about 40 percent of them to be religious. How do these scientists patch up their understanding of the physical world -- of evolution, for example -- with their religious beliefs? It will be wise to say religion and science are, in fact, complementary. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intellect can soar into the heights, with which the human spirit can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the dilemma of fallacy, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no steps forward, but fall into the miserable quagmire of materialism. The problem is that while science has always taken truth seriously, it has traditionally left values of beauty and goodness pretty much untouched. The most controversial biologist Darwin, to whom this debate about religion and science is credited, did not use the theory of evolution to promote atheism and materialism. He recognized the responsibility and permissible limits of science, including that it could not resolve, or even specify, the existence or character of God, the ultimate meaning of life, the proper fundamentals of morality, or any other spiritual question. He never argued that the fact of fruition implied the non-existence of a divinity or spiritual forces. Ask ourselves whether we have significantly misconstrued his views in the run to adopt materialistic explanations for all things. In the need to dispense with a literal view of certain old religious teachings that are no longer logically supportable, such as an anthropomorphic concept of the deity, have we “thrown the baby out with the bath water”? In more contemporary times, as the wonders of the universe have been more and more uncovered by science, and the unbelievable beauty, complication and interrelationship of all parts of the universe realized, from the macro to the micro levels. Some prominent scientists have begun to express their views in a manner of more and more

Mr. H.S. Ahmad

accommodating to the divine realm. The scientific evidence points reasonably conclusively to a universe of grand integrated design, rather than a disorganized universe without any meaning or direction other than as provided by objective scientific laws. It is hard to simply describe it as something that just is, without reflecting on its deeper significance. The great man Einstein himself recognized that there must be more to the universe than just objective scientific laws, and that physical existence disclosed a mystery, indicating some greater devout power or intelligence at work. He emphasized the dangers of allowing science to run free without appropriate ethical restraints in the interests of all civilization, stating: “Mystical knowledge can never be obtained just by observation, but only by full participation with one’s own being”. Many religious teaching which are at variance with science. The prime reason is human imaginations and intervention undeserving of acceptance. Born of the unawareness of man or the antithesis and opposite of knowledge is superstition. Many older beliefs have had to be discarded under the threat of being relegated to mere superstition or mythology. Alternatively, the literal approach to spiritual teachings has increasingly come under attack by some moderate theologists, academics and others, sometimes forcing a recognition by believers that the teachings may be intended to be metaphoric in nature rather than literally true. If we say that religion is opposed to science, we lack knowledge of either true science or true religion; for both are founded upon the premises and conclusions of reason, and both must bear its test. Much of the difficulty in applying science to the development today has come from the failure to link science to the basic spiritual and moral values upon which each society is built.

3