religion and science

religion and science

Whenever the discussion of the relation between the religion and science or science and faith arises in circles imbued with various trends of modern thought, immediately the story of the confrontation of the Church with Galileo or of Protestant theology with Darwinism comes to the mind and the problem is viewed from the particular vantage point of the west. Those who have kept pace with the most current speculations of certain scientists in quest of a new world view may point to the fact that there are more recent works which compare the movement of electrons with the Dance of Shiva or speak of the search for the Tao of modern science. But even in such works which are becoming popular, although reference is made to oriental doctrines, these teachings are usually viewed in separation from the traditional universe to which they belong and the philosophical and scientific frame work remains western. In the modern world, the usual background for the understanding of the relation between religion and science continues to be the western experience from the revolt of modern science against its scholastic theological background during the Renaissance and the 17th century to the final abdication by religion from the domain of nature and its surrender to the scientific enterprise and the latter’s particular methodology and philosophy for the study of the natural world. Even when certain works step outside the western world view in search of a rapprochement with certain oriental doctrines, science remain western science and the suppositions made upon the nature of reality do not change in an ultimate way. Rarely has there been an attempt to approach the problem of the relation between religion and science from an authentically Oriental perspective, through an understanding of another science of nature cultivated in various traditional civilizations of the orient as well as the traditional west.
The roots of the problem, that is, the apparent clash between the religion and science lies in the self manifestation of the modern science as an ideology and a worldview in itself and the prevailing conception of religion as being essentially concerned with faith and ethics but not with a sacred knowledge of both metaphysical and cosmological order. Let us have a comparison between these two systems to have a clearer idea of both the philosophical systems. More clearly, one which regards the religious sense of man as an original part of his nature, an idea which is recognized in many respects as an essential factor of all civilizations, and that which treats religion as a simple historical accident of human culture. The comparison of the two systems, one essentially physical, for which everything is determined by matter, the other metaphysical since it considers that matter itself is determined, can be conclusive only when one takes into consideration their similar and comparable components, which exist essentially in their cosmological conception. There I resort to a rather lengthy quotation of Melek Bennabi from his work "The Quranic phenomenon"
"Physical system:
Axiomatically, matter is the primary cause of itself, or in other words, it is the starting point of natural phenomena. Evidently we have no more right to consider matter as an eventuality, since then it would proceed from something else by an independent creative cause. This is incompatible with the hypothesis. Hence it simply exists and it is not created.
Thus, it is accorded in its origin a concession of principle, and we are concerned only about its evolution or its successive states. One can only say that originally a certain quantity or mass was the only property of this matter. It would be necessary then to consider all other properties merely as only consequences of the one above. In particular, we must consider it originally as being in a state of perfect homogeneity, any differentiation necessarily implying the intervention of heterogeneous factors. But this is incompatible with the single and unique factor of mere quantity. This condition implies an initial state in which matter cannot be conceived of as being organized in any manner, otherwise, the atomic structure would already introduce nuclear particles different from the original and this is likewise incompatible with the condition of homogeneity.
Consequently, matter was necessarily, in its origin, in a state of total disintegration and was electrically neutral. It was a simple mass of neutrons having among themselves a relation only of heaviness. Its final atomic organization would be a step in its evolution. This corresponds to the appearance of nuclear particles positrons, mesotrones, electrons etc. and the corresponding electrostatic forces.
Without pre-judging the cause of this particular differentiation, one observes that there is already a question concerning the possibility of the formation of the first atom, a formation difficult to conceive of in view of Coulomb's law, which necessarily governs this phenomenon. It is in fact difficult to imagine how the first nuclear would be constituted with the particles of the same type, which would be repulsed according to the fundamental law of electrostatics. Nevertheless, we concede it again. However did the cycle of formation take place simultaneously for the 92 elements classified by Mendeleeff or by successive passage from one element to another? Perhaps a single element can be explained as the result of the intervention of a unique factor a condition determined by matter. But then there would remain 91 abnormal cases which cannot be explained by the same factor.
If, on the contrary, there had been a succession of elements, their formation would be explained as a series of 91 limited transmutation since every element would be formed at the same time when the elements which have proceeded it exist. Hence this would involve 91 cases of different physicochemical equilibrium, implying the introduction of a factor different from that of the initial law of formation. Now originally this would be unique, essentially independent of time and other factors of thermodynamics. Hence, there is a chain of 91 transmutations at the end of a primordial element which cannot be explained as the result of a single unique law. Consequently, in both these cases, the Mendeleeff table is not a satisfactory explanation regarding the axiom considered. This fact shows the weakness of the “physical system”.
If we now follow the evolution of this matter, organized but organic, we come to the biological transmutation. A certain quantity of organized but inert matter becomes organic living matter: Protoplasm. Evolving through well-defined zoological phases, this protoplasm in its turn becomes, by a series of new transformations, thinking matter: man. We may represent the process in the following equation. Thermo dynamical factors + chemical agents = living matter: Man.
Now this equation is valid for all geological eras, corresponding to the thermodynamical factors which appear on the left side. If we suppose a given duration of this era and the duration of a zoological cycle bringing living matter from the amorphous state of protoplasm to the organized state of man, there is necessarily a certain number of generations proportional to these two durations. But then there is the fact that the first generation is altered in advance in relation to those that follow it in a given period, for as long as the geological era corresponding to this evolutionary cycle which would itself have been considerable. And after this change, the first generation would have already taken cognizance of its memory for the generations that follow. Now the present human generation has not registered in its memory a similar fact and one finds only the trace of a recollection of Adam.
Hence it is necessary to admit that the biological equation examined above is possible only once for a single and unique generation. In other words, there would have been a biological determinism whose unique physical factors could not be realized. This brings our attention to a lacuna of the physical system, a lacuna which shows the weakness of its fundamental axiom. This lacuna which is as important as the equation considered, does not take into consideration the phenomenon of animal reproduction. Indeed, there is a new problem concerning the unity of the species which cannot be viewed in the individual, but only in the couple: the male and the female. Now the physical theory furnishes no justification for this duality which, however, condition, the animal reproductive function.
If there were a biological accident concerning man the problem remains, nonetheless, concerning woman, unless one admit a double accident in the beginning having produced the generator couple as a result, the couple necessary for the reproduction of the species. And if we admit, in spite of all there improbabilities, the double accident of matter, it would be difficult nonetheless to imagine that its result could have been so well coordinated regarding the reproductive function shared between male and female. In any case, the determination of matter could be better justified if it concerned a double generator of the parallel autonomous species: the male and female. There is a sequence of lacunae, which shows the great improbability of the axiom.
On the other hand, from the view point of mechanics, matter is rigidly controlled by the principle of inertia. Now living matter, however, is an exception to this rule: an animal is endowed with the faculty of modifying its position by itself. Here again, the weakness of the physical axiom is apparent. Other phenomena also attract our attention concerning the paradoxes of the system examined. There is, in particular, the paradox of the special pigmentation of Negro skin. Could one attribute it to a physiological adaptation to some surroundings or is only the solar factor especially preponderant? On the other end, one finds white, yellow and brown skin. Can one attribute this any more to the influence of the virgin forest? On this case, human skin ought to be similarly pigmented as it is, for example, in Brazil.
Finally, from the astronomical point of view, one encounters again some inexplicable paradoxes in the materialistic system. Spectral analysis revealed in 1929 to Hubble the sense of movement of the extra- gallactic nebulae with reference to our universe. All of these nebulae are receding from us except half a dozen which, on the contrary, are approaching us. Thus, on the whole, matter undergoes two opposite changes with reference to our perception, if one is explained by one law originally given, the explanation of the other remains in suspense.
All these anomalies, incompatible with a purely materialistic determinism, make it necessary to re-adjust the whole system, the fundamental principle itself appearing inadequate to give a coherent theory of the genesis and the evolution of matter.
Now we move on to the other system.
Metaphysical system:
A principle independent of matter is necessary here. God, the Creator and Regulator of the cosmos, the Prime Cause, from which proceed all existing beings, is the absolute upon which the new system in based. First, such a postulate helps to clarify the origin of matter, a question which was so difficult to answer in the other system. In the present case, matter is seen as being created by determinism independent of all matter’s properties.
This metaphysical determinism intervenes when simple physical laws do not give a clear explanation of phenomena. From this creative source follows a perfectly coherent, harmonious system with neither the lacunae nor the contradictions of the proceeding system. Completely conforming to the philosophical exigencies of the human spirit which shows concern to relate logically facts and phenomena in a coherent synthesis, the new axiom also has implications which extend far beyond matter, implications which include an ideal of moral perfection towards which civilization never ceases to move as its essential goal. The creations of matter results in this point of view from the imperative order of a Supreme Will which, according to the words of genesis, said to all things “Be”.
The evolution of this matter would be regulated by an intelligence which assures equilibrium and harmony and whose unchangeable laws human science can establish. But certain steps in this evolution will escape the usual assertions of men of science, without which there would be a lacuna in the system. On these exceptional cases, one allows for the intervention of metaphysical determinism, an intervention which contradicts nothing since it is compatible with the nature of axiom. Where there would have been a lacuna in the proceeding system, here there is an intervention of a voluntary, conscious and creative cause. One can momentarily ignore law, which controls phenomena and whose mechanism eludes us at this point, but the system remains in any case coherent and consistent with its fundamental axiom, since one such phenomenon is justifiable by an absolute determinism; the Will of God intervenes where chance, the all powerful god of materialism, previously had been postulated.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the point here is not a comparison between two sciences, but comparison between two beliefs: that which deifies matter and that which makes God intervene. It is perhaps not superfluous to say that a great scholar can be a perfect atheist. The latter is often the case. And when one encounters the rather surprising case of a scholar who would claim that man is a descendant of the monkey, it is also necessary to think about the fetishist people at the banks of the Niger, who seriously believe themselves descendants of a crocodile ancestor. The scholar and the primitive each have a metaphysical idea, which each express in his own way.
Only social troubles and unbalanced morality pit science against religion. But on every occasion, because of the unexpected turns of history, the goddess- science has crumbled pitifully to make room for science pure and simple: a humble servant of human progress. Moreover, especially after the latest development in astronomy science has become more and more conscious of its limited domain. Indeed, beyond the distant nebulae, beyond the many millions, and perhaps billions, of light years, extends the fathomless chasm of infinity- inaccessible to scientific thought because it is no longer in its domain of study: Quantity, relations and condition.
Quantity of what? Condition of what? Relation to what? These questions no longer have any meaning beyond the last nebulae which bounds the phenomenological world, at the threshold of the infinite. Beyond this limit, only religious thought can say anything intelligible”.
Now the crisis within the world-view of modern science, the material crises such as the ecological one and incurable harms it caused to the social, ethical and moral realms, seek an urgent solution. This, we believe, can be done only by bringing a harmony between the two conflicting systems: The religion and the science. In this critical juncture of history it is no longer possible to ignore the rapport which has existed between religion and the sciences of nature in the millennial traditions of the orient and also in days of old in the west itself. “One can not ignore the harmony between faith and science reflected in the incredible mathematics and geometry of the Temple of Luxor which was both a recapitulation of the cosmological sciences of the Egyptians and a house of divine worship. One cannot leave aside the religious significance of the achievements of Islamic science in the light of the attempt of this science to read upon the pages of God’s creation, His primordial message which virgin nature still carries upon the face of her manifold manifestations. Nor can one read the Taoist texts or contemplate a Taoist landscape without becoming aware that one is dealing at once with the key for the understanding of man in the religious sense and of nature. Hinduism and Buddhism would offer countless witness as well as would the primal religious such as those of the North American Indians for whom the science of natural forms and their religion were inextricably intertwined.
The examination of the rapport between religion and science from the Oriental perspective and across boundaries of religions and cultures, although difficult, is a most fruitful and timely endeavor for it makes possible both the deepening of the meaning of religion and the regaining of its lost dimensions is the west, and the discovery of other philosophies and sciences of nature which can help modern man escape from the limitation of that unilateral approach to the study of nature he has imposed upon himself since the Renaissance. Such a study from the unitary oriental perspective can also help to better understand the processes whereby as a result of the departure of the Olympian gods from the world, the Greek philosophers and scientists took it upon themselves to bestow upon moira and physis those conception qualities which mark the beginning of the weakening of faith and separation between religion and science in the Greek antiquity. Such a study will make it possible to grasp through contrast and comparison the full import of the breakdown of the traditional unified world view of medieval Christian civilization which was to lead fro a second time in the west, to a separation between religion and science, the alienation of western man from both God and the natural environment and the desacration of nature as a result of the applications of the newly discovered science which, by declaring itself independent of all metaphysical and religious principles, discovered much, but did so at the expense of what Christ called “the one thing necessary”.
The key to such a study from an “Oriental perspective” of the rapport between religion and science is the inner dimension of fully extant and living religion which contain within themselves a scientia sacra or sacred science concerning the nature of the things from which there came into being the various traditional sciences. If the key for the comparing of religions is the metaphysical doctrines which be at their heart, in their essence and beyond their forms, the basis for study of the relation between religion and science beyond the confines of the experience of modern western man is an in-depth study of the traditional sciences and their significance, or study which would be based primarily upon the Oriental traditions in which such sciences and the world view underlying them have best survived but which would also include the traditional west.
Let us therefore turn to the traditional sciences and seek to understand the meaning of the term it self.
