RELIGION AND SCIENCE
Are They Irreconcilable?
INDIAN scientists are often believed to have split personalities. When they are in the laboratories, they follow the rules of science, the scientific methodology, and the culture of doubting things, which is the crux of science, and when they are at home, they are highly religious, follow all the religious traditions and have complete faith in God and religion. It is believed that this split personality or dichotomy is responsible for their inability to produce first rate science and win major international accolades like the Nobel Prize.
This is what Mr Dilip Salwi wrote in his review of a biography of Nobel Laureate Dr Abdus Salam (Hindustan Times, August 8, 1992). The biography was penned by Mr Jagjit Singh who was chosen by Dr Abdus Salam himself for this task.
There is little logic in the contention that India’s scientists fail to reach the top because they happen also to be men of firm religious persuasions. Whether this constitutes having a dual personality or a dichotomous lifestyle is immaterial. What truly needs to be clearly understood is that science, per se, when correctly defined, does not state religion to be an obstacle to reaching the top rungs of the scientific ladder. Just consider how many luminaries of the West, besides being scientists by profession, have shown strong religious proclivities in their private lives; the more notable examples being Isaac Newton, Arthur Eddington, and James Jeans.
The same holds true for the arts. Many distinguished scientists have been keenly interested in music, painting and diverse other art forms, but this has in no way detracted from their abilities as scientific thinkers. Although science is based on mathematics and calculation, and art is based on imagination and personal taste, these two spheres are more complementary than diametrically opposed in the cultivated mind. Scientists have never had any difficulty in being scientists in the laboratory and art lovers outside. By the same token, it is also quite possible to be religiously and scientifically inclined at one and the same time.
Another point, or rather, supposition, made by Mr Salwi, which it is even more urgent to expose as baseless, is that ‘the culture of doubting things is the crux of science’, while religion implies unquestioning faith. If this were really so, science and religion would be at opposite poles. But the ‘doubting’ method is only the starting point of scientific thinking. That is certainly not its final destination.
Beginning from the doubting stage, the scientist proceeds on his journey, ultimately coming to the point of belief. Science, at its final stage, is just as much a matter of belief as religion is.
When a scientist begins to follow a particular line of thought, he uses observation and experiment to direct, develop and verify his original thinking. But it has also come to be accepted that as a scientist progresses with his investigations, he eventually reaches a stage where observation and experiment no longer bear fruit, and this in spite of a whole universe of facts lying unexplored before him. He must now face the fact that his own human limitation bars any further progress, so that he must either give up his research, or change his methods. Stopping his research is out of the question because he would then never be able to discover anything truly meaningful. He must proceed at all costs from doubt to conviction.
This is why all modern scientists have altered their methodology. That is to say that they have had to accept the indirect along with the direct method of research. Without this, too many facets of our physical existence would remain unexplored. This is why inferential argument has been accepted in modern times as being as valid as direct argument.
For instance, modern nuclear physics is based entirely on inferential argument. If the inferential method were to be subtracted from scientific procedure, the science of nuclear physics would cease to exist.
The same is true of organic evolution. The notion of the gradual evolution of species, which progressed from being regarded as a hypothesis to being accepted as a scientific fact, is based on events which have never been even partially observed. This notwithstanding, this theory is considered to be ‘scientific’. This became possible only because the indirect method came to be accepted in science along with the direct method.
With the acknowledgement of this reality, why should it be of any special relevance whether the scientist who believes in religion has a dual personality or not? If such a person is to be described as having a dual personality, then the totally non-religious scientist would also have to be similarly described, for science accepts certain things by direct argument, ‘while accepting certain other things by indirect argument.’
Seen in this light, the position of religion is not that of an unscientific creed. The adherents of religion must go through the same mental processes to arrive at a set of valid beliefs as the scientist must apply to his own and others’ findings. There is no fundamental difference between the two approaches.
I am a religious person, yet I always attach proper importance to the scientific way of thinking. Before coming to any conclusions about religion, I first collected all available data on religion and subjected it to thorough analysis. Exactly the same method is adapted in the field of science as we understand it today. By pursuing the same course, I reached a point where I found that there exists no direct link between the point under investigation and the known data. Here I employed the principle of inference. That is, on the basis of observable facts, I postulated a reality which was not observable, then judged it by the norms of logic before reaching any definite conclusions about it.
I can therefore say of myself, with conviction, that on the one hand, I am a completely religious person, while on the other; my way of thinking is entirely scientific.
I do not think I could be described as having a dual personality. I would say rather that my personality is well-integrated.
In the light of this personal experience, I am perhaps not in error when I say that the scientists who are religious are scientists as well as men of religion in the full sense of the word. Sir James Jeans, Dr Abdus Salam and many others of that august fraternity must have trodden the same path towards belief. That is, they must have arrived at religious truth only after making a scientific survey of all available data.
