religions and science
Religions and Science
Irrelevant discussions
One often sees people loosing tempers etc and lost in heated discussions on science or rationalism verses religion. I have seen both types of people, those who consider themselves public leaders or defenders on religious aspects or those who try to defend scientific aspects, often adopting irrational or irreligious style to score a point.
I wonder what do they feel they have gained. To me it seems happiness and true knowledge lies some where else.
Darwinism verses creationist in USA-- opposite direction duels in India
I am quite surprised at amount of time and efforts lost in USA in a useless game being played between defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution and christian creationist philosophy. Each side trying to intrude in affairs of others. As usual defenders of religious thoughts hesitate much less in trying to win a point by political bulldozing or creating mass sentiments. In India also often similar game is played. Though not to such an irrational extreme as you see in USA. Game in India many times is in the other direction. Many religious leaders want to claim that current science is a part of their ancient studies and defenders of science want to claim that old Indian thoughts had nothing to do with their studies. Again time lost in such discussions is enormous and final results are as useless and aimless as one can think about.
I wrote the following comments in a discussion in hubpages where initiator had asked a question. Whether studies in ancient times by monks of one of the religions in India included "modern science". I hope you will also enjoy my comments and share your views here.
Comment
First, to join adjective "modern" to science! I am not sure how far it is right.
Modern style of Science
Perhaps what you mean is modern style of science. Modern style of
science is basically devoted to analytical and experimental
deductions. Today's scientists try analytically, using logic (Sanskrit
word is "Tark") as a tool, to deduct statements from axioms formed
mainly by observations from experiments.
These deductions are then used by them to predict, what might happen in
certain situations. Main focus today is on using these deductions to
create technological and economical tools for better physical living. This second
aspect, technological or economical style focused on better physical living can
perhaps be associated with word "modern". But science, if you consider
it as an analytical understanding, is as old as any body can think of.
Surely as India is one of the place where human beings have lived much
longer, people there have excelled very often in these activities.
Indian rishis monks and tirthankars practiced as much science as
spiritualism ( I do not know equivalent word in English to describe
"rishi" - closest one I can think about is a hermit who is dedicated to
development of science or knowledge, self-spiritual aspects and welfare of people. Jain
tirthankars are very few and in this sense they are much more special
and respectful. Practically all in India worship them, again
irrespective of whether they belong to Hindu, Jain or Buddhist
religion, Buddha as a monk is indeed unique and is adored by the followers of most religions in India, practically as a god). For all ancient rishis, monks or tirthankars,
irrespective of whether they were Hindus, Jains or Buddhists, science and spiritualism were not separate aspects . All of them
contributed a lot to scientific as well as spiritual development.
Once you decide that science is eternal in this sense, I think any discussion on "whether people had knowledge in ancient time of what today people discuss" becomes a bit irrelevant. In each era focus has changed to life style of that era. Some of this focus may have been on common aspects, some may not be. Quite a lot of people, in each era, may have known a lot, which we do not even know or focus on, today.
Just a drop in ocean of knowledge
Indian ancient saying "What ever you know any time is just a drop in the
ocean of knowledge" is indeed one of the best thoughts, which has come
out of that country and has been followed there by practitioners of
practically all religions. It helps you to keep yourself away from
proud (Sanskrit word "garur" is perhaps more appropriate). You are
always thirsty for knowing more, trying to do better in science or going
still closure to Brahma (unique true knowledge) or Moksha in spiritual
aspects.
At the same time, it inspires you to have strongly another
characteristic quite visible in thinking and style in India (again in
all religions and in all ages) "to be nispriha" (to have a detachment).
Socrates or Einstein were also rishis
These qualities are visible not just among wise people in India but
also quite visible among people in other countries too like Socrates
(Greek philosopher) or among very recent scientists like Einstein.
Indeed their styles were quite a bit similar to that of rishis in India.
Getting rid of "Garur"
Once you decide to mold yourself towards these qualities, all the proud
("garur") about sentiments like "this is special in my religion or in
my country" goes away automatically. People in India have always
considered science, knowledge or spiritualism to be shared with all,
rather than feeling proud about. Generally average Indian will want to
feel happy about breaking mysteries of science or spiritualism and will
like to share this enjoyment {"Ananda"} with others near him or her.
Sarva Dharm Saman Bhav (Equal glance on all religions)
This is how Indians had moved in since ancient times to another important aspect in their
style of science and philosophy "sarva dharm saman bhav" (to have equal
glance on all religions and spiritual philosophies).
For Indians, science, religion or spiritualism were never separate
compartments. They always looked at all of them together. All of them
had only one aim to help one to get true knowledge, "nirvana" or "moksha".
Average Indian practically never had in any era adopted to a style in
which you get lost in criticizing other religions or philosophies. This
is quite a bit true even today also in average Indian's life. They
always consider different religions and philosophies as parallel
thoughts and let any individual decide what is most suitable for him
or her to achieve true knowledge, brahma or to get moksha.
Chistianity - practiced continuously in India since St. Thomas came there in 1st century AD
Indeed this is also one of the reasons that even religions, which did
not originate in India have had continuous streams of people, who
adopted to them. India must be among very few countries where
Christianity has been continuously practiced by many, since first
century AD when St. Thomas came to India.
Criticism moves you away from the path of knowledge
Criticism of thoughts or style of others was always looked down in
Indian style, simply because it distracts you from actual path of
knowledge (or science in today's terms-- good scientists today are also
not far from this path of keeping one away from useless criticism, just as good spiritual leaders are).
Today's style of professional science and technology has several limitations too. For example one generally does not study in
this style those aspects of knowledge which can not be repeated in front
of others. Experimental reproduction of what you preach is an important
aspect of science today.
Indian ancient studies in all religions, Hindu, Jain or Buddhist had
no such restrictions. Studies of scholars and spiritual leaders then
were not just restricted to one style. They studied in almost any style
and on any action, thought or object. No wonder they could go into
depths, in several secrets of living and nonliving being as well as
human knowledge and spiritual aspects.
Just to associate, what was preached by Rishis or Tirthankars or monks
in ancient times in India with today's style of science, specially trying to win a point
by saying that "Oh! they knew this aspect of today's Knowledge" is
indeed doing injustice to them and belittling them.
(pictures of temples taken from Images available on internet)