For those whose understanding of the word ‘science’ is limited to its current English usage the phrase “traditional science’ might appear as a contradiction in terms. Science is understood as an ever-changing knowledge of physical world based on ratiocination and empiricism whereas traditions, as understood by contemporary masters of the exposition of traditional doctrines such as R. Guenon, A.K. Coomaraswamy and F. Schuon, implies immutability, permanence and knowledge of a principal and metaphysical order. It is, however, meaningful to speak of traditional science as a knowledge which, while not pure metaphysics, is traditional, that is, related to metaphysical principles, and while science in the sense organized knowledge of a particular domain of reality, not divorced from the immutable nature of the principial order. In all traditional civilizations, especially sedentary ones, many forms of traditional sciences have been cultivated ranging from the study of the heavens to that of the anatomy of an ant. These sciences are distinct from metaphysics, or gnosis, the supreme science which is the ultimate scientia sacra. Yet they are related to metaphysical principles through various cosmological schemes of a strictly traditional character.
One can see that almost all branches of the known sciences born and flourished in the above discussed atmosphere of traditional civilizations like Egyptian Babylonian, Indian, Chinese, Hellenic, Hellenistic, Persian, Sabian and Islamic. These sciences includes a wide variety of sciences such as arithmetic geometry, astronomy, medicine, alchemy, physics chemistry, zoology, botany, mechanics, linguistics, ethics, politics, economics, logic, philosophy and many others and their numerous sub divisions also.
I would like to give only one example just to have a taste of it. The efficacy of traditional schools of medicine proves in a practical manner that there are other ways of studying and treating the human body than what modern medicine has taken into consideration. Moreover, the fact that there is not one but several schools of traditional medicine based on different cosmological principles but all efficacious in their own ways proves that there are many cosmological sciences of even a single reality, here the human microcosm, although these sciences all lead to the single science of the Real which for that reason has sometimes been called metaphysics in the singular. Finally the fact that no single school of traditional medicine is completely successful in the treatment of all diseases proves that not even a science of a traditional order can overcome illness and other physical handicaps not to speak of ageing and death, which are in the very nature of this world and which prove, if proof needs be, that only God is good. Samsaric existence remains Samsaric even if studied from the point of view of traditional medicine.
In all traditional civilizations, medicine was related to the basic principles of the traditions in question. Its origin was always been divine. In Egypt the figure of Thoth and later Hermes was associated with the founding of the science of medicine as was Agathedemon in Greece, while in India Ayurvedic medicine was associated with the Atharua- Veda. In Egyptian medicine a clear distinction was already made between illnesses whose origin was spiritual those which came from psychic imbalance and finally those resulting from purely physical disorders. The psyche affected the body and the spirit the psyche. The hierarchy of these three fundamental ‘substances’ within the human microcosm was fully recognized and an elaborate medicine developed upon its foundation thereby making use of treatments ranging all the way from incantations to herbs.
Indian medicine called Ayur-Veda, meaning literally 'Health knowledge', developed as a branch of purely traditional Hindu learning although it too was influenced in its earlier phase by Persian medicine as can be seen in the Indian word for medicine (bheshaj) which is of Avestan origin. It sees diseases as being caused by not one but numerous factors ranging from divine or diabolical elements, to psychic forces associated with sorcery, astrological influences, hereditary factors as well as physical and climatic conditions. Like Greek and Islamic medicine, it makes use of the concept of hot and cold diseases and treatment by means of medicines of contrary nature. It is based on the atomic theory of matter paramanu, the theory of three gunas or qualities within the physical world, the five traditional elements bhutas, the seven elements of physiology septa-dhata and three rather than four human temperaments tridosha. Through this theoretical’ basis, it is related to Hindu cosmology and metaphysics as well as eschatology. Ayurvedic medicine make use of a bewildering range of cures including not only medicines which are taken by mouth, but diet, exercise, fumigation, blood-letting, scarification not to speak of massage both and sweating. Ayurvedic medicine remains in both practice and theory one of the notable systems of traditional medicine.
To conclude, the highest function of the traditional sciences has always been to aid the intellect and the instrument of perception to see the world and in fact all levels of existence not as facts or objects but as symbols, as mirrors in which is reflected the face of Beloved from Whom all originates and to Whom everything returns. The oriental perspective sees in the traditional sciences at once a key to the world of the sacred and a bridge to the structured understanding of the cosmos and in fact the embodiment of the knowledge which makes possible this understanding. To contemplate the phenomena of nature as mirrors of the spiritual world and to gain a knowledge of the symbolic science of these forms is to open a new dimension in the crucial question of rapport between religion and science, a question which if unanswered will threaten not only the harmony and unity but the very existence of man’s terrestrial life.
Let us hope more enlightened spirits (or unenlightened?) would find their way to the sacred realm of our centre for study of religions and civilizations in their quest for making this earth a better place to live in.

ANEES AHAMED
M.A. FINAL