Institute of Science and Religion

CHIEF EDITOR ADVISORY BOARD

Job Kozhamthadam Philip Sloan (Founder-President, Association of Science, (Director, Reilly Centre for Science, Society and Religion, Pune; Member, Indian Technology, and Values and Professor of National Commission for the History of History and Philosophy of Science, Notre Science, Indian National Science Academy) Dame University, USA)

EDITORIAL BOARD Kuruvilla Pandikattu (Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune) K. Babu Joseph (Former Vice Chancellor, Cochin Ignacimuthu S. OMEGA University of Science and Technology) (Former Vice Chancellor, INDIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION Madras University) K. S. Radhakrishnan Vol.2 No.1 June 2003 (Department of Philosophy, James Purathail Maharaja’s College, Kochi) (Augsburg, Germany) Mathew Chandrankunnel (Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram, Bangalore) Doris D’Souza (Principal, H. S. Virk Patna Women’s College, Patna) (Department of Physics, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar) George V. Coyne (Director, Francis Xavier Vatican Observatory, Vatican City) (Loyola College, Chennai)

I S

R. C. Pradhan E

Augustine Pamplany Y S

(Member Secretary, Indian Council of

(Little Flower Seminary, Aluva)

Philosophical Research) I

U R Zaki Kirmani T (Founder, The Centre for Studies Paul Ratnasamy on Science, Aligarh) (Director, National Chemical Laboratory, Pune)

BOOK REVIEW EDITORS Sarojini Henry (Former Professor of Theology, Tamil Jose Panthackal Nadu Theological Seminary,Chennai) (Little Flower Seminary, Aluva) Jose Thachil Martin Kallungal (St. Joseph’s Pontifical Seminary, Aluva) (Institute of Science and Religion, Aluva) Institute of Science and Religion Omega - Indian Journal of Science and Religion is an interdisciplinary Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101, Kerala, India. journal published biannually in June and December. The opinions expressed by the individual authors do not necessarily reflect the views of Phone : 0484 2623437 the editorial board. E-mail : [email protected] URL:’ www.lfseminary.org/htm/omega.htm Contents

Editorial 3 Articles Editorial The God Who Reveals: The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture as Read by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, In recent times science-religion dialogue has made remarkable and Davies 7 progress, quantitatively and qualitatively, extensively and intensively. Job Kozhamthadam Thanks to these developments, today it has moved away from a fringe Science, Religion, and Pluralism 31 discipline to a well-established, mainstream area of interest, engaging William Sweet many internationally reputed scientists - including Nobel laureates- The Resurgence of the Design Argument in the Twentieth philosophers, theologians and other thinkers in highly respected institutions. Century 51 National and international conferences on themes in this area are Sarojini Henry organized frequently in various parts of the world. Every other month a new book on this theme appears, and numerous scholarly and popular Life Beyond Death: Scientific Perspectives 65 papers regularly appear in different journals. An interesting case in this Francis P. Xavier connection is the book Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Science, Technology and Society 79 Fullness of Life1 by the late Stephen Jay Gould, who was the Alexander D. K. Rai Agassiz Professor of Zoology and professor of geology at Harvard University. This is remarkable since Gould was never noted for his Hermeneutical Proximity Between Science and Religion 88 religious affiliation. In our own India also several such organizations are Victor Ferrao making valuable contributions towards fostering a constructive and creative interaction between modern science and religion.2 In bringing Review Articles about this turnaround the contribution of the John Templeton Foundation Bio-Theology: A Neuro-Scientific Interpretation of has been unique. Human Spirituality and God 97 Jojo Varakukala Despite all these developments, there are people, scholars and non-scholars alike, who still question the legitimacy and feasibility of The Unity of Patterns: Discovering the Hidden such a constructive and creative dialogue between contemporary science Connections Between Life, Mind and Society 104 and religion. In a manner reminiscent of Kipling’s famous lines they K. Babu Joseph would say: “Science is science, religion is religion. How can the twain Jai Singh: A Tribute to Indian Astronomy 109 ever meet? If they ever do, where will it be?” Perhaps the predominant Gimmi Akkatt theme running through all the six original papers of this second issue of How Far Scientific is the Scientific Materialism? 115 Omega precisely is that not only can the twain meet but also it should. It Augustine Pamplany has been pointed out by many scholars that, given the level and gravity of the developments in science today, science-religion dialogue has Century,” argues that the intellectual and scientific fascination for this become not a mere option, but a clear obligation.3 In fact this is no new argument simply does not go away; the argument keeps coming back in news; Alfred North Whitehead has spoken along the same line long ago: more and more sophisticated forms. Three such cases are discussed by “When we consider what religion is for mankind, what science is, it is no her, all claiming good scientific support. exaggeration to say that the future course of history depends upon this generation as to the relations between them.”4 It is usually believed that death is an inevitable end and science is totally in the dark about the life after death. This would mean that death In the first paper, “The God Who Reveals: The Book of Nature and life after death are the territory reserved exclusively for religion, and the Book of Scripture,” Kozhamthadam points out that science and and so the question about any dialogue between science and religion on religion are but two intimately interlinked aspects of the same phenomenon: these topics need not arise. Xavier in his paper, “Life Beyond Death: the epiphany and self-disclosure of the God of love. Although the theme Scientific Perspectives,” argues that there are scientific considerations of the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature is an old one, it is valid shedding valuable light on these topics. They can give us new insights even today, especially the latter, as is evident from the works and lives into the nature of death and life after death. Death, far from being the of many eminent scientists. end of life, is the beginning of a new form of life. In fact, he believes that we should talk of life-beyond-death rather than life-after-death. Sweet in his contribution, “Science, Religion and Pluralism,” points out that since the self-disclosure of the Divine is conditioned by cultural The necessity for a dialogue between science and religious factors, religious pluralism ensues, as is clear in many nations in the principles, particularly ethical principles, is brought out by Rai in his paper, East, particularly in India. This religious pluralism poses a serious challenge “Science, Technology and Society.” Though science has inherent to science-religion dialogue, especially for those brought up in a mono- limitations and constraints, it has immense power at its disposal to make religious and mono-cultural milieu. But he argues that, despite this or break humankind and its achievements. A healthy interaction between challenge of religious pluralism, one can talk of a meaningful and fruitful science and ethical principles is necessary to keep science from veering interaction between science and religion. away from its original goal of seeking the welfare of humans and the cosmos. From antiquity many thinkers were struck by their experience of the Book of Nature, and used this experience to reason back to the Finally, Ferrao in his paper, “Hermeneutical Proximity Between author of this book, giving rise to what is usually known as “the argument Science and Religion,” talks of the primary requirement for a healthy from design” for the existence of God. Thus one can see a long line of and creative interaction between science and religion. The primary luminaries who developed and embraced it, like Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, requirement is that we remove all narrow, self-serving and self-centered Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Paley, etc. During the 17-18th centuries understanding of science and religion. Once this is done, true science this was considered the master-argument for theism. According to Samuel and true religion can emerge to bring about a constructive collaboration. Clarke, not even the most unintelligent person could be ignorant of this point.5 For many this argument became a source of assurance for their Since science and religion impact not just our ideas only, but our faith, as was evident from the words of Cardinal Manning: “I took in the very life, dialogue between the two cannot remain purely at the intellectual whole argument, and I thanked God that nothing has ever shaken it.” or academic level. We invite you not only to read these pages, but also to However, David Hume in his well-known Dialogues Concerning reflect over them to find out how they can be a transforming influence. Natural Religion claimed to have demolished this argument. Henry in her paper, “The Resurgence of the Design Argument in the Twentieth To end on a personal note, we want to thank our readers for the

4Omega June 2003 5 enthusiastic support and encouragement we have received for our first issue. We count on your continued support. We apologize for the delay in bringing out the second issue. It was unavoidable because of the unexpected sickness and hospitalization of the editor in chief.

- Job Kozhamthadam The God Who Reveals The Book of Nature and The Book of Scripture Notes As Read by Kepler, Galileo, 1 Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages (New York: The Library of Contemporary Newton, Einstein, and Davies Thought, 1999).

2 For instance, in Pune IISR (Indian Institute of Science and Religion) has - Job Kozhamthadam1 started many innovative programmes. ASSR (Association of Science, Society and Religion) of Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune, has been in successful operation for over four years. ISR (Institute of Science and The God of love is a God who reveals in deed and word, through the Religion) of Aluva is another important institution. There are several others Books of Nature and Scripture. The relationship between this age-old in Bangalore, Palai (Kerala), Banaras, etc. pair reflects the relationship between science and religion. This paper studies how some eminent scientists tried to read these books and what 3 See for instance, Job Kozhamthadam, “Science and Religion: Past impact this reading had on each one. Kepler found perfect harmony and Estrangement and Present Possible Engagement,” in his Contemporary integration between the two books. Galileo never fully succeeded in Science and Religion in Dialogue: Challenges and Opportunities (Pune: integrating them, but it was quite clear that this noble task had been his ASSR Publications, 2002), pp. 2-45. great ambition. The reading of the Book of Nature brought Newton face 4 A. N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Free Press, to face with its author. Einstein arrived at his God of Super-Reason 1967), p. 181. through his reading of the Book of Nature. Modern science’s capability and success in reading this book leads Davies to claim that science 5 See Norman Kemp Smith’s introductory essays, in David Hume, Dialogues offers a surer path to God than religion. The paper concludes that the Concerning Natural Religion (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1947), p. 43. theme of the Books of Nature and Scripture, despite its antiquity, still retains much relevant to our science-dominated world. - Editor

Introduction

Perhaps the best attempt at defining the indefinable concept of God was done by St. John the Evangelist when he said, “God is love.” Love indeed captures many fundamental aspects of our intuitive understanding of God. Although love itself defies all attempts at an exact definition, all agree that genuine love can never be self-centered or just inward-looking; true love is always other-centered, always open, never

6Omega June 2003 7 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture secretive. The lover shares whatever he/she has with the beloved, and (Ps. 19:2). Again, “The heavens proclaims his justice and all peoples see finds joy and fulfillment in this sharing. The mystery of love is that in his glory.” (Ps. 97:6). Indeed the Lord speaks to us through nature: “The enriching the beloved the lover himself/herself gets enriched. voice of the Lord is over the waters, the Lord of glory thunders, the Lord, over vast waters.” (Ps. 29:3). Finally, the Psalmist extends an A God of love cannot but reveal himself/herself. History informs open invitation to all creation: “Let the heavens be glad and the earth us that humans were well aware of this point right from the dawn of rejoice; let the sea and what fills it resound; let the plains be joyful and all civilization, and kept themselves open and alert to this divine self- that is in them! Then shall all the trees of the forest exult before the disclosure. They believed that God revealed not only by word of mouth, Lord, for he comes; for he comes to rule the earth.” (Ps. 96:11-13). All but also by deed of hands. Accordingly, two forms of religion arose: the these passages and many more like them leave no doubt that the Lord one called “religions of the Book,” which emphasized the verbal revelation, reveals in and through nature. and the other called “cosmic religions,” which focused on the revelation through nature or the cosmos. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and some of But this positive biblical outlook towards nature began to fade out the Eastern religions come under the former category, whereas most of in course of time, particularly in the early Middle Ages, thanks to the the tribal religions belong to the latter. influence of Gnosticism, Platonism, and Neoplatonism, to the detriment of science. Almost equating the material universe with an incarnation of The twin mode of divine self-disclosure is often expressed evil, the Gnostics could see nothing positive or salutary in it. In their metaphorically in terms of the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. eagerness to extol the spiritual, they looked upon the cosmos as “a Since science involves the study of the Book of Nature and theology or, disastrous mistake, the scene of disorder and sin, the product of evil more specifically, scriptural theology involves the study of the Book of forces, the antithesis of the divine, and a prison from which the soul Scripture, the relationship between these two books represents the must escape in order to make its way to its true home in the spiritual relationship between science and religion. It seems to me that the fortunes realm.”2 Platonism and Neoplatonism, although less pessimistic, also of the relationship between these two books, and hence between science failed to possess a positive attitude towards the material universe, reducing and religion, have fluctuated with the attitude people have had towards it to a mere shadow of the superior world of Ideas. material nature: a negative outlook towards nature led to a belittling of science, resulting in a souring of its relationship with religion. The Christian tradition in the Middle Ages was very much influenced by the forces that disparaged nature and the study of nature, The Old Testament, particularly the Book of Genesis, had a positive although as Lindberg points out, “orthodox Christianity, as it developed, attitude towards nature, as is evident from the well-known creation emphatically rejected the extremes; nature was neither to be worshipped narrative. While talking about the creation of the different constituents nor to be repudiated.”3 For instance, St. Augustine, despite his life-long of the universe, the statement “God saw how good it was” recurs as a commitment to the pursuit of solid knowledge, wrote in Enchiridion: refrain again and again, culminating in the final positive note “God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.” (Gen 1:31). The When it is asked what we ought to believe in matters of religion, message is loud and clear; the universe with all its creatures is God’s the answer is not to be sought in the exploration of the nature of masterwork, and it is good in every way. things, after the manner of those whom the Greeks called ‘physicists.’ .... For the Christian, it is enough to believe that the The revelatory role of the material universe too is conspicuously cause of all created things, whether in heaven or on earth, whether clear in the Old Testament, particularly in the Psalms. “The heavens visible or invisible, is nothing other than the goodness of the 4 declare the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.” Creator, who is the one and the true God.

8Omega June 2003 9 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture universe. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he looked upon it as The widely accepted Christian position was that the material something sacred, having a divine origin. He expressed this in a letter to universe is God’s creation, is temporary and transitory; it can never be Herwart von Hohenburg, his patron and friend, written on April 10, 1599; an end in itself but only a means to be used for attaining the supreme “The world is the corporeal image of God, whereas the soul is the goal of one’s own salvation and sanctification. The world is a valley of incorporeal, though created, image of God.”5 According to him, the tears in which we are only pilgrims on our way to the true home in material world is the image of God become tangible, taken concrete heaven. Since science is the study of the material universe, this attitude, shape, while the world of spiritual beings is the image of same God in the though far from being pessimistic, failed to inspire much encouragement incorporeal form. In another place he referred to the universe as the for its pursuit. No wonder, this period, though not barren as far as scientific “bright temple of God.”6 Involvement in the world was not a burden achievements are concerned, saw very few outstanding scientists, and imposed on the human race in the Garden of Eden. Indeed, he believed contributed minimally to the development of science. It seemed that the that the universe and involvement in it through scientific research was Book of Nature had gone into a period of hibernation during this period. his sure means to reach heaven.7 As he wrote to his astronomer-friend David Fabricius, for him nature aspires to divinity.8 Furthermore, ac- On the other hand, this period saw the Book of Scripture attracting cording to him, God ordained that the universe act and operate by the much attention. The Fathers of the Church and other scholars made same laws as his: “As God the creator played, so he also taught nature, substantial contributions to scriptural scholarship. Scriptural authority as his image, to play; and to play the very same game he played for her was widely established, and scriptural norms and principles were used first ,...”9 The positive outlook he had toward the created world ren- in various walks of life. Scriptural claims became almost synonymous dered his scientific work meaningful and purposeful. with truth claims. If, on the one hand, this period found the interest in the Book of Nature at its nadir, on the other, it also saw the interest in the He saw the reflection of the three divine Persons of the Holy Book of Scripture at its zenith. Trinity in the material universe. The spherical universe of ours is an image of the Triune God; “The sphere possesses a threefold quality: However, with the advent of modern science from the sixteenth surface, central point, intervening space. The same is true of the century onwards a more balanced attitude towards both these books motionless universe: the fixed stars, the sun and the aura or intermediate began to emerge. We now proceed to discuss the approach some of the ether; and it is also true of the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”10 eminent scientists in history like Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and This is about the motionless universe. A similar relationship exists in the Davies took towards these two books, and what relationship they found case of the mobile universe as well. The mobile universe for him is between the two. made up of the sun and the known planets of the day.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) The sun in the middle of the moveable, being immoveable itself and yet the source of motion, bears the image of God the Father, the creator. Now what creation is to God, so is motion to the sun. Perhaps Kepler gives the most balanced and integrated view of Thus it moves [the bodies in the space within] the fixed stars, the relationship between the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. just as the Father creates in the Son .... Again the sun disperses Far from having any uneasy tension, the two books harmonized beautifully a moving power through the medium in which are the moveables, and fruitfully in his life and works. and in just this way the Father creates through the Spirit or through the power of the Spirit.11 All through his life Kepler had a very positive view of the material

10Omega June 2003 11 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture Thus the general structure of the universe is modeled after the his whole life, providing it with a new direction. To be a priest of God in Trinitarian God. Just as the Trinity has three distinct, yet intimately related the Lutheran Church was his great ambition. But the perception of the parts and neither can be complete without the other, the universe too has full significance of the Book of Nature transformed his life vocation, three parts which are intrinsically interrelated. because he realized that he could be both a priest of God and an astronomer. Is the similarity just a heuristic one, just an analogy designed to make the mystery of the Trinity intelligible to simple people? Kepler The Sacred Character of Astronomy certainly wanted to make the mystery as intelligible as possible, but the Trinitarian model, far from being a figment of the imagination for heuristic It was obvious to Kepler that if the Book of Nature was something purposes, is an archetype of the universe, a real blueprint of the universe. sacred, then the study of nature had to be something sublime, just like In his own words, “Nor should it be taken as a meaningless resemblance, the study of Scripture. For a person to whom the universe was the but it should be reckoned as one of the causes, as a form and archetype “sacred temple of God” this conclusion had to follow, since astronomy of the universe.”12 According to him, the universe does literally have a was nothing but the study of this sacred temple. But the theme of the Trinitarian structure. Book of Nature elevated astronomy to an even higher plane. It was not just the study of the temple or abode of God, it became the study of God The revelatory role of nature Kepler expressed in terms of the himself manifested in and through nature, just as the study of the Book Book of Nature. According to him, nature is a sacred book with a sublime of Scripture is not just the study of God’s verbal communication, but also message to all humankind. As he put it in the Epitome, “This is the very of God himself communicating to us. He affirmed this sacredness again Book of Nature in which God the creator has proclaimed and depicted and again in his writings. For instance, in the Astronomia Nova he his essence and his will toward man in part and in a certain wordless asserted that it was “the divine voice that calls humans to learn kind of writing.”13 Just as we can come to know the personality and astronomy.”15 greatness of an author through his/her book, we can come to know God through the Book of Nature. In fact, God himself “wishes to be known Astronomers Are Priests through this Book of Nature.”14 One of the direct consequences of placing the Book of Nature The specialty of his interpretation of this theme consisted in relating and the Book of Scripture on a par with each other was that, for Kepler, the Book of Nature to the Book of Scripture in an original way. He astronomers became priests of the Almighty. Just as ordinary priests placed them on a par. Both are aspects of one and the same reality, are ministers of the Word of God, astronomers are ministers of the Deed complementing each other, and thereby giving humans a further and of God. Ordinary priests give glory to God by expounding the mysteries more complete manifestation of God. He argued that since God has in the Book of Scripture, whereas astronomers do the very same by mouth and hands, God reveals through both, the word of God proceeding explaining the mysteries in the Book of Nature. He emphasized this from mouth and the deed of God from hands. The Book of Scripture conviction repeatedly in his correspondence with friends: “Indeed I am recounts the word of God, whereas the Book of Nature the deed of of the opinion that since astronomers are priests of Almighty God with God. Hence both are sacred, both are worthy of our total respect and respect to the Book of Nature, we should concern ourselves not with attention. This conclusion has an extremely significant consequence: the praise of our cleverness but with the glory of God.”16 This was no science, which is the study of the Book of Nature, becomes a profession merely pious statement, as far as he was concerned. Nor was it offered very analogous to Scriptural theology. Thus this theme is at the basis of as a rationalization to justify to him and to his relatives and friends his his perception of the nobility of science. This idea in a way revolutionized decision to discontinue his pursuit to become a Lutheran priest. He really 12Omega June 2003 13 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture meant it, as was evident in the way he 1ived out his conviction; with the quite plain everyone with strong religious scruples will take the greatest zeal of a priest-missionary, he fully dedicated himself to astronomy with care not to twist the tongue of God so that it refutes the finger of God in utter selflessness. Even in his most mature age he remained faithful to nature.”18 Obviously, Kepler’s dilemma was one of finding a rational this conviction, as could be seen from the fact that he wanted the Epitome way to bring about a reconci1iation between two truths deepest to his to be interpreted as a hymn that he composed as the “priest of God at heart; the veracity of the Bible and that of the Copernican system. the Book of Nature.”17 Basically Kepler’s solution was as follows: there could not be a Furthermore, this conviction defined the goal of science or real conflict between scientific truth and scriptural truth. The contradiction astronomy for him. The aim of science was to discover the plan of God, was only apparent, not real. It arose because of a literal interpretation of the thought of God, not to play God over nature, not to have power over Holy Scripture. He advocated a nonliteral interpretation, especially in nature so as to control it, as Francis Bacon would have it. It was to passages where Scripture talked about scientific issues. In this way his discover in this plan God’s great wisdom and love for humankind so that scientific views and his faith in the ability of science to reveal truths we can praise the Divine Majesty all the more. about nature moved him to argue for a nonliteral interpretation of Scripture. Kepler and Scriptural Interpretation Although he always remained respectful towards the word of The integrated view Kepler had about the relationship between God, he argued that it had to be interpreted in the light of scientific the two books helped him to develop a new way of interpreting Scripture, findings. In this context he subscribed to the accommodation theory of thereby avoiding any serious conf1ict between the scientific and scriptural interpretation of the Bible, according to which God in revealing to humans views. The influence of Kepler’s scientific ideas on his religion was accommodated his language and expression to the people he revealed to most conspicuous in his new outlook on scriptural interpretation. The and to the purpose he had in mind. As Kepler wrote to Herwart, the specific problem confronting Kepler was how to reconcile astronomy, inspired writers of the Bible used the ordinary language and concepts of specifically the Copernican astronomy, with the Bible. He was caught the day to communicate God’s message, “not for linguistic accuracy, but up in a difficult dilemma: on the one hand, he was convinced that the for the sake of conversing and communicating his message.”19 The Copernican system was true. On the other hand, he had no doubt about accommodation theory argues that we must recognize that there is a the veracity of the Bible. But there were many passages in the Bible real distinction between what is said and how it is said. On the other which seemed to contradict the Copernican position. How could such a hand, a literal interpretation denies such a distinction and identifies what contradiction arise? How could one truth contradict another on the same is said with how it is said. issue? Could a rational God allow such a situation? Kepler put the conflict in another way also. God had both tongue and hands (fingers). The Holy In opposition to many Lutheran theologians of his day who looked Book was the word of God, the work of his tongue. The Book of Nature upon the Bible as a textbook of astronomy, he argued that the purpose of was the deed of God, the work of his hands. Insofar as astronomy was the Holy Book was not to teach astronomy, but moral conduct. According the study of this Book of Nature, true astronomical laws were nothing to him, except for the first chapter of Genesis, the Holy writ was not but laws governing the works of God’s hands. To say that astronomy meant to instruct humans in natural science. The Bible wanted to take and the Holy Scripture contradicted each other was tantamount to the believers to a higher level of morality, not to the level of the study of denying any coordination between God’s tongue and hands. Since such the planets and stars. “For astronomy discloses the causes of natural could never be the case, he concluded: “Therefore in matters which are phenomena and takes within its purview the investigation of optical illusions. Much loftier subjects are treated by Holy Writ ....”20 As an 14Omega June 2003 15 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture illustration, Kepler referred to the Book of Job, chapter 38, where God But how do we know which one is to be taken nonliterally and which talked of the creation of the world. Although this passage referred to one literally? Kepler would not want to say that all passages referring to topics ordinarily dealt with in astronomy, it was not an astronomical scientific issues should belong to the first category because he himself (scientific) analysis on how the earth and things in and around it had gave the first chapter of the Book of Genesis as a clear exception to this been formed. The purpose of this passage was to remind humans of the rule. An absence of a clear criterion would render his view an easy prey supremacy of God over all creation, to remind them of their ignorance, to inconsistency. The main criterion at that time was articulated by and to recall them to humble submission to and reverence for God, the Bellarmine: in order for a scientific theory to demand a nonliteral Master of all creation. interpretation of a passage in the Bible, it is necessary that the scientific theory concerned be demonstratively true, i.e., true beyond all reasonable How about the passages in the Bible often quoted by the opponents doubt. One must show that the scientific theory cannot be false. It is of Copernicus? He argued that the principles developed above could true that this was the Catholic position and hence Kepler did not have to show that these passages did not contradict Copernicanism. The most abide by this. However, as far as I know, the other Christian denominations frequently quoted one was from Joshua 10:12-13: “Sun, stand thou still with which Kepler had close contact took an even more stringent position. at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon. And the Sun stood Hence I believe that Kepler accepted Bellarmine’s criterion. This is still, and the Moon stayed, unti1 the nation took vengeance on their clear from his statement right in the beginning of the first chapter of the enemies.” The usual argument (in Kepler’s day) had been that if the Mysterium Cosmographicum: “I promise generally that I shall say sun were stationary, it was pointless for God to order it to stop moving in nothing which would be an affront to Holy Scripture, and that if answer to Joshua’s prayer. According to Kepler, the leader of the Copernicus is convicted of anything along with me, I shall dismiss him as Israelites was not speaking as an astronomer, he was using the language worthless.”23 Hence it was necessary for Kepler to be absolutely sure of the people. God on the other hand understood what Joshua wanted of the truth of Copernicanism before he could opt for a non-1iteral and granted it. “The sum of Joshua’s prayer came down to this that it interpretation of the biblical passages which seemed to go against the might so appear to him, regardless of the reality; to be sure, the appearance new theory. He was convinced of the veracity of the new theory, and was not groundless and invalid but was related to the desired effect.”21 so advocated the new interpretation of the Bible. Thus this important He continued: “Thoughtless people consider it only a contradiction of contribution of Kepler towards scriptural interpretation was a result of words: ‘the Sun stood still,’ and ‘the Earth stood still.’ They do not consider his deep faith in the scientific view in general, and the Copernican view that this contradiction arose only within the boundaries of optics and in particular. astronomy, and for this reason it does not extend to common usage.”22 Definitely in astronomy it was important to know which one stood still, Science and Religion Reconciled but in ordinary conversations such distinctions were immaterial. The relevant question was ‘what does the author intend?’ The conclusion he The theme of the Book of Nature and his consequent belief that wanted to draw was clear: if the Bible was a book on astronomy and if astronomers are priests of God led Kepler to believe that science and Joshua was speaking as an astronomer, then there was a serious problem, religion are col1aborators rather than contenders. From this theme it and the Joshua passage could be taken as a refutation of the Copernican followed that both ordinary priests and astronomers have a sublime system. But the conditionals were not true. vocation to perform a sacred function. Their works complement rather than compete with each other. Hence one can be a scientist and a believer, Kepler’s arguments are quite persuasive. However, there are there is no real conflict between science and re1igion. serious difficulties with his view. His position implies that some passages of the Bible are to be taken non1iterally, whereas some others literally.

16Omega June 2003 17 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture Galileo (1564-1642) and the Book of Scripture, Galileo did not find any contradiction between the two. Like Kepler, he was convinced that the message of the Bible Galileo’s Loyalty to Catholicism was true and commanded our total adherence. Again, like Kepler, he had no doubt about the veracity of the revelation of the Book of Nature The theme of the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture was as given by the Copernican system. The cha1lenge before him was “to 25 important in the case of Galileo too. However, unlike Kepler, many prove that the position of Copernicus is not contrary to Scripture.” historians of science often depict his case as a paradigm instance for the This task at the time looked formidable since he had to confront objections incompatibi1ity between the two books, and consequently between from various sides: theological, philosophical, and scientific. He science and religion. According to these scholars, far from looking for courageously set out to address all of these. an integration between the two books, Galileo was arguing for their compartmentalization. His often-quoted statement “The Bible teaches To begin with, Galileo admitted that at first appearance there were us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” is interpreted as contradictions between the Copernican and the biblical views since advocating a sharp demarcation between astronomy and Scripture, several biblical passages seemed to go against a stationary sun and a between science and religion. mobile earth. But he pointed out that the contradiction arose because of the literal interpretation of the Bible. He argued that the Bible was not to However, in recent times several scholars have pointed out that be understood literally, particularly the passages dealing with astronomy this stereotype view is more a creation of certain later historians with because the purpose of the Bible was the attainment of “the salvation of vested interests than of historical data. It is abundantly clear that at no souls and the service of God.”26 Since the biblical message is for all, time did Galileo consider himself as an opponent of the Church. Although particularly for the ordinary and unsophisticated people, its language and he was almost merciless in putting down his opponents, some of whom style would have to accommodate to their level. As in the case of Kepler, were highly placed in the ecclesiastical circles, it was never his intention using the well-known accommodation theory, he explained away the to oppose and humiliate the Catholic Church. It is wel1-known that Galileo apparent contradiction between certain biblical passages and the had many prominent ecclesiastics among his close friends. There is good Copernican system. evidence to believe that he always wanted to be a faithful Catholic. For instance, although many accusations were brought against him during But there were many objections to such a non1iteral interpretation his trial in 1633, he was particularly sensitive to two of them: one expressing of the Bible, the most vehement ones coming from Cardinal Bellarmine, doubts about his fidelity to the Catholic faith and the other accusing him undoubtedly the most authoritative and influential Catholic theologian of of having used deceitful methods to obtain the imprimatur for his book, the day. According to the Cardinal, “Scripture is the immediately revealed i.e., one referring to his religious authenticity and the other to his moral word of God, and was written as dictated by God.... There can be no character. He pleaded with the authorities to have both these accusations error in Scripture, whether it deals with faith or morals, or whether it repealed, which was readily conceded. one. In his letter to his friend states something particular and pertaining to only one person.”27 Cardinal Dini he expressly stated that his efforts to show the compatibility Concerning historical, lyrical, and any other non-religious items, such as between Copernicanism and the Bible arose not out of any malice but in astronomy, he said: “In Scripture there are many things which of the “hope of at least showing my affection for the holy Church.”24 themselves do not pertain to the faith, that is, which were not written because it is necessary [for salvation] to believe them. But it is necessary Galileo on Scriptural Interpretation to believe them because they were written.”.28 Bellarmine went further to assert that “it will not do to say that this is not a matter of faith, When it came to the relationship between the Book of Nature because though it may not be a matter of faith ex parte objecti, or as 18Omega June 2003 19 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture regards the subject treated, yet it is a matter of faith ex parte dicentis, not see that, in order to stop the whole system without any or as regards him who announces it.”29 In other words, although the alteration in the remaining mutual relation of the planets but only subject matter of astronomy does not pertain to faith, since it is written to prolong the space and time of the daylight, it is sufficient to in the Bible which is the word of God, it becomes a matter of faith. This make the sun stop, exactly as the literal meaning of the sacred 32 position easily leads to a literal understanding of Scripture. Obviously, text says? many scholars consider Bellarmine’s view too rigid and too stringent, and some have subjected it to bitter criticism. In this way on the basis of the Copernican system “it is possible to lengthen the day on earth by stopping the sun, without introducing any Perhaps it was this rigid requirement of Bellarmine that prompted confusion among the parts of the world and without altering the words Galileo to struggle to show that even from a literal point of view the of Scripture.”33 Hence, according to Galileo’s interpretation, the sun had Copernican heliocentric view rather than the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic only a rotational motion and Joshua’s prayer was to stop only this motion. geocentric view was in agreement with Scripture. Thus he argued that, It is clear that Galileo was not very happy and content with this line of contrary to the common view, the passage from Joshua “most c1early argument, as is evident from the fact that later on when he took up the shows the falsity and impossibility of the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic world topic of scriptural interpretation more deeply and elaborately in his much system and is also very well accommodated to the Copernican system.”30 celebrated Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina he never went back According to his strangely ingenious explanation, the sun has an annual to it. motion from the west towards the east, and a daily motion from the east towards the west. The motion proper to the sun is the annual one, the Bellarmine agreed that the Bible often needed interpretation, but other belongs to the first sphere. Since day and night are caused by the he insisted that “the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the motion of the first sphere, in order to lengthen the day one needs to Scriptures in a way contrary to the common opinion of the holy Fathers.”34 make the first sphere stop, not the sun. Galileo responded to these objections in his Letter to the Grand Therefore it is absolutely impossible in the system of Ptolemy Duchess Christina. For instance, in response to the requirement of the and Aristotle to stop the motion of the sun and thereby to agreement with the common opinion of the Fathers he himself quoted lengthen the day .... Hence either one must say that the motions the very same Fourth Session of the Council of Trent: “So far as I can are not arranged as Ptolemy said, or one must alter the meaning find, all that is really prohibited is the perverting into senses contrary to of the words, and say that, when the Scripture says that God that of the holy Church or that of the concurrent agreement of the Fathers stopped the sun, he really wished to say that he stopped the first those passages, and those alone, which pertain to faith or ethics or which 31 sphere. concern the edification of Christian doctrine.”35 He went on to point out that “the mobility or stability of the earth or sun is neither a matter of Since a literal reading of the text does not agree with the geocentric faith nor one contrary to ethics.” According to him, “neither would anyone system, we should look for another arrangement of the system, viz., the pervert passages of Scripture in opposition to the holy Church or to the Copernican heliocentric one. He says that his discovery of the sunspots Fathers, for those who have written on this matter have never employed has proven that the sun rotates on its own axis. Also it is highly probable scriptural passages.36 that the sun is the cause of planetary motion. It was known that the Church tradition permitted a nonliteral Therefore, if in agreement with the position of Copernicus we interpretation of Scripture when it was clear that the literal reading went attribute the daily rotation primarily to the earth, then who does against a demonstrated (i.e., sure and certain) truth. Hence if

20Omega June 2003 21 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture Copernicanism could be shown to be a demonstrated truth, a nonliteral and the Book of Scripture. But being one of the greatest scientists of all interpretation would be justified. Bellarmine referred to this condition times, his emphasis lay very much on the God revealing in and through when he wrote to the Copernican Paolo Antonio Foscarini in 1615: the latter. Like his predecessors Kepler and Galileo, Newton too took his religion seriously. If there were a real proof that the sun is in the centre of the universe, that the earth is the third heaven, and that the sun does With regard to Scripture he followed the Kepler-Galileo tradition not go around the earth but the earth round the sun, then we to remain open to a nonliteral understanding of certain passages, should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and especially those pertaining to the creation of the universe. In his own rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an words, “As to Moses, I do not think his description of creation was option to be false which is proved to be true.”37 either philosophical or feigned, but that he described realities in a language artificially adapted to the sense of the vulgar.”40 Galileo too was wel1 aware of it, as was evident from his letter to Dini: “To me, the surest and swiftest way to prove that the position of From Cosmology to the Cosmic Mechanic Copernicus is not contrary to Scripture would be to give a host of proofs that it is true and that the contrary cannot be maintained at all; thus, Reflection on the Book of Nature led Newton directly to God since no two truths can contradict one another, this and the Bible must whom he considered the Lord and Master of the universe. According to be perfectly harmonious.”38 him, it would be only natural for a scientific mind to make a smooth transition from the visible creation to its creator. He confided to his In this department Galileo had a clear superiority over Kepler, for disciple Richard Bentley that one of his principal motivations for writing although the latter did give empirical data in support of Copernicanism, the Principia was to assist thinking persons in discovering the Deity: they lacked the excitement and persuasiveness of Galileo’s telescopic “When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had an eye upon such discoveries. But, as many scholars have repeatedly pointed out, all the principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity; empirical evidence Galileo could muster fell far short of a demonstrative and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.”41 proof.39 This never prevented him from asserting that the new theory From his cosmology he could move to the cosmic mechanic. was true. Later developments in science like Bradley’s discovery of the aberration of light in 1725, Bessell’s discovery of the stellar parallax in Newton’s strategy was to begin with a careful observation of 1838, and the introduction of Foucault’s pendulum in 1851, etc., provided natural phenomena. Scientific reflection on the observed data led one to what Galileo failed to produce in his day. Galileo was definitely right, but secondary causes, which on further reflection led to the primary cause. for reasons he could not deliver in his lifetime. It is true that Galileo Two basic assumptions guided him in this process: never fully succeeded in integrating the two books on the basis of scientific data, as he had hoped and even claimed; but it is quite clear that this 1. The rationality of nature, in the sense that for every natural noble task had always been his great ambition. phenomenon there must be a rational explanation, 2. The rejection of any explanation in terms of mere chance, since for him an explanation in Isaac Newton (1642-1727) terms of chance was no explanation at all. For instance, he asks: “Did blind chance know that there was light and what its refraction was, and Newton on Scriptural Interpretation fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it?”42 His study of several important cosmic phenomena revealed Newton believed that God reveals through both the Book of Nature that not even the most sophisticated science available at that time could 22Omega June 2003 23 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture explain them adequately. Since there had to be a rational explanation for conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central these phenomena, recourse to a non-scientific agency was inevitable. teaching is based on it.”48 Obviously, in such a religion there is hardly For instance, his quest for an explanation of the regularity and variety of any place for any holy book. motions of the bodies in the solar system led him to conclude that “blind metaphysical necessity which is certainly the same always and According to Einstein, true religion is the religion of cosmic everywhere, could produce no variety of things.”43 The science of consciousness, which essentially aims at breaking down the narrow mechanics too was helpless in this case: “It is not to be conceived that confines of one’s individuality to become open to the whole cosmos. mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, “The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature orbits.”44 The presence of comets complicated the situation since unlike and in the world of thought.”49 It aims at the “free and responsible the planets they followed irregular orbits. All these considerations led development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely him to this conclusion: “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and gladly in the service of all mankind.”50 In this religion be1ievers will and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an have to “avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating intelligent and powerful Being.”45 For Newton the path of mechanics the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.”51 was never a deviation from the path to the cosmic mechanic. The reading of the Book of Nature brought him face to face with its author himself. From the Book of Nature to Super-Reason

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) The God of Einstein was not the personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but a God of Super-Intelligence or Super-Reason, revealed in and through nature. According to him, when we reflect on the cosmic The Cosmic Religion order around us, we are filled with a rapturous amazement, which on further deep and dispassionate reflection reveals the Super-Intelligence Some people may be surprised to find Einstein being brought into or Super-Rationality. “Compared with it, all the systematic thinking and a discussion on the theme of the Books of Nature and Scripture, since acting is an utterly insignificant reflection .... It is beyond question closely according to some scholars, he was an agnostic, if not an atheist. akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.”52 However, a close and open-minded look at his life and writings reveals This Reason Incarnate “in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to that he was a deeply religious person, albeit a very unconventional one. man.”53 There is no doubt that this Super-Reason which shares many It is wel1-known that many of his hard-headed scientist disciples and characteristics of the impersonal God of certain religions is revealed admirers used to feel embarrassed at his religiosity. But he firmly believed through the Book of Nature. that “in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are 46 the only profoundly religious people.” In his view, “the cosmic religious Paul Davies (1946- ) feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.”47

Earlier reference was made to cosmic religions which emphasized God As an Emergent Being God revealing through nature. Einstein’s ideas shared much in common with this tradition, his scientific reflections on natural phenomena leading Several ideas Paul Davies develops in his many writings have a him to a form of Deity. We have also seen that those who emphasized direct bearing on the theme of the Book of Nature. He is of the opinion 54 revelation through nature had a tendency to play down the written tradition. that “science offers a surer path to God than religion.” This claim, Einstein’s brand of cosmic religion “knows no dogma and no God obviously, will not go unchallenged, but it at least calls our attention to 24Omega June 2003 25 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture the great impact modern science has on matters of God and religion. As universe out of balance and 1ead to catastrophic consequences. The he himself remarks, “The fact that science has actually advanced to the charge and mass of electrons and protons, the velocity of light, etc., are point where what were formerly religious questions can be seriously a few examples. Why do they have exactly these values? Who or what tackled, itself indicates the far-reaching consequences of the new is responsible for maintaining them at their current level? Davies’s inquiring physics.”55 Scientific investigation of certain natural phenomena can mind remains unconvinced by the usual explanation of these lead us to believe in the existence of God. In fact, our knowledge of the “coincidences” in terms of chance, and believes that these cases present existence and nature of God is inextricably linked to the universe. the most surprising evidence for a grand design. This is yet another instance of the Book of Nature attempting to reveal its author. Articulating the linkage between God and the universe, Davies argues that God is a holistic concept; in fact, the supreme holistic concept. Conclusion In a holistic phenomenon a new force or organizing influence that does not have its origin in the components initially emerges at the collective The theme of the Books of Nature and Scripture, despite its level. The holistic process involves emergent properties or beings. For antiquity, still retains much relevance in our science-dominated world. instance, from this perspective the mind is an abstract, holistic, Many scientists like Einstein may not heed the revelatory value of the organizational pattern capable of even disembodiment. holy books, but they do recognize the existence of some supreme being revealing itself in and through the universe. Over the centuries many The God of Davies is an emergent being that emerges when the almost ruthless attempts have been made to shut off or at least blur the whole universe is put together. Obviously, such a view is a far cry from glow of the creator beaming through creation. David Hume, for instance, the traditional understanding of God, and raises a host of problems. For spared no pains to prove that God was a myth and the Scriptures a instance, what is the nature of this emergent being? Can it have an bunch of fables. Friedrich Nietzsche at the turn of this century declared existence independent of the universe? If it is dependent on the universe, the “death of God.” Bertrand Russell in more recent times resurrected how to account for the existence of the universe? If it is independent of the ideas of Hume. Most recently, Stephen Hawking has attempted to the universe, why does it show an inevitable dependence on the parts of do away with the need for a creator. But it is now clear that all such the universe? paths to have “a creation without a creator” lead to self-contradiction. Our study of the theme of the Books of Nature and Scripture seems to Science a Surer Path to God render the words of astronomer Jastrow prophetic:

How can science, the study of the Book of Nature, be a surer For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, path to God than religion? Although Davies disclaims the role of the the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of traditional argument from design to provide a strong proof for God’s ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls existence, he singles out certain special natural phenomena as being himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians 56 capable of making a strong case in favour of a Super-Intelligent Being. who have been sitting there for centuries. Scientists have come across certain hitherto unexplained “cosmic coincidences” revealing a “fine-tuned” universe. There exist a number Notes of fundamental quantities the specific values of which have to be exactly 1 Dr. Job Kozhamthadam, till recently, was a member of the Indian National what they are at present to produce and maintain our universe as it is Commission for the History of Science, Indian National Science Academy. today. A slight deviation from the current values would throw the whole He is the Founder-President of the Association of Science, Society, and Religion, Pune. 26Omega June 2003 27 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture 2 David Lindberg, “Science and the Early Church,” in God and Nature, ed. 18 Kepler, Mysterium Cosmographicum, p. 85.

David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers (Berkeley: University of California 19 Press, 1986), p. 30. Letter on March 28, 1605, in GW XV, nr. 340; 11. 85-86. 20 3 Lindberg, “Science and the Early Church,” pp. 30-31. GM VII, p. 99; 11. 27-29, tr. Rosen. 21 4 St. Augustine, Enchiridion, tr. Albert Butler, The Library of Christian GW III, p. 30: 11. 13-16, tr. 0. Gingerich and W. Donahue. Classics, vol. 7 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), pp. 341-342, 22 GW III, p. 30: 11. 1-4. quoted by Lindberg, “Science and the Early Church,” p. 31. 23 Mysterium Cosmographicum, p. 75. 5 Johannes Kepler, Gesammelte werke, ed. Von Dyck, Max Caspar, F. Hammer, and V. Bialas (Munich, 1937- ), vol. XIII, nr. 117: 11. 295-296. 24 Galileo, “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” in Discoveries and Hereafter this series will be referred to as GW. Opinions of Galileo, tr. Sti1Iman Drake (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957), p. 166. 6 Carola Baumgardt, ed. and tr. Johannes Kepler: Life and Letters (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951), p. 32. 25 Drake, p. 166. 7 Here one can see clearly the influence of Pythagoreanism and Neoplatonism. 26 Olaf Pedersen, The Book of Nature (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory The former believed that engaging in the study of nature was a sure way to Publications, 1992), p. 50.

attain salvation, while the latter looked upon the universe as the manifestation 27 of the Supreme Being. Quoted in Richard Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991), p. 31. 8 See letter to Fabricius, dated July 4, 1603, in GW XIV, nr. 262: 11. 495-496. 28 Blackwel1, p. 31. 9 GW IV, p. 246: 11. 23-24. 29 James Brodrick, S.J., Galileo: The Man, His Work, His Misfortunes 10 Kepler’s letter to Maestlin, dated October 3, 1595, in GW XIII, nr. 23: 11. 72- (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1964), p. 94. 74. 30 Galileo, “Galileo’s Letter to Castelli,” Blackwell, p. 199. 11 Ibid., nr. 23: 11. 78-84. 31 Blackwel1, p. 200. 12 Kepler, Mysterium Cosmographicum, tr. A.M. Duncan (New York: Abaris 32 Book, 1981), p. 71. Blackwel1, p. 201. 33 13 GW VII, p. 25: 11. 29-31. Blackwell, p. 201. 34 14 Kepler’s letter to Maestlin, written on October 3, 1595, in GW XIII, nr. 23: Brodrick, Galileo, p. 94. 1. 254. 35 Drake, p. 203. 15 GW III, p. 108: 1. 3. 36 Drake, p. 203. 16 Kepler’s letter to Herwart, written on March 25, 1598, in GW XIII, nr. 91: 37 James Brodrick, S.J., The Life and Work of Blessed Robert Francis 11. 182-184. See Nicholas Jardin, The Birth of History and Philosophy of Cardinal Bellarmine, S.J., (New York: P.J. Kennedy and Sons, 1928), p. Science: Kepler’s “A Defense of Tycho against Ursus” (Cambridge: 359. Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 9. 38 Drake, p. 166. 17 GW VII, p. 9: 1. 12. 28Omega June 2003 29 Job Kozhamthadam The Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture 39 See for instance, Job Kozhamthadam, S.J., “The Galileo Episode Revisited,” Vidyajyoti 58 (1994), pp. 337-358. 40 H. S. Thayer, ed., Newton’s Philosophy of Nature (New York: Hafner Press, 1954), p. 60. 41 Thayer, p. 46.

42 Thayer, p. 66. 1 43 Thayer, p. 44. Science, Religion, and Pluralism

44 Thayer, p. 42. - William Sweet2 45 Thayer, p. 42. Even in a world of mono-religion and mono-culture the relationship 46 Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (New York: Bonanza Books, 1954), p. between science and religion is a matter of much controversy, as is 40. evident from the many (e.g., conflict, compartmentalist, complementary, 47 Ideas and Opinions, p. 39. etc.) models proposed by different scholars. The matter becomes far more complex when one considers our contemporary world of religious 48 Ideas and Opinions, p. 38. pluralism and cultural diversity. Is it possible to have a meaningful and helpful relationship between science and religion in our contemporary 49 Ideas and Opinions, p. 38. world? Sweet discusses this problem and argues that this is possible 50 Ideas and Opinions, p. 43. provided we follow the coherence criterion of truth. Making use of some of the ideas of John Hick, he shows that since religious belief has an 51 Ideas and Opinions, p. 48. empirical dimension and a reference to the world, we can talk of a meaningful relationship between science and religion. 52 Ideas and Opinions, p. 40. - Editor 53 Ideas and Opinions, p. 49. Few debates spark as much popular interest, and yet seem to be 54 Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon and Schuster, as intractable, as the debate about the relation between science and 1983), p. ix. religion. Not only do books, articles, book reviews, and public debates 55 Davies, p. ix. explore the matter at length, but they often do so in a rather intemperate way. 56 R. Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Warner Books, 1980), p. 125. There have been very different responses to the question of the relation between science and religion. Some see the two as compatible and mutually supportive – and they point to how religion contributed to the birth of science, how the Christian worldview was essential to the development and growth of technology, and maintain that science can sometimes serve to support religious claims. Others argue that there is an incompatibility between science and religion – that there is no evidence,

30Omega June 2003 31 William Sweet Science, Religion, and Pluralism empirical or otherwise, for most religious claims; that, as science tribes, called the Lakota, in the Black Hills of the United States. After progresses, less and less needs to be explained by referring to a religious careful examination, anthropologists concluded that the skeleton was hypothesis; 3 and that science directly refutes a number of religious claims about 9,300 years old and was that of a member of an Indian tribe that (such as the belief that the universe was created about six to ten thousand had long before moved further south. But, according to Bronco Lebeau, years ago). And some have insisted that there is an enormous chasm a spokesperson for the Cheyenne River Sioux, a Lakota tribe, the Lakota between science and religion – that each represents a worldview reject the view that they migrated to the area and that another tribe had incommensurable with the other, and that one neither supports nor lived there before them. They believe that they are “descendants of the conflicts with the other. Buffalo people. [The Lakota] came from inside the earth after supernatural spirits prepared the world for humankind to live here.”4 But there is another ‘response’ to the problem, and that is to say The Lakota therefore claimed that, based on the information obtained that no answer is possible – not because science and religion are through oral tradition and “ceremonies that allow [them] to determine” incommensurable, but because of the fact of religious pluralism. whether a skeleton is that of a former member of the tribe, the skeleton was that of one of their ancestors, and that they had the right (under the In this paper, I want to consider whether the fact of religious United States Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act plurality effectively puts an end to discussion about the relation of religion of 1990) to re-bury the remains according to their own ways. and science. I begin with a few comments on the phenomenon of the plurality of religions. Next, I present a response to this view – a response In this case, we see a number of apparent conflicts that seem to that draws on the view of John Hick, that one can acknowledge the be typical of many cases of the encounter between religion and science existence of religious plurality, and yet still talk about religious truth. in the contemporary world. There is a disagreement or conflict between Hick’s view is interesting and valuable because it attempts to take both the anthropologists and the Lakota concerning the characteristics of the religious plurality and the claims of religion and science (or of empirical skeletal remains and which tribe they came from. There is also a conflict truth) seriously. I then argue that there are some problems with Hick’s between the Lakota and the government (and, possibly, between, the view but that, despite these inadequacies, Hick nevertheless points to a Lakota and another tribe) concerning what should be done with the number of important features of religious belief which, when taken into remains – i.e., to whom they should be returned. But there is an even account, allow for the articulation of a robust view of religious belief and greater disagreement here – and that is whether we can, without begging religious truth – a view that can help to address the challenge of describing several important questions, prefer the claims of anthropology over a relation between science and religion, even in a cross or multi-cultural aboriginal “creationism,” or vice-versa. setting. While one may think that what is at stake here is whether scientific Religious Plurality belief is in conflict with religious belief, much more is involved. For, first, there are many religions, and the ways in which one might seek to resolve It is obvious that we live in a world of many cultures and that, in a conflict between science and religion so far as one religion is concerned, many countries, we find a multiplicity of religions and cultures as well. might not be appropriate when one is dealing with another religion, and This phenomenon has given rise to a number of challenges when it comes the situation might not even count as a conflict so far as another might to matters of scientific and religious truth. be concerned.

For example, recently, a problem arose concerning a skeleton that And, second, there is not only a plurality of views of what ‘religion’ had been discovered in the territory now occupied by a group of aboriginal is, but there is also a plurality of views of the nature of science. Thus, it 32Omega June 2003 33 William Sweet Science, Religion, and Pluralism is not just that such situations (as the case of the Lakota) present a the different notions of salvation within them, John Hick has come to series of practical problems for adjudicating apparent conflicts between defend what has been called a ‘religious pluralist’ view. science and religion, but that the situations are so complex and the religious claims involved so diverse, that it is difficult to see how there could be According to Hick, there are three principal stances that one might any way to address the theoretical question of the relation between take on the issue of religion and truth: religious exclusivism, inclusivism, science and religion. and pluralism. Religious exclusivism – the view that only one religion is true, that it alone provides the sole means of access to salvation or Consequently, some would claim that there can be no general spiritual liberation, and that those who are ignorant of it (i.e., the vast answer to the question of the relation between science and religion. At majority of humanity) will not be saved – is, he argues, inconsistent with best, one could say that, in some contexts, some claims that we might a loving God.5 It is, in any event, implausible that any one tradition can be call ‘religious’ are compatible (or, as the case may be, support or conflict) uniquely normative.6 Religious inclusivism – the view that only one religion with some claims that we might call scientific. But we would have to is true, but that all other religions manifest that truth to some degree, and add that, given the plurality of religions (or religious ways of thinking) as are themselves ‘true’ so far as they reflect it – is a more popular view well as the different views of the nature and meaning of scientific among some thinkers, but Hick thinks that this is a rather ad hoc and statements, it would be impossible to say what the relation is between post hoc way of trying to retain the superiority of one religion and yet not religion and science in general. deny the obvious inspirational truths in other religions.7 Thus the only option left, Hick thinks, is religious pluralism – that there is no unique and Given the complexity of such a situation, is it possible to do anything best way of having access to the divine, but a multiplicity of ways, each other than arrive at a purely ‘pragmatic’ decision, on a case by case of which provides a legitimate means of access to it. This option is basis, concerning whether to prefer a scientific claim over a religious plausible, Hick thinks, because it is both simple and most consistent with belief? the hypothesis of a loving God and the general goal of having salvation available to people from all cultures. Thus Hick concludes that the best Hick and Pluralism way of understanding the great world faiths is by seeing them as “different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different responses In light of the plurality of religions and worldviews that we find in to, the [same] Real or the Ultimate from within the major variant cultural 8 contemporary culture, how are we to understand the claims made by ways of being human,” and one’s particular faith or religion is part of 9 adherents of different faiths? Does it make sense for one to say that one’s “corporate self respect.” these claims are not just expressions of sentiment or commitment of believers, but that some of them (also) are or might be true? And if In Hick’s view, then, all major religions reflect this ultimate reality these claims are the sort of remarks that can be true, can we say that and, while there are obvious differences among them, we can explain some religious beliefs are true or are better than others? This is a such diversity by distinguishing “the Real as it is in itself and the Real as matter which, in the last quarter century, John Hick has made some humanly thought and experienced.”10 The differences among the great effort to address. And his answers to these questions bear on the more traditions are a matter of “religious ethnicity”11 – of the particular general issues of whether it makes sense to compare religious beliefs circumstances in which ‘the Real’ became present (e.g., the specific with scientific claims, and whether we can make any general statements experiences and events through which it became understood). But to about the relation of science and religion. say this is in no way to denigrate these differences, since all faith has to be articulated in some particular way. Confronted by the diversity of world religions and, in particular, 34Omega June 2003 35 William Sweet Science, Religion, and Pluralism Now my concern here is not Hick’s interpretation of specific religious doctrines – e.g., of the godlike character of Krishna, or of the How can we know whether an interpretation – a particular divinity of Jesus – but, first, how what Hick says about religious pluralism experience of the divine – is true? There are, it would seem, a number might be helpful in understanding the meaning and truth of utterances of methods to which one might appeal. There is what Hick and many expressing religious belief and, second, what the proper attitude ought to others would call salvific transformation17 – that this experience is able be towards other worldviews (e.g., scientific and religious traditions). to “possess our minds and hearts as to exhibit a transforming power in our lives.”18 There is also what Hick calls “eschatological verification” So how, on Hick’s account, can we say that a religion or religious – an eventual evidential confirmation of religious claims that occurs at, belief is true? Or, to put it slightly differently, in what circumstances can or after, death – though he acknowledges that this does not provide us one be said to have rational true religious belief? Hick provides an with any actual evidence in this life. Another method, Hick allows, is interesting response. He says that, even though we may not know exactly having a direct religious experience which, in turn, triggers a belief.19 which beliefs are true, we needn’t deny that there is religious truth. This experiential justification is altogether appropriate because we are, Hick says, “religious animals,”20 and so a religious vision of the universe Hick on Religion and Truth is, at least, prima facie plausible. Besides, if one has such an experience, it is fallibilistic, and we can speak of belief having degrees of Hick writes that every religion is a “package.” It has a content – “well-groundedness” about it, reflecting the force and vivacity of the a salvation claim and a truth claim – and a packaging which identifies its belief. But in the absence of any defeaters, to deny or reject such sender and to whom the package is directed. This packaging – for example, experience would be “a kind of cognitive suicide,”21 and one can say the doctrines concerning who it is who is sending it – is not incidental or that it would be irrational to reject it. Still, none of these is what Hick 12 irrelevant to the religion. It is essential, but it is secondary. The content would call rational or intellectual justification; only “interpretive systems – the soteriological aspect – is, however, primary, and it has both practical of thought can be rationally scrutinized.”22 and cognitive elements.13 As practical, it proposes or commands a way of life which flows from the conception of the universe it presents. But But there is more to religion than what is reflected in this general it is also cognitive – it provides an experience of the Real, but also a level. There is, Hick thinks, no reason to believe that all authentic religious basic vision of reality, around which intellectual systems (e.g., doctrines experience must be of the same kind and produce the same sets of and dogmas) are gradually constructed.14 beliefs.23 For example, there is another level in religious traditions – where one focuses on religion not as an experience of something, but as This analysis of religion leads Hick to identify three levels within an “interpretive system of thought” – and it is at this quasi historical religious traditions – the historical, the quasi historical, and that which level that one finds claims about (for example) the divinity of Jesus, or concerns issues about ultimate reality and which reflects the salvific about the resurrection, or the incarnation. These claims, Hick says, can promise (i.e., ways of conceiving and experiencing or awareness of the be rationally scrutinized, and one can even compare families of theories divine15 ). from different traditions. But in practice, while one can speak of such comparisons, because of the complexity and, at times, the difficulty of Now Hick holds that, at this third, ‘deep,’ level (as he has argued since the time of his earliest work), religious faith is not something weighing the importance of some elements within one faith with other propositional, but an “experiencing as” – an interpretation of experience.16 elements in other faiths – and because each system “accounts for some 24 But while it is not propositional, one can say that, at this third ‘deep’ facts better than others” – one cannot intellectually grade any ‘vision’ level, a faith can be “true.” Some interpretations of experience are, in or ‘system of thought’ as a whole in relation to other systems of thought. other words, right, and some are wrong. 36Omega June 2003 37 William Sweet Science, Religion, and Pluralism Finally, there is a more obviously historical level of a tradition – ‘How do people come to be where they are?’ And while one cannot but e.g., whether Jesus’ resurrected body was a reanimation of his physical, have a speculative answer to the former question, the latter question is crucified body, or whether Muhammad appointed Ali as his successor. something that we can determine in a more scientific way – by These concern matters that, in principle, might be able to be confirmed observation and repeated experimentation. Thus, we can say that, in or refuted by historical evidence, though in fact it seems very unlikely order for people to come to a certain place, such as Pune, they would that they ever will. But Hick adds that, in the preceding two examples, it arrive by walking, by aeroplane, by automobile, by boat, and so on. On is not necessary that we answer or that we be able to resolve these the other hand, springing up out of the soil just isn’t one of the ways that questions in order to be saved – that they are not of great religious (i.e., we observe. So this provides us with a pretty good reason to say that, soteriological) importance.25 even if in the past it were true that people might have arrived in hitherto unimagined ways (e.g., by spaceship, by springing out of the soil), it It is, therefore, appropriate to speak of contradictions among would not be rational to prefer one of those explanations over one of the religious traditions, but also of verification and falsification – particularly ways that we see today. at the historical level. Religious systems of thought (e.g., concerning founding figures or systems of dogma) can be “graded”26 in terms of More generally, I suspect Hick would hold that, in order to how far they promote or hinder spiritual liberation. Still, while in principle adjudicate between apparently conflicting worldviews and/or religious it might be possible to speak of grading religions, we cannot in fact traditions, we must realise i) that while there are probably different ways establish that one religion is better than another; and while we can argue, of experiencing God, of knowing the divine, and of grounding beliefs rationally, that some particular historical claims made by a religion are appropriate to each religious or world view, they must be at least (or are not) actually true, the possibility of acquiring all of the relevant compatible with one another, ii) that so far as religious belief has an information to make such a determination is extremely unlikely. Thus historical or quasi historical character, it is subject to the criteria for truth we cannot assess religions – ways of conceiving and experiencing – as and meaning found in history, and iii) that, so far as the empirical sciences totalities. But this should be of no particular concern as there are no (such as archaeology, anthropology, etc.) provide information relevant significant differences – i.e., differences relevant to the means of salvation to historical truth and historical claims, they provide (as the case may or liberation – among religious traditions. be) positive evidence or warrant for, or disconfirming grounds against, religion. Now, there are cases where worldviews (including religious and scientific traditions) seem to conflict with one another – such as the Problems with Hick’s Account of Religion Lakota case described above. How would Hick respond to such cases? A number of problems have been raised against Hick’s account To begin with, supposing that there are genuine conflicts between of religion and religious truth. two worldviews, it is fairly certain that Hick would see these as existing, not at the fundamental level, but at the quasi historical and/or historical Some have argued that it is a prescriptive account of religion rather level. Hick would likely say, however, that even though it is difficult to than a descriptive one, and that it is in fact inconsistent with the major establish whether one or another belief (at these levels) is false, in some world religions which are either exclusivist or inclusivist about religious cases we can determine whether a religious belief is false, and we can beliefs – particularly about beliefs dealing with salvation. Thus, contrary know whether some positions are mistaken. (For example, in the case to Hick’s comment that it is not necessary that we answer (or be able to of the Lakota, Hick might say that a question like ‘How did this tribe answer) various historical or quasi-historical questions in order to be come to be in this place?’ is a species of a general question such as saved – that they are not of great religious (i.e., soteriological) importance 38Omega June 2003 39 William Sweet Science, Religion, and Pluralism – many believers would argue that it does make a difference to salvation with one another. For example, it is not obvious that one can separate whether Jesus had a human father or whether Muhammad appointed the ‘historical’ component from Christianity and still say that what is left Ali, and so on. is religious (as distinct from ethical) in any way at all. Nor is it obvious that certain beliefs can be hived off or separated out from others without Again, some have argued that Hick’s analysis begs the question affecting their meaning and content. Indeed, it seems plausible to say of how and whether one can be sure that one has religious knowledge. that one’s deepest commitments and ways of seeing reality are ultimately It assumes at the very least that religious experience is an appropriate bound up with a whole ‘web’ of beliefs, and that the erosion or change way to come to religious truth, but fails to provide clear criteria for of several of them – even the most historical ones – would and does in establishing whether a purported example of such an experience actually fact lead people to abandon belief at the third level. If it is not a fact that, is a (genuine) religious experience. in Christianity, the Son of God “lived among us” (John 1:14) and if it was not a fact that Jesus died, then the Christian believer’s faith is, as Saint Others have held that Hick’s view simply reduces religion to the Paul said, “vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). And if faith is in vain, then is not lowest common denominator – that it says that the sole point of religion (on the moral ‘level’) everything permitted? These latter points clearly is to overcome the self and to promote the wellbeing of others. But this bear on the issues of the meaning of religious beliefs and the relevance is only a moral (and, at that, not a very helpful moral) claim. of argument and evidence to belief.

Furthermore, when it comes to the case of conflicts like that There are, arguably, other relevant problems here with Hick’s involving the Lakota tribe, a critic might say that Hick’s analysis and view. One is that it seems that Hick’s notion of ‘truth’ shifts in meaning probable ‘solution’ would be question begging – that the Lakota would during his discussion of religious belief and truth – and that at times it simply deny that the claims about their origins could be taken as an disappears altogether, and is replaced by the notion of ‘rational belief.’ instance of how one comes to be in a certain place. The Lakota would Another is that, in dealing with the truth of religion at the first or second also undoubtedly insist that their origins were unique, and that questions level, the criterion of truth seems to be something like ‘correspondence of how to verify their account of how their tribe came to be where they to reality’ or ‘coherence with a state of existing affairs.’ But in dealing are, are altogether irrelevant. They may even claim that there are other with religion at the third, deep, level, truth becomes something like what ways of ‘doing history’ than the way that archaeologists assume. is ‘authentic.’ Yet another criticism is that, given the vagueness in Hick’s criteria for truth, it is difficult to say in what sense, if any, Hick’s pluralist I am sympathetic to these criticisms, but I am not concerned with view could be ‘true.’ arguing for them here. These comments do, however, support the claim that Hick’s account is problematic in at least two additional respects. There are, then, some strong reasons – at least, prima facie – for First, it does not clearly indicate what makes a religious experience not embracing Hick’s alternative. genuinely religious (and, by extension, what would make an inspirational figure a religious figure). By saying that religion is only just a way of Advantages of Hick’s Account experiencing the world, all fundamental ways of experiencing the world would be called “religions” – and this is not helpful in distinguishing basic Despite these reasons not to adopt in their entirety Hick’s views religious from basic non-religious commitments. Second, Hick’s account on religious truth and on the analysis of the nature of religious belief, presupposes that one can, in fact, separate the three ‘levels’ or kinds of there are a number of instructive features in his account. belief within a system of faith – whereas many believers might hold that one cannot do this, and that the three levels are, in fact, entirely integrated First, according to Hick, it is appropriate to say that there are 40Omega June 2003 41 William Sweet Science, Religion, and Pluralism understandings of ultimate reality that are true. Not only this, but it is views, but a multiplicity of religious ‘truths,’ and a multiplicity of ways in clear that the criteria for truth and falsity of the first level – and even a which claims might be determined to be ‘truths,’ and therefore no way second or third level – belief cannot be entirely internal. The reason for that we can talk about the relation of religion and science? this is, in part, Hick’s recognition that religion has an empirical dimension. I would suggest the following – that, building on insights derived Second, Hick would admit that it does make sense to speak of from Hick’s account, we can develop another view of religion and religious verifying – or, perhaps better, falsifying – religious belief. Thus, if it truth. This will allow us to avoid some of the apparent difficulties posed turned out that there never was a man named Jesus, or that he never by the challenge of religious pluralism and provide a framework for really died and was resurrected three days later, then it goes almost articulating a relation between science and religion. without saying that some central doctrines of the Christian religion (and arguably the religion itself) would have to be abandoned. What Hick’s view has suggested to us is that religious belief can be understood in two senses – that which is roughly equivalent to ‘faith,’ Third, as Hick recognises, the truth and falsity of certain beliefs but also that which involves particular beliefs (e.g., doctrines and dogmas). can be determined, at least in part, externally to the ‘system’ in which the belief occurs. There can be, then, genuine cross cultural conflict – The former – religious belief ‘as a whole’ – is roughly equivalent and cross cultural agreement – among religions and, by extension, conflict to the third and, arguably, some elements of the second of Hick’s levels and agreement with other systems of belief (e.g., with scientific models). (which, for reasons suggested above, I would argue cannot be separated from one another). Particular religious beliefs would be roughly the same If Hick is right on these points, then we have some evidence that as those which are to be found at Hick’s first level – though they would religious plurality, as such, is not incompatible with religious truth. Yet also include a number of beliefs from the second level.27 Hick’s account also entails that empirical testing or analysis is not always appropriate to discerning the truth of a religious belief – and, given the But there is more to understanding religious belief and religious analysis of religious belief that I have been developing in this paper, truth than this. As I have argued elsewhere,28 an examination of religious Hick’s views are plausible here. belief and religious practice suggests that particular religious beliefs have two dimensions that must be included in any elaboration of their meaning. In short, if we hope to find some resolution to the problem of First, whether they are uttered in acts of praise or worship, in petitions whether and how the truth-claims of different religions conflict, and or prayers, or in expressions of dogmas or explanations, religious beliefs how to deal with the problem of religious pluralism and truth (e.g., with have a descriptive and cognitive – frequently an empirical – element. the case of what one is to do with the aboriginal skeleton and the Lakota They generally deal with, and are a response to phenomena that occur tribe), we should take note of the instructive features of Hick’s account in, or affect, the world and they often involve facts about the world (e.g., of religion. But we must also do more, and determine precisely what a the existence of certain individuals). It is this that allows such beliefs to religious belief is, and what religious truth might mean in a pluralistic be modified or even abandoned. One might say that on this, their context. descriptive or empirical side, religious beliefs are falsifiable in the sense that they may be discovered to be incompatible with how the world is, or A Second Model of Religious Truth with other beliefs held to be true, and for that reason they are rejected.

How, then, is one to address the challenge posed by those who But religious beliefs have more to them than this. They reflect point out that there are not only a multiplicity of religions and world how believers have interpreted the world and serve to express this. 42Omega June 2003 43 William Sweet Science, Religion, and Pluralism Religious beliefs are not, however, simply attitudes to or opinions about and iv) that they reflect ‘the world’ – ‘what is.’ Thus, even though the the world; they reflect the noetic or epistemological framework of the meaning and truth of particular religious beliefs are initially determined believer. For example, while the birth of a child may be seen by some as within a religious discourse or tradition (e.g., as being coherent or being of a purely causal and naturalistic character and significance, for incoherent with other beliefs in that discourse or tradition), they must others it may be seen as a ‘gift from God’ – even when it is the result of ultimately meet standards that have their origin outside of that discourse. a ‘planned’ pregnancy. A person’s religious beliefs (or lack of them), Since religious belief is a response to the world, and because particular then, reflect the framework through which he or she understands the religious beliefs have a cognitive and descriptive character, there must birth, and one may believe that ‘This child is a gift from God’ – not in the be some kind of commensurability between one religious tradition and sense that God was a direct causal agent in its coming to be, but as another and, moreover, between religious beliefs and other worldviews revealing the divine presence in the world. Thus, when believers utter (such as that presupposed in models of science). religious beliefs, they both express where they stand and show how they understand the world. This latter dimension of religious belief – its Religion and Science interpretive and expressive character – both enlivens and deepens the former, descriptive dimension. Attempts to understand a religious belief On the above account of religious belief, then, religious beliefs by looking at only its descriptive side, leave out part of what it means and empirical beliefs – and, more broadly, religion and science – are in and, hence, will fail in appreciating it as religious. the world, and in the same world. We can say that science and religion must have contact with one another, will affect one another, and will In general, what makes a religious belief religious is not just that it have a relation. is intelligible and that it refers, directly or indirectly, to certain persons or events – for then beliefs like ‘Jesus had ten toes’ and ‘Mary was not the The relation of science and religion and the effect of the former mother of God’ would be religious beliefs. To be religious, a belief must on the latter can occur in a variety of ways. It is obvious, for example, i) have an expressive role or function in a person’s life, ii) indicate one’s that science affects us in a number of ways. It affects how we understand disposition or intention to act in a certain way that is relevant to a certain the world – that is, it provides us with a deeper understanding of the set of practices, and iii) be such that the persons or events referred to world around us. Moreover, science affects our language – our (are claimed by the speaker to) have a relation to a reality which is not vocabulary and discourse – and this, in turn, affects the way in which restricted to the empirical, observable, and material. In other words, we understand and express belief. Science also provides a warrant for what makes a religious belief religious is not just its subject matter, i.e., certain facts about the world (e.g., social science tells us how we can that it is a belief about certain beings or events. Nor is it just that it is a come to reasonably hold certain beliefs about group behaviour; archeology belief or set of beliefs that is held in a certain way, i.e., in a way that tells us how we can reasonably hold certain beliefs about the past). expresses a trust or commitment that shows that the beliefs are Finally, one can say that science affects how we act in the world – it fundamentally significant to one’s life. provides us with different ways of doing things and this in turn affects how we see and understand the world. We can speak of religious beliefs as true when i) they meet the general standards of cognitive meaningfulness (e.g., they are not In each of these ways, then, science can influence how and to self-contradictory or inconsistent), ii) they meet standards for truth and what extent we hold religious beliefs. We can, therefore, talk about falsity set by not just the practices, but the traditions and institutions in whether believers are, in their ‘religious’ responses to the world in which which they appear, iii) that they are consistent or coherent with other they live, acting consistently or inconsistently (e.g., consistently with the beliefs (e.g., moral and empirical ones) in other discourses and practices, empirical side of other beliefs). It seems appropriate, given the description 44Omega June 2003 45 William Sweet Science, Religion, and Pluralism of religious belief proposed above, that science has such an effect on also take a long time. A failure to attempt to bring one’s beliefs together religious belief. If, as one finds in some modern Christian in this way is not a sign of the incommensurability of one’s beliefs with fundamentalisms, believers say that they refuse to let what is in the another, but of an ossification or fragmentation of belief. So this failure world alter their understanding of the contents of faith, one might ask does not mean that there is no truth of the matter, or even that we have whether this is consistent with their belief that God has entered the to wait on matters of urgency until everyone sees what has been ‘shown.’ world (e.g., the incarnation) and continues to act in it, including acting Such a process, then, does not provide any quick results, but it would through science and scientific discoveries. allow a way of addressing the difference between groups with radically What this implies is that science can confirm religious belief, and different worldviews, such as the Lakota creationists and the it can contradict it. But the fact that they are able to do this does not archaeologists, without begging any questions. This is, no doubt, how, mean that either religion or science is reducible to the other. following the articulation of evolutionary theory in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scripture scholars were led to reconsider the What makes religious belief so ‘strong’ or what explains its being understanding of the Biblical accounts of creation. held ‘in place’ is not evidence or argument, but a whole web or system of beliefs. This is a reflection of the epistemological element of Truth in Science and Religion commitment or trust, and of its character as the means through which one interprets one’s experience. Thus, the amount of evidence one has The preceding account, I would argue, allows us to address not for a particular belief or system of beliefs is not directly proportionate to only the question of the compatibility between religious pluralism and the strength of one’s commitment or trust. It is, in short, its coherence – claims of religious truth, but also that of the relation between science its coherence not just with other beliefs, but with ‘the world’ – that and religion. The account proposed is a kind of coherence view – and it keeps it in place. But because religious beliefs have an empirical dimension, allows us to explain both the relation of empirical evidence to religious they are falsifiable. As one finds that one’s beliefs are inconsistent with belief and why the amount of evidence is not directly proportionate to what one knows, with one’s other beliefs, and with the way the world is, the strength of the belief. ‘the hold’ or the strength of one’s beliefs will, and should, change. Science and religion clearly do affect one another. Now, sometimes So, for example, in dealing with the case of the Lakota, a first a person may have a difficult time articulating precisely what his or her step would be to see what their practices and beliefs are, and what religious beliefs are, or what exactly they mean, or, given the different they entail – not just religious practices and beliefs, but social practices, aspects or dimensions (i.e., the empirical or descriptive and expressive), scientific practices, and the like. We might investigate what effect new how exactly to come to agreement about the truth of some belief. experiences might have on what they already believe. Then, as we Moreover, when it comes to determining truth, the matter may not be so attempt to bring their own beliefs, their knowledge of the world, and much about particular persons and events, but how beliefs about them their responses to new experience, together, we can see whether their are related to other beliefs, or what their implications are for how one should act, or for the practices one should engage in. Nevertheless, considered views are consistent with one another (e.g., with their once one is clear about the meaning of a belief, we are in a position to ‘creationism’) and with methods they may use to determine what is determine whether it is true and in what way the conclusions of science true or what is appropriate in a given situation. Changes in scientific may bear on it. Furthermore, if determining the meaning and truth of a and historical views – like changes in religious belief – may be some belief involves coherence, then from what I have said, we have some time in coming, and ‘showing’ what is right and what is wrong may guidance in discovering what the relation of religion and science might 46Omega June 2003 47 William Sweet Science, Religion, and Pluralism be. By looking at this issue from the perspective of a coherence theory, we can see how religious belief can conflict or be compatible with science Despite the challenges of pluralism or of a cross-cultural setting, – in much the same way that religious belief can conflict with or be then, we can speak of scientific and religious truth, and a relation between compatible with morality (e.g., in how one ought to treat animals or the science and religion. environment). Incidentally, such a ‘coherence’ view of the meaning of belief has been embraced by Indian philosophers and European Notes philosophers alike – e.g., it is the kind of view that would have been 1 endorsed by J. C. P. D’Andrade, Hiralal Haldar, and perhaps Sarvepalli Earlier versions of this paper have been read to the Philosophy Departments Radhakrishnan, following the British idealist philosopher, F. H. Bradley. at the Ateneo de Manila, Philippines, and at the University of Madras. I am grateful to those in attendance for their comments and questions. Taking into account the views described above, then, we can see 2 Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Philosophy, Theology, how to provide a general account of the relation between science and and Cultural Traditions, St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova religion. What this says is that scientific belief bears on religious belief Scotia (B2G 2W5) Canada. E-mail: [email protected] and vice versa, in virtue of the descriptive and cognitive character of 3 See the example of Pierre Simon Laplace, French mathematician and author both – that both deal, in some way and to some extent, with the world. of the 5 volume book, Celestial Mechanics. When presented with a copy, How exactly a specific belief bears on another – whether it be to confirm, Napoleon allegedly commented, “I see no mention of God in this work.” to contradict, to prove, or to refute – can obviously be determined only Laplace is reputed to have replied, “Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.” on a case by case basis. 4 See “Efforts of Archeologists Stymied by Indian Creation Myths,” in New York Times, October 22, 1996, Conclusion 5 John Hick, ed., “Jesus and the World Religions,” in The Myth of God In this paper I have argued that, while there is a multiplicity of Incarnate (London: SCM Press, 1977), p. 72. religious traditions in the world, and despite their differences, one can 6 John Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism (New York: Macmillan Press, rightly claim that there is a relation between science and religion. While 1985), p. 73. the plurality of religions might suggest that there can be no general 7 statement of the relation between science and religion, since (as Hick Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, pp. 52-53. argues) there is no incompatibility between religious pluralism and truth, 8 Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 47. and since (on the description of religious belief provided above) religious 9 belief has an empirical dimension and a reference to the world, we need Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 49. not come to this sceptical conclusion. 10 John Hick, The Interpretation of Religion (London: Macmillan, 1989), p. 14; cited in John Begley, “Philosophy of the World Religions: The Views of We can say that religion and science ‘meet’ so far as they provide John Hick,” The Australian Catholic Record, LXXIII/3 (July 1995), p. 313. descriptions of – and suggest courses of action in – the world. It is in 11 Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 47. each person’s attempt to bring his or her beliefs into coherence that science and religion meet as well. We can say that scientific truth can 12 Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 46. count for or against religious truth, and vice versa (e.g., so far as science 13 Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 69. reflects what one might call the ‘scientific’ view of the world) – but not necessarily conclusively. 48Omega June 2003 49 William Sweet Science, Religion, and Pluralism 14 Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, pp. 70, 80.

15 Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, pp. 90-91.

16 John Hick, “Religious Pluralism and the Rationality of Religious Belief,” Faith and Philosophy. 10 (1993), pp. 242-3. 17 Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 78; The Interpretation of Religion, p. 14. The Resurgence of the Design Argument 18 Problems of Religious Pluralism, pp. 77-78. in the Twentieth Century 19 Here Hick is obviously agreeing with Alvin Plantinga’s view of the rationality of basic religious belief. “Religious Pluralism and the Rationality of Religious - Sarojini Henry1 Belief,” pp. 242, 244.

20 Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 74. The design argument, despite its several inherent inadequacies, has 21 “Religious Pluralism and the Rationality of Religious Belief,” p. 245. fascinated scholars and non-scholars alike from antiquity. Many opponents and critics of theism, like Hume and Darwin, claimed to have 22 Problems of Religious Pluralism, pp. 80-81. demolished it. However, historical data seem to reduce their claim to a wishful dream. Henry discusses the resurgence of this argument in a new 23 “Religious Pluralism and the Rationality of Religious Belief,” p. 248. sophisticated form, drawing generously from recent developments in 24 Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 81. science. In particular, she discusses three cases: the anthropic fine-tuning, the irreducible complexity in molecular machines and the DNA specific 25 Problems of Religious Pluralism, pp. 93-94. problem. She also discusses some of the strengths and weaknesses of this new version of the argument. 26 Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 86. - Editor 27 These latter are the kinds of beliefs or utterances that believers use in performing certain acts or to express, bear witness to, or describe something involved in or about their beliefs as a whole. Such utterances are made in a The classical design argument begins by observing certain highly variety of contexts – in petitionary prayer, in worship, praise, thanksgiving, ordered or complex features within nature such as the configuration of in expressing moral judgements, in explaining events, and so on. the planets or the architecture of the vertebrate eye. The argument then

28 proceeds to contend that such features could not have arisen without William Sweet and Colin O’Connell “Empiricism, Fideism and the Nature of the activity of a pre-existent intelligence or designer, often identified as Religious Belief,” Sophia, 31 (1992), pp. 1-15, and William Sweet, “Discourse God. Such a theistic argument was used even as early as 45 B.C., by and the Possibility of Religious Truth,” in Sophia, 371 (1998), pp. 72-102. the Roman lawyer and orator Cicero who pointed to the beauty and harmony of the heavenly bodies: “When we see a mechanism such as a planetary model or a clock, do we doubt that it is the creation of a conscious intelligence? So how can we doubt that the world is the work of the divine intelligence?”2 Many Christians take inspiration from the biblical assertion that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork.” For many people, the idea that the

50Omega June 2003 51 Sarojini Henry The Resurgence of the Design Argument physical universe reflects the purpose or design of a preexistent mind – Laplace is said to have replied, “Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.” a Creator - serves to guarantee humanity’s own sense of purpose and Laplace was probably reacting against Newton, who almost a century meaning. ago had invoked God to stop the universe from collapsing on itself. Laplace’s own theory was that the solar system could be self-adjusting The popularity of the design argument continued in the nineteenth and self-sustaining without the need for any divine intervention. century in the Bridgewater Treatises and in the work of William Paley who made the famous watch analogy. He pointed out that the intricate It was in 1859 that Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species and delicate organization of a watch is an overwhelming evidence that it in which he proposed a specific mechanism, namely natural selection had been designed. Paley added that the argument is not weakened working on random mutation that could explain the adaptation of even if the person had never seen a watch before or the watch did not organisms to their environment. As we saw already, even before function properly. Just as the intricacies of the watch prompt one to Darwin’s time there were other works like Laplace’s Treatise on assume a watchmaker, so from the presence of design in biological astronomy which pointed to an autonomous and self-forming world. For organisms one must assume the existence of an intelligent designer. example, Charles Lyell explained the origin of the earth’s most dramatic topographical features - mountain ranges and canyons - as the result of Even from the time of the Enlightenment, the design argument slow, gradual and completely naturalistic process of change. Following had come under attack, especially by the skeptical empiricist David Hume Lyell, Darwin in the middle of the nineteenth century argued that living (1711-76). He rejected both the existence of God and the validity of the organisms, which had been seen as the obvious example of God’s creative design argument. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume power, only appear to be designed. According to his theory of evolution, maintained that the design argument depended upon a flawed analogy the blind process of natural selection acting on random variations could between biological organisms and human artifacts. He would agree that account for the origin of new forms of life without the intervention of the human eye and the pocket watch depend upon the functional divine guidance. integration of many separate and specifically configured parts. But then he pointed out that the biological organisms reproduce themselves and Richard Dawkins3 in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, observes this dissimilarity between human artifacts and biological organisms is rather provocatively that only after Darwin was it possible for anyone to very crucial when an analogy is made. Since organisms come from be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Therefore one can confidently assert other organisms, Hume argued that organisms can come from some that it was not the arguments of the philosophers such as Hume that primeval organism (perhaps a giant spