Religion without Science is Blind

Deliberating on spirituality and religion, Einstein (1) asserted, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” It is hard to understand this assertion in its literal sense but from a broad viewpoint it suggests that religion and science are not whole (complete) without each other. Religion is liable to run into blind alleys if it’s not guided by science and if science is used without a spiritual aspect (religion), it might not make much sense either. It is known that Einstein, although of Jewish lineage, did not believe in any particular historical and divinely revealed religion. He did not speak of any particular religion when he made the preceding assertion. According to Bertrand Russell (2), “The word religion is used nowadays in a very loose sense. Some people under the influence of extreme Protestantism employ the word to denote any personal convictions as to morals or the nature of the universe. This use of the word is quite unhistorical.” When Einstein spoke of religion without specifying any particular historical religion, he spoke of religion in the abstract sense or in a philosophical context, which does not necessarily allude to any particular religion. At another place, he (3) asserted, “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” His God was not a god of retribution and reward because he also asserted, “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty, “ (4).

When religion is viewed in this broad sense, it can be said that religion without science is blind because progressive scientific developments can broaden the religious perspective and make it more relevant to humankind. However, difficulties arise with the divine religions, which have Divine Scriptures that are believed to be the Word of God, as part of their creed. These traditional religions do not seek direction from science because they are believed to incorporate in them the ‘ultimate knowledge’, which is derived from the divine revelations. There are thus unavoidable factual and intellectual conflicts, which exist between the divinely revealed religions and science. Pointing toward such conflicts, Einstein (5) observed, “For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs.”

Nevertheless, these kinds of conflicts can be resolved if it is accepted that portions of the revealed scriptures are embodied in allegorical language which need not be read and understood literally. Such texts, which appear to conflict with the observed and scientific facts should be interpreted allegorically to reconcile the recondite scriptural meaning with the scientific truths. If such a resolution is not sought and accepted, religion and science will continue to be ‘blind’ and ‘lame’ in the Einsteinian sense, without any remedy.

It is not only the theologists who are seriously handicapped by adhering to the literal reading of the Scriptures, the scientists are also liable to be guilty of similar culpability. According to Francisco Ayala, former Dominican priest and a professor of biological sciences at the University of California at Irvine, “Applying the criteria of scientific truth to religious claims is to make what philosophers call categorical mistakes… In a sonnet, Shakespeare may refer to his beloved as a rose. A scientist could say, ‘This guy is idiot. A woman is not a rose.’ Of course, the idiot would be the one who made that comment. Shakespeare knows she is not a rose! But this doesn’t mean that describing his beloved as a rose is not telling the world a lot about what he thinks about her, and what she is like, and what love is like,” (6).

It appears that the western world has reached a kind of rapprochement between religion and science. Science (and philosophy) and the Church are separated from each other in the same way that State and the Church are. Any conflicts arising between them are discussed intellectually and reconciliation is sought for the resolution without resorting to harsh and violent means. An instance of such a conflict is the ongoing debate between the biological evolutionists and the creationist scientists.

Also, there are several different degrees and gradations of religious belief and unbelief in Christianity. According to one such belief, “Science can no more answer the question of how we ought to live than religion can decree the age of the earth. Honorable and discernable scientists … have always understood that the limits to what science can answer also describe the power of its methods in their proper domain, “ (7). Another variety of beliefs is that of the evolutionists who are also devout Christians. One of them is the Anglican priest Arthur Peacocke whom I had quoted in my earlier paper (8). Peacocke and other religionists like him “see Darwinism as supporting his/ her faith, not threatening it," (9).

Similar separation and symbiosis is desirable in other religions also if they are prone to run into conflict with the rational sciences frequently. In Islam, conflicts of religion with science are rare these days because there are hardly any forefront scientists doing any meaningful science in the Muslim world. However conflicts exist between religion and rationalists. Religion can benefit if such conflicts are resolved peacefully through allegorical interpretation of the Scriptural text which might appear to conflict with rational and empirical facts. Such a resolution was proposed early in the history of Islam by the first Arab philosopher al-Kindi (801-873 CE). His idea of allegorical interpretation was further worked upon by al-Farabi (870-950 CE) and formalized by Ibn Rushd (1128-1198 CE). Ibn Rushd’s proposed method was called the doctrine of double truth.

Although there is provision of ijtihad in Islam, it has not been used for the last one thousand years or so. Islam seems to have become static. The history of Islamic intellectual development after the Abbasid rule (749-1258 CE) was mostly dominated by the orthodox ulema and the conflicts arising between religion and rational thought were allowed to fester. No attempt was allowed to resolve such conflicts through reinterpretation of the scriptural text. The inevitable result was that nobody undertook to develop the rational and physical sciences. The Islamic philosophers are not philosophers in the true and general sense; majority of them are religious metaphysicians. As an example, there is hardly any philosopher of science in the Islamic world. The Islamic philosophers are not generally well versed in physical sciences.

It is the need of modern times to resolve the conflicting issues peacefully through appropriate interpretation of the allegorical scriptures. That is the only way that religion can use science and rational thought positively for its own revitalization.

References

1.Albert Einstein’s Words on Spirituality and Religion,http://www.deism/Einstein1 .htm
2.Bertrand Russell, Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization? http://positivecatholicism.org/hist/russell2.htm
3.See Ref. 1.
4.See Ref.1.
5.Albert Einstein on Science, Philosophy and Religion,http://www.update.uu.se~1b endz/library/ae_scire.htm
6.Quoted by Gordy Slack in “When Science and Religion Collide or Why Einstein Wasn’t an Atheist?” http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/ND97/slack.html
7. Phillip E. Johnson, “Darwin on Trial’, Regnery Gateway, Washington
D.C., 1991, p. 124.
8. Mohammad Gill, “Conflict of Science with Theocracy”,
www.chowk.com, September 7, 2003.
9.“Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, Chapter 5, Theism and Darwinism…., by Michael Ruse”, http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter5.htm.