Religion and Science

by Prof. Carlo Fonseka

(November 05, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In setting forth his comprehensive analysis of the nature of religion Karl Marx declared that "religion is the generalized theory of the world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form…" Of the dozen or so brilliant images and metaphors Marx used in his dissection of religion, the only one that most people have heard of is that religion is "the opium of the people." As it happened, it was as a medical student that I first encountered Thomas Sydenham’s judgment on opium pronounced in 1680: "Among the remedies which it has pleased Almighty God to give to man to relieve his sufferings, none is so universal and so efficacious as opium." This was a moment of truth for me. I concluded then and there that if Sydenham’s judgment on opium is right and if Marx’s identification of religion with opium is right, then religion must be just what the doctor ordered for suffering humanity, who are not allergic to it.

Religion

Religion being much older than science, in the beginning of human history societies must have organized their understanding of the world around their religious beliefs. Every major organized religion has had a set of beliefs, a code of morals and a clergy who have been the executors of religious activities. They have always enjoyed the official or unofficial patronage of kings and rulers and they have exercised control over the minds and hearts of their faithful. Naturally enough it is the clergy of a religion who defend its creed and moral code when they are assailed by dissidents.

Dissidents

The Buddha was a dissident from Hinduism. Socrates was a dissident who refused to worship the gods whom his fellow Athenian citizens worshiped. Martin Luther was a dissident from Roman Catholicism but not from Christianity. Thomas Paine, who wrote The Age of Reason, was a dissident from Christianity, but not from The Almighty, "the great mechanic of creation". They were all men of Reason but none of them was a man of Science. Their conflicts with religion were located in the paradigm of religion.

Enter Science

The conflicts between Religion and Science belong to quite a different paradigmatic order. To see why this is so, let us focus again on Karl Marx’s characterization of religion as "the generalized theory of the world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form…" In contrast to Religion, Science is a specific theory of the world, an exposition of its nature in encyclopedic detail, its logic in rigorous form. Religion is general, qualitative and speculative. Science is specific, quantitative and testable. Therefore, conflicts between them are well-nigh inevitable. In the major conflicts between Religion and Science, Science has prevailed over Religion because in practice Science has tangibly contributed more than Religion to human welfare and happiness on earth. It is remarkable that many people who have survived near-death experiences during which they reportedly had visions of another world including people who were already dead, should say that they finally decided to return to earthly life than enter the other world of which they had had a tantalizing glimpse. Without a whisper of doubt the earthy piece of work called Homo sapiens sapiens is strongly earthbound.

Life after Death

Most people are, however, interested in the question of a possible life after death, and in the question of the meaning and purpose of life on earth. As of now Science does not and indeed cannot supply definite answers to questions of origin, meaning, purpose, destiny, good and evil. The behaviour of the physical universe unraveled by Science reveals nothing which makes human life more purposeful and meaningful than the life of a cockroach. According to one cosmological calculation, if the universe had been in existence for only one year, humankind appeared on the scene at about 10.30 p.m. on 31 December and recorded history occupies only the last 10 seconds! So perhaps we have not had enough time to discover the meaning and purpose of our lives. Admittedly, accounting for human goodness is outside the domain of current Science. But that does not make goodness less important or desirable. For me Omar Khayyam’s quatrain I learnt in my youth is still relevant:

"Ah Love, could thou and I with fate conspire

To grass this sorry scheme of things entire

Would not we shatter it to bits and then

Re-mould it nearer to the heart’s desire"

The Way

What our hearts desire is peace on earth and happiness of the human family. Peace on earth and the happiness of the human family are values preached by Religion and not by Science. In the present stage of human history it is to the example set by religious sages like the Buddha and Jesus that we have to turn for guidance about how we ought to live. One lesson of history is that if Science concerns itself with how nature works and Religion concerns itself with why the universe is the way it is as discovered by Science, conflicts can be largely avoided. I believe that this is the way Homo sapiens sapiens ought to go at the present stage of our evolution. - Sri Lanka Guardian