RELIGION IN CONFLICT

A  WIDE  CANVAS

RELIGION IN CONFLICT

All religions in the world today are in conflict, not only among themselves, but with two other authorities who vie for people's allegiance: Science and State.

Religion and Science

Religion looks at life. But it also looks at after-life, beyond life. It organises life, on the basis of its view of after-life. To day, this conflicts with both Science and State.

Every major religion treats this world as not final, or the end. For Christians, the final abode is Heaven ( or Hell). Its attainment (or avoidance) is based on how well one lives in the world. So, it tells its adherents what they should do to gain Heaven and avoid Hell. This dictates how they live in this world.

Buddhism very clearly says that this world is a place of Duhkka- suffering and sorrow. It has a cause, and so it has a cure, and a right way to attain it. This is the noble path that one has to tread. Its main method is renunciation of desire.

Hinduism says that this world is martya lokam- subjected to repeated births and deaths. One can never attain permanent peace or rest unless one becomes free of this cycle of births and deaths. So life here should be used to cross this samsara. One should use the perishable body to attain the Imperishable state. This is the essence of life on earth.

Religious scholars studying astronomy and geometry- illustration from a French book, 15th century.
Public domain,wikmedia commons.


If we ignore the umpteen theologies, philosophies and other fads that religions have created, and the foolish claims of some that they alone are true or right, we can see that in essence , all true religions are agreed that there is something greater (or higher,or better) than this life on earth, and life on earth should be understood and lived in the light of this greater truth.Otherwise, we are just like animals. Compared to this basic insight, all questions of theology or philosophy look like children's quarrel.

It is this basic insight that Science does not accept. It says the visible universe is all there is, there is nothing beyond. They cannot accept anything which their instruments cannot measure. Life came out of matter (not proved); it evolved (not proved); beyond this we do not know anything- need not know anything. But when the instruments are refined or made more powerful, more things are discovered!  Science can never say, "This is it." It is never sure what tomorrow will bring, and how it will nullify what they hold as truth today. The path of science is laid on the corpses of dead and discarded theories.

We can now see that when we send our children to school, they are taught, in the name of science, certain dogma or theories that are in conflict with the basic insights of all religions! Yet parents have no right to demand or enforce that their children should not be taught theories contrary to their religious belief. They have no choice. The scientists will say that they deal with facts, while religions deal with belief.

Yet what are these facts that science relies upon? One is that the physical world is made op of matter. What is matter? when scientists started investigating matter, they found that there is no matter, but only waves of energy, which cannot be seen. What was considered concrete matter has literally evaporated into thin air. Now what is 'fact'?  From one angle, it is matter; from another, it is energy.  Both views are correct- and they exist simultaneously!

Stained glass window, showing the harmony between science and religion. Located at the Yale  University.

This is exactly what Vedanta says! It says the world we see and sense is real; but if we investigate, there is a greater reality. What is considered real at  one level is seen to be unreal at another. It does not negate the world- it transcends it! Something does not become real, just because it is seen.A mirage does not become real just because it is seen by many people simultaneously. The sun does not rise at all, even though everyone sees it rising every day!

 Reality is not confined to the world of appearances or measurement .

The scientist cannot at all account for how the consciousness of the observer affects the phenomenon observed, as in subatomic physics. The scientist cannot say how life arose out of matter, or how consciousness arose. He wants us to believe what he says without proof! He wants us to take it on faith! Yet he questions religious faith! What hypocrisy!

The greatest difference between religion and science is that religion says the universe has a purpose, everything here has meaning. Science says that the universe came by accident, it has no purpose or meaning in itself. We cannot make sense of it, except to the extent of using it for our purposes. In the final analysis, science is unable to understand what life is! It ends in complete agnosticism or nihilism.

Religion tells man that the universe has purpose and meaning. It teaches man to question and understand his place in the universe. The very fact that he is self-conscious shows that he is meant to be something or somebody! Vedanta says that consciousness is the basis of life. There is nothing in existence which lacks consciousness! Things differ to the extent they manifest consciousness! Stone is different from a bird or man only to the extent of consciousness manifested. They all are embodiments of consciousness. This is why all life, everything in the universe is considered 'sacred'.

Science says things evolved-even life evolved or just appeared- it is an accident. Religion (Vedanta) says that nothing can evolve out of nothing. Evolution presupposes involution. A tree evolves out of a seed, because the tree is already involved in the seed! If life has evolved out of matter, it is because it was already involved there, awaiting manifestation! If consciousness has evolved out of life, it is because it was already involved there, awaiting manifestation! Creation is nothing but  manifestation  of things or processes already involved! No scientist has demonstrated how matter came out of nothing, in spite of all his fanciful theories. He talks of big bang, but he does not want you to ask what was before that! He reduces the body to certain chemicals; ask him to take the chemicals and make a body, with life!

Science asks you to live without bothering about its meaning and purpose, like boarding a plane, without knowing where it goes! Religion asks you to understand the meaning and purpose of existence, and live in the light of that understanding. These two views can never be reconciled. This is the source of the basic conflict between science and religion. Real religion is not some theory about God. It is about the nature of man and his place and purpose in the universe. Science ignores this question.

Of course all religions are not unanimous in how they answer this question. Neither are the scientists unanimous in how they understand or interpret their data. Even big bang or evolution is not accepted by all scientists. Dawkins is certainly no Einstein, or even Schroedinger, just as no Pope ever became another Christ. (or even Paul or Peter).

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist. A leading atheist from the science community.
By David Shankbone (Own work) CC BY-SA 3.0 creative commons via Wikimedia commons.

Albert Einstein,1921. Ferdinand Schumatzer. Public Domain via wikmedia commons.

Perhaps the greatest scientist so far, not a believer in organised religion, he had a mystical understanding of the universe. In this sense, he expressed the highest religious sensibility.

Erwin Schroedinger, the quantum physicist, Nobel laureate, 1933..
He originated many revolutionary ideas in physics.He tried to understand life from the point of view of physics and had a general philosophical orientation. He transcended the limits of narrow physical science. Two of his quotes are worth remembering:

"When man dies his Karma lives and creates for itself another carrier'."

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms."

In a way, organised religion and establishment science are alike- they are about power, not Truth. Truth is sought by individuals, not organisations.

Religion and State

And this is where and how religion comes into conflict with State! Religion endows man with a world view. The modern State too embodies a world view. They are in conflict.

Religion attempts to organise society on the basis of its world view- where its members would be allowed (made) to live according to its lights. The modern State is organised without regard to religious truth or understanding: it is secular (in the sense ultimately of being indifferent to any pursuit other than the material- ie,irreligious.) The State feels religions undermine its authority; religions feel that State frustrates them. Christ gave a compromise: Render unto Caesar things that are Caesar's; and unto God, things that are God's. The secular state is founded on the principle of the separation of Church and State.

John Locke, (1632-1704) English political thinker who is credited with the idea of the separation of Church and State. He said the state had no authority in matters of conscience.

In practical terms, it is impossible for two authorities to coexist. Caesar tries to become God ( eg Stalin) or God's self appointed agent or representative would like to turn Caesar (Roman Catholic Pope) Muslim fundamentalism is an example of the extreme form of this conflict.

But there are many other points on which conflicts arise. Take issues like abortion, or gay rights, Creation of the world or origin of life, or even the sabbath. No Western state accepts the religious position on these issues. Sunday is observed as a general holiday- but it is not the sabbath- the Holy Day, dedicated to God. The modern secular US govt would let you have your 'holy day' but would not like you to say that in public. And if you send your children to public schools, there is no way you can observe your holy day, unless they bunk classes. What is considered religious "freedom" in the modern secular state is nothing but the forced submission to the majoritarian view of things. One would be considered a threat to public order if one tries to go contrary to the majority view. 

Thomas Jefferson, third President of the US. He commended the First Amendment that said the state shall not make law in respect of religion and called it "the wall of separation" between the church and the state. But today, may laws of the US are in conflict with religious beliefs.

Instead of society and the State facilitating religious life, they oppose it. Where ,let us say, a million people believe, on religious grounds, in something other than what the state prescribes, this is a direct challenge to the authority of the state! State can enforce its stand.

Religion has to survive in spite of the State. This is the final lesson of the conflict.

Religion says: 'this world is not all,this life is not all; something greater, something better awaits us. The grave is not the end of life- there is hope of eternal happiness beyond death. Reflect and understand; live properly, and enjoy.' Let us concede for a moment that all this is bunkum, delusion- as the scientist says.

Science says: 'this material world we see and sense is all there is. We do not know what is life, or death. We do not know how it originated, or how it will end. But why bother about it? Life ends in death, as we see. And we do not see anything beyond it. Period. Live anyway you like. Meaning is what you conceive. Value is what you assign.' Let us agree for a moment that this is right, as scientists claim.

Which of these is a better guide to practical life?

I feel we can ignore science. It is not a serious contender for man's ultimate allegiance, so long as man can think. Science can fascinate only so long as some basic questions are not raised. And  persons who would not raise basic questions are little more than animals, which never raise any basic questions. In that sense, science is the preoccupation of animals in human garb. Science does not raise or answer basic questions.

"For Steiner, the problem with science is that it is not disinterested; as Heidegger said, it aims at mastery,whereas art does not. There may be eternal truths in science; but though we ourselves will not live for ever, an aesthetic truth that quickens "into lit presence the continuum between  temporality and eternity" has a metaphysical resonance even if it isn't  purely religious. An aesthetic observation that will be good for all time gives us a warm feeling of completion that science, for all its strength, does not."

Peter Watson, writing on the work of George Steiner. See: The Age of Atheists, chap.24, p.455. Simon and Schuster,2014.


NOTE: 

Many thinkers have pointed out the basic mistakes in the very methodology of science. Aldous Huxley writes:

From the world we actually live in,......the man of science abstracts a simplified private universe of things.... Arbitrarily, because it happens to be convenient, because his methods do not allow him to deal with the immense complexity of reality, he selects from the whole of experience he selects only those elements which can be weighed, measured,numbered, or which lend themselves in any other way to mathematical treatment.....many scientists and philosophers came to imagine that this useful abstraction from reality was reality itself.

....what triumphant science has done hitherto is to improve the means for achieving unimproved or actually deteriorated ends.

From the essay "Beliefs"
Collected Essays by Aldous Huxley. Harper& Brothers,1958.

The picture above is a painting -oil on canvas- by Vanessa Bell.
National Portraits Gallery.6717.

TO CATCH A THIEF

A WIDE CANVAS

TO CATCH A THIEF

Hindu religion is both fascinating and frustrating at the same time: extremely helpful, and also totally unhelpful. The basic ideas are simple, but not rendered easy of comprehension by the advocates of religion.It has been made complicated by every succeeding philosopher, theologian, Acharya, guru etc.

At base, Hindu Sages said the world is an appearance; there is a greater reality behind the world. Our job is to find it, experience it- not be satisfied with any mental or verbal statement.. We cannot find peace with the world or ourselves till this is done.

But they did not go about tom-toming this to all and sundry. They sat in their place and addressed themselves to the serious seekers. For the rest they gave some toys- some gods, goddesses, some theory some ideas, some rituals,etc, so that they won't harm themselves or others. This would keep them engaged with the world, so long as they liked it that way. But when some serious teachers like Buddha or Sankara attempted to make it the standard for all, it broke down and made society weak.

The Sages found the solution was Individual, not communal. There was no collective salvation. Each one had to work out his way at his own pace. Communal life was necessary to fulfil social needs, but it could not interfere with the personal effort. What one believed personally about God or the world or the devil did not matter, so long as he conformed to the social norms. The Gita clearly says that even the Realised person has no business to unsettle the mind of the common man. 

One can find these two elements in all religions (except perhaps Islam). True Hinduism  or its higher form (Vedanta) was practised by a handful in isolated communities in forest dwellings; or by  lofty individuals in splendid isolation even in society; the rest was a preparation for it. The base was large and so stable; it supported the rising superstructure, getting narrower at the top. Or, rather it was like the lamp. When we say the lamp burns, it is only the tip of the wick that burns; but we need the lamp proper, the whole wick, the oil, etc. But so long as the system could produce such a genuine phenomenon, it was safe and sound. 

 Absolute spiritual  truth and relative existence were reconciled by this device of a two level  approach. Where the organised church tried to impose blind uniformity in alignment with political power, it led to the Reformation and splitting of the Church. Islamic fundamentalism is likewise an attempt to foist one system throughout. It is bound to fail, but not before causing much damage.

Hinduism did not make such  a mistake. It teaches that one has to live in the world as if it were real, but knowing that there is a greater reality behind it. It cannot be reconciled by any neat theory or philosophy. We know the sun does not rise or set, but all our practical affairs are arranged as if the sun rose and set! Or it is like particle physics and Newtonian physics. This is perhaps the most distinct, fundamental insight of Hinduism. It does not go about imposing it on all as the only doctrine. It states the facts and leaves it to one to experience the truth of it.

Nor did Hinduism enter into arguments about God, Creation,etc.: whether God is with or without form, whether he has attributes or no attributes, etc. This was a favourite topic of discussion  among the English educated Bengalis of the 19th century, under the influence of missionary movements and reform outfits. Sri Ramakrishna gave the most effective answer. After him, Sri Ramana Maharshi revolutionised the spiritual quest: he revealed it as an enquiry into  or the discovery of the truth of the Self- which alone is the one incontrovertible fact of existence- which even an atheist cannot deny. This involves no theory, no theology, no dogma, no philosophy, no God, no Church. 65 years after his passing, this is not yet understood.   

The rise of modern thinking since the 19th century has removed the idea of religion and God from human consciousness, and day to day life. The experience that led to the founding of the religions has become alien to the modern consciousness, and nothing else can touch it and hold it for long. Peter Watson has written a magnificent book, chronicling all the ideas that held sway' in the wake of that unfortunate declaration by the mentally unstable Nietzsche: 'God is dead, and we have killed him.' (The Age of Atheists: How We Have Sought to Live Since the Death of God. Simon & Schuster, 2014)Finally, everything is as false as religion was supposed to be  and nothing is ever  certain anymore!  The so called modern philosophers do not know what to make of their own existence, any more than the scientists. They have no idea of 'truth' at all.

Friedrich Nietzsche
Photo by F.Hartmann. Public Domain. Wikimedia commons.
He was a critique of mass culture, said it led to mediocrity and led to the decline of the human species. Some could become superior individuals through will power.

Most of  us are blessed. We do not have to wade through these dense oceans  of modern  verbal nonsense to understand that its authors are unhinged. But even then we are not spared. These ideas and derivatives from them have pervaded all aspects of life and thought, and continue to bombard us through the media in all its forms: the press, invariably owned by vested interests; the TV and electronic channels and media, video and other forms of digital communication,etc. Art, literature, literary criticism, academics, science, the professions- no field now openly acknowledges God or celebrates his reign. 

There is something which C.S.Lewis in the 30s called "chronological snobbery" - the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our age. ( See: The Essential C.S.Lewis. Edited by Lyle W.Dorsett, Simon&Schuster,1996, p.7 and 15) This is now prevailing in India. Established religion is its biggest victim, while any number of cults and whims flourish by the wayside! Educated, intelligent writers have enriched every movement criticising God and religion- like secularism, philosophical materialim, moral relativism, Freudianism,nihilism, existentialism, Marxism, multiculturalism, mass consumerism,etc whereas the religions have suffered from a lack of able, intelligent advocates. And even when they say or write something worthy, they do not get a platform!

Those who oppose religion are united in that goal, but the advocates of religion differ on the basis of faith and dogma. This is indeed a pity because critical studies have shown that it is the mere fact of some religious faith, and not the scientific validity of its theology that is beneficial. Religion is more useful as a sociological  factor, embedding people in a common psyche and it provides sense of security, physical and mental health benefits. 

Every religion in the world flourished in a specific cultural context. Christianity and Islam, in their conversion zeal, imposed alien ideas and landscape on converted people. But this has led to a strange spectacle. In 1900, 80% of Christians lived in Europe and America. Today, 60% of Christians live in third world countries. Educated Westerners are becoming more secular and less fertile, and the adherents of fundamentalist faiths have much higher birth rates! Reasoned, established and enlightened approaches to religion are being replaced even in America by such movements as evangelicals, charismatic persons promising health,wealth, everything; Pentecostals, fundamentalists of many types.

Many thoughtful,decent people have rejected religion on account of the atrocities they have committed through history. If we are a little more thoughtful, and equally honest, we will have to say the same about science: were not the two world wars prime results of science's triumph and God's death? Is not the current ecological crisis the result of science?Religion did not remove poverty or reduce distress- true. But has the progress of science done that? Or any of the other world-conquering ideologies? Not only the God of religion, but every God has failed!