“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.”
|Piyush Mishra (With whom beautiful conversation took place)|
One of the good discussions started on the above thought of Martin Luther King between me and Piyush Mishra, Officer at Comptroller and Auditor General of India. He says that ‘the man (Martin) had knowledge neither of science nor of religion, I think. Such people often comment on science and religion. On this statement, I found his point very close to the left-wing people of earlier days. They used to get total control over writing parts from TV to newspaper. The situation was built like that for any discussion on social science would be done by only people belonging to it and they can only talk. DU and JNU used to get good ground for it. However, according to this process, I could not write an article on any social issue since I am belonging to an engineering background. Likewise, it is not necessary that Martin could not talk about science and religion. He might have read and experiences it then only he would have told so’.
One this submission he tried to convince me that I inferred his comment wrongly. I gave the reason behind it. According to him of course, he (Martin) could write but his writing cannot be taken as authoritative writing. It’s an established fact that when we do not know much about something we should avoid commenting on that. But it is equally true that people having a little knowledge are more eager to say something. So, it’s obvious that people like Martin have stated much rubbish on such issues on which they had hazy understanding. Once Einstein had stated, “When a knowledgeable person is asked hundred questions, he would answer only one question and even he would say that this was the most correct answer and it might be wrong tomorrow.” A person with little knowledge will answer all questions with full confidence because a person with little knowledge deals with borrowed knowledge only.
I had dissents on his above comment since our topic of discussion has been shifting from relation between Science and Rival to a person like Martin Luther King. I believe that it is not necessary that everything is right for every person. It could also be true that something is good for a person can be matter of dissent for me. I don’t find anything objectionable on above statement of Martin. I find its relevance in today’s scenario. Secondly nothing is authoritative writing. I believe Authoritative writing is not associated with any book but with research paper. Book has thought process of the concern author at given topic. People can think differently on the same topic since nothing is static and final truth. Specially science and religion are very dynamic in nature. I could find a new way to exercise it. I think he is also not wrong at his points since that is a new way of his thinking.
Matter of concern lies that whether really Science and Religion some relation or are rival to each other? I think so because we can’t judge whether he has knowledge of Science and Religion was or not. But we can discussion on the validity and existence of their above statement of Martin Luther King. Discussion could be done differently where many thoughts will be taking place while discussion. After this much of discussion he tries to talk on the given topic. On many points I did agree with him since his logic were convincing to me. First of all, he told that it is not clear whether Martin is saying about organized religion or spiritual religion. According to him, if Martin is saying about organized religion, his statement is absolute rubbish because organized religion dupes people rather than providing wisdom. In that sense it has been said that religion is like opium. If he is talking about spiritual religion, his statement is partially correct that it gives wisdom, but it is not ‘control’.
He believes that One who knows superficially ‘spirituality’ always talks in the same language. Spirituality is the transcendence of all dualities. Spiritually happens only when you disappear. I believe science and religion (both types) are rivals. I am not saying which is true or superior or which is false and inferior. But they are rivals to each other because their approaches to the life is polar opposite. Science wants to reveal mysteries of life, but religion just wants to live life as it is, it does not want to reveal. Science’s approach is analysing, but religion’s approach is synthesizing. Science is living by logic, religion is living by magic. Again, I am reminding I am not saying which is right and which is wrong. Actually, it cannot be stated too. People like Martin and Gandhi who tried to coordinate between opposite things not only deluded people but themselves too for cheap popularity.
He further submitted that Gandhi supported non-violence in one hand and supported Geeta on the other hand. But he could not satisfy his followers on the question of non-violence and teachings of Geeta when asked. These clever people just coordinated between rival things for cheap popularity only. And one thing people having no inner experience of spirituality oftenly state coordinating ideas. Spirituality is not a thesis documented but an experience of inner world obtained by inner experiment which cannot be described in words. He also stated that he world especially western who does not know depth of spirituality, always tried to project such people like Martin to pretend that they have also some mystic personalities as the east have. But I want to make you know that this attempt of west has always been proved hollow.
On his above submission, I agreed with his most of the above words which was logical and convincing to me. But last line again coins for dissent. I disagree on this since it seems fabricated for me. Reason behind saying so is Mahatma Gandhi was even influenced by western thinkers and Christian ethics is supposed to one the best ethics. Most of the thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi including spirituality is inspired from western thinker. From Tolstoy to carpenter & many more are the best suited example. On his concluded statement of Science and Religion are rival to each other I was not convinced. It is so because I had a beautiful example of quantum physics to prove that both are not rival. If Someone says that it is wrong perceptions have been spreaded by a group of people that Lord Krishna married with 16000 women. If we think like layman, then we will be probably agreeing on this. But Quantum physics says that one particle can exist with millions of particles at a time. Then why a human which is made by only those particles can’t exist with only 16000 another group of particles at a time?
In order to counter my view, He submitted that, this is a misconception that Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi etc were spiritual. Please remember ethics is not spirituality. Spirituality is neither morality nor immorality, but it is amorality. Common people always get confused between morality, ethics and spirituality. These are not same. Christianity is the worst religion(organised) on this earth ever. Spirituality is the transcendence of your all ethics. these western people are thinkers and philosophers. Thinking and philosophy deal with mind exercise. The very meaning of philosophy is exercise of mind. That’s why Osho once said that philosophy is actually foolosophy. Spirituality is something which teaches how to go beyond mind. So, there is a vast difference between spiritual person and a thinker/philosopher. Ramakrishna paramhans is spiritual but Aristotle is a thinker/philosopher. In spirituality, these thinkers are of low value.
Once again, I raised my concern that as far as I read its ethics through Gandhi and western thinker, I was impressed. He submitted very good point which convinced me a lot. He tried to show the difference between Spirituality and ethics. Despite accepting that ethics are those values which in inculcated into Religion. He told ‘One more difference ethics can be practiced, and you can act like an ethical person by some practice, but spirituality cannot be put on from outside. It is inculcated from inside’. Ethics of every religion is like mask and it deludes people. Please beware of ethics. By seeing mask, you can’t know the real face. Ethics of a religion is like lectures delivered by a political leader from a stage in front of public. That is why there is no significance of ethics in spirituality.
Actually, very distorted meaning of spirituality has been spread among people. His way of expression was also good and acceptable according to his view. According to him they are rival in the sense that their processes are rival to each other. They may not be rival in intentions. One is interested in revealing mysteries, but another is interested in living those mysteries. One is interested to know that what chemical changes occur in our body when we fall in love, another is interested in just making love. One strengthens our ego another is interested to melt our ego. One thinks that there are only two sorts of things- known and unknown and unknown of today may be known tomorrow but another thinks that there are three sorts of things- known, unknown and unknowable. The acceptance of the third is the essence as well as beauty of spirituality. A spiritual person knows the menace of mind. When logic becomes so intensive that it starts doubting on oneself then spirituality sprouts.
According to him Gandhi tried to show that Geeta and Quran are the same. I am not saying which is superior and which is inferior. But what is the need to show that both are same? He used to discuss only those points where both books agree and avoided those points where the two books differ. Is this a right approach? No. Why one is eager to show similarity? Because by doing so you earn popularity and those who have thirst of popularity and admiration always do it and remember the person having thirst of popularity and admiration may be anything except spiritual. He thinks that spirituality has nothing to do with stories of mythology. So, do not interpret your mythology stories based on science to endorse the statement that science and religion(spiritual) are not rival. This was the method of Martin and Gandhi to coordinate between these two and people liked this coordination. And you are liking the same.
Eventually at the end of discussion, I believe in history there was lack of sense of association regarding religious understanding. That’s the basic reason why people were compelled to follow the constructed religious rule made by a group of people. Now people anticipate first and don’t hesitate in accepting and discussion the wrong doing. Religion is not meant to be imposition of anything, but it holds values which is to be self-introspected by the people. After getting his convincing points still I am not in position to decide whether Science and Religion are rival or not. It may be rival by process and can’t by intention. Way of thinking can only decide it.
Hard work should be paid. It is free for all. Those who could not pay for the content can avail quality services free of cost. But those who have the ability to pay for the quality content he/she is receiving should pay as per his/her convenience. Team DWA will be highly thankful for your support.