|
Is it possible that in our search for some basic reality, we humans
may discover that although religion and science have always seemed to
be in different places, the conclusion they will ultimately reach will
be the same thing? What is God? Energy, Spirit, Universal
Consciousness, Singular, Unilateral?
According to David Hume, God is not different from the order that
exists in the universe1. Training our thoughts along this line, one
might doubt the commonly held view that Science and Religion are
entirely different and exist at the opposite ends of a spectrum.
Science is based on observation. Religion on the other hand makes
arguments analytical in nature (like the Ontological Argument by
Anslem) and requires some unquestioned faith. In spite of leading us
through somewhat different paths, both try to find the basic stuff2.
The goal thus in both cases is to determine the constituents of what
form the reality. The routes though may not seem similar.
In the essay, The Dynamic Universe, Fritjop Capra explores the
philosophies on which various eastern religions like Hinduism, Taoism
and Buddhism are based upon. He is of the view that the world is
conceived in terms of movement, flow and change2. He then cites the
examples of sub-atomic physics and the field of galaxies and heavenly
bodies. Science studies them as units, which are in a state of constant
motion. By doing this, he tries to class Science as well as Religion
under the same heading, which is concerned with finding the basic
reality.
The next question that comes to the forefront then is what is the
thing that we are after? What constitutes this reality that we all are
in pursuit of? A scientist might call this as the order in the universe
or the Energy, which is diffused in the world we live in. Religions
like to call this ultimate reality as God. The order that the
scientists describe implies a mind working behind it. This entity
capable of setting an order in the universe is nothing but what
religion defines as God. Science and Religion then appear to be tied up
like two versions of the same notion. God, I feel, is the ultimate
quest for which both these allegedly opposite views are after.
His physical form is not visible to us. But his existence could be
argued using aposteriori arguments based on the observation of what is
around us. For instance when we throw coins on a table, this coins
apparently stop and arrange themselves on the table. What made the
coins to arrange? Maybe it was by the virtue of Newton’s Laws. But then
again this order as proposed by Science implies an order setter.
Another example is found in the Nature and its mechanisms. This machine
which we call Nature, implies an operator.
Is this God we talk of, an anthropomorphic being? Are his features
well defined? How do we describe the qualities of such a being? If He
is perfect, his attributes bearing the highest level of virtue, then in
short He and His working are beyond our understanding. We might label
his qualities with terms like wisdom, knowledge, mercy and power. But
these terms just suggest our limitations in expressing things not
described by our language. It is possible we might not have experienced
those unknown qualities He possesses and thus have no knowledge about
them. Not only this, we do not have the faintest idea of His physical
presence or form. We humans then are in no situation to understand this
all-powerful entity who is full of mystery. In such a situation, we
have no other choice but to accept this incomplete meaning of God and
have faith in his ways.
One may conclude that our search for some basic reality, we might
find that religion and science have a common ground and are not as far
apart as they are commonly believed to be.
|
(0 vote)