Good day, dear Take in Mind readers! If we go outside and ask a random person about the relation between religion and science, then, most likely, we will get an answer that between them there is an absolute antagonism. The arguments will be as follows: Progress vs. conservatism, objectiveness vs. fiction, the empirical method vs. the dogmas. Another person (with sympathies to the other approach) will begin to argue and provide other reasons. At this point, we already won’t be able to prevent a serious dispute.
We thank the great French physicist, 1903 Nobel winner Antoine Henri Becquerel (1852 – 1908), for his words. He once admitted that due to his scientific work he came to God. Science and religion are two worldviews, two ways to study the laws of the universe, and each of us may choose what is closer and more understandable to him. Therefore, we are not going to argue “who is right or wrong.” In Take in Mind, we are more concerned with the following question: Are the approaches to studying and learning new things so different between representatives of the classical scientific community and religious leaders?
Today we will act as the defenders of a side that supposedly encourages conservatism and regression. Almost all religions assert approximately the following: To recognize the Highest Reality, one needs knowledge. This should not be conceptual information, but a knowledge that should be practiced in life, be understood by the heart and be realized in spirit. This is divine knowledge revealed in scripture or communicated by people who have learned the truth.
In fact, science asserts something similar (the acquisition of new theoretical and practical knowledge that describes the observed natural or social phenomena), but with the main caveat: New knowledge must be tested by critical analysis and not refuted by experiment. That is, the hypothesis should not be taken on faith (no matter by who and by what great authority it was expressed), but it must be proved and reproduced. Otherwise, we are faced with one of the darkest phenomena of human nature: Fanaticism (religious or scientific – no matter). This is precisely one of the main arguments of the average atheist and the opponent of religion. But is it really so? Or could it be that this “warrior” himself is a victim of dogma?
Let’s discuss, for example, a studying method that is widely accepted in Judaism. “How do we know this?” – this is a phrase that repeats all the time in Jewish religious literature, and Rabbis always had to explain their reasoning. If there is a choice between accepting something because of a Divine miracle or accepting something because of thoughtful and reasoned arguments, there was no question which one the Rabbis would accept – thought and logic would always win.
There is an instructive anecdote that is based on the Talmud (Baba Metzia 59b) that tells about one Rabbi named Eliezer who was arguing with all the other Rabbis trying to convince them all that he was right. Rabbi Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but the Rabbis did not accept any of them. Being desperate, Rabbi Eliezer prayed: “If I am right, let this carob tree prove it!” The tree immediately uprooted itself and moved four hundred cubits. “No proof can be brought from a carob tree,” the Rabbis retorted. Rabbi Eliezer did not calm down: “If I am right, let this river prove it!” Sure enough, the river of water flowed backward. “No proof can be brought from a river,” his opponents rejoined. Finally, Rabbi Eliezer said: “If I am right, let God Himself prove it!” Sure enough, a Divine voice cried out, “Why are you arguing with Rabbi Eliezer? He is right!” Despite everything, the rabbis by a majority of voters rejected Rabbi Eliezer’s arguments and gave him a “severe reprimand”. So even though the Torah was seen to be a gift from God and was sacred scripture, as soon as the Torah had been given to humans, any arguments would have to be settled by logic and reason and would trump even a voice from God. Miracles might be amazing, but they could never act as proof. When it comes to determining the nature of reality, we can’t background on the supernatural.
Naturally, in order not to just express unfounded arguments or shout down an opponent, knowledge is needed not only of a spiritual but also of a “conventional” scientific sense. These are what the Qur’an and Islamic sources have to say about it:
Behold, for those who believe there are (myriad) Signs in the heavens and the earth, and in your own creation; and in the animals which He spreads out over the earth too there are Signs for those endowed with sure faith; and in the succession of night and day, and in the provision that Allah sends down from the sky wherewith He gives life to the earth after it had been lifeless, and in the change of the winds:(in all these) there are Signs for people who use reason. Quran. Surat Al-Jāthiyah 45:3-5
The search for knowledge is an obligation laid on every Muslim. Hadith of Ibn Majah and Baihaqi.
There is no greater wealth than wisdom; no greater poverty than ignorance; no greater heritage than culture. Nahjul Balagha, Saying 52.
The famous philosopher of the Muslim Middle Ages, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, believed that society is in high need of the development of science and technology. He extremely appreciated the importance of mathematics, logic, physics, and medicine, arguing that mankind cannot do without these sciences. Moreover, Al-Ghazali sharply criticized those ignorant “friends” of Islam who decided that the religion could be helped by rejecting all science.
Medieval and modern Muslim theologians have emphasized that the study of useful sciences is essential for Muslims. Moreover, this is not just an act permitted by the Shariah, but Fard al-Kifayah, a communal obligation of the ummah (the Muslim community). In other words, those, who claim that it is a Shaitan’s instigation and sin to learn and teach anything that does not concern Islam, are going against the will of God…
The Christian authorities hold a very similar position. The fathers of the ancient Church perfectly combined science and theology. Many were versed in the sciences and philosophy of their time, and non-spiritual knowledge absolutely did not prevent them from keeping the priority of faith. Let’s quote St. Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – 390), the Archbishop of Constantinople:
“… I believe that everyone who has a mind recognizes the knowledge as the first blessing for us, and not only this noblest and our (spiritual) learning, which, despising all adornments and fertility of speech, strives for single salvation and the beauty contemplated, but also external learning, which many of the Christians, according to bad reasoning, reject, as evil, dangerous and alienating from God… In the sciences, we borrowed research and speculation, but rejected everything that leads to demons, to delusion and into the depths of destruction. We have drawn from them what is useful even for piety itself, through the worst we have learned the best and have turned their weakness into the firmness of our teaching. Therefore, learning should not be humiliated, as some argue about this, but, on the contrary, it is necessary to recognize as stupid and ignorant those who, holding such an opinion, would like to see everyone like themselves, in order to hide their own shortcomings in a general lack and avoid exposure of ignorance…”
Moreover, ignorance and unwillingness to multiply knowledge were equated with heresy: “Gnosimakhs: they reject the need of all knowledge for Christianity…” (from the list of heresies in the book “The Source of Knowledge” St. John Damascene (c.675 – 749).
The modern Church mostly continues the ancient tradition. In particular, it recognizes that religious knowledge and scientific thought are in different cognitive spaces, therefore, they do not contradict each other:
“Scientific and religious knowledge has completely different characters. They have different initial premises, different goals, tasks, methods. These spheres can touch, intersect, but not oppose one another. For, on the one hand, there are no atheistic and religious theories in natural science, but there are more or less true theories. On the other hand, religion is not concerned with the structure of matter” (Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, XIV.1).
Let us briefly summarize all of the above: Religion and science are not only not enemies or not antagonists, but, on the contrary, two complementary perceptions of the world.
In reality, we know perfectly that the situation is not so great and not so cloudless. All the instructions of ancient and modern religious sages have not interfered with the Church to persecute the scientists as heretics for centuries. The tragically ended trials against the Italian scientist Giordano Bruno and the Spanish physician Miguel Servet are just the most famous examples of the Inquisition “work”. From 1529 to 1966, Vatican authorities published The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (“List of Prohibited Books”), a list of publications deemed heretical or contrary to morality, which also included the works of prominent philosophers and scientists.
On the other hand, we should mention the movement of the Sceptics and Scientism that have been actively developing since the second half of the 19th century and gaining more and more social and political strength during the last decades. Instead of the possible unification and interaction, we see the blood flow, and all attempts to end this insane confrontation have not led to success.
In addition to the cited references, the following web sources were used:
http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1666688.html
https://www.aaas.org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/why-judaism-embraces-science
https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=8284
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/islam-i-nauka/viewer
https://medinaschool.org/library/obshestvo/islamskoe-obrazovanie/islam-i-nauka
Related Articles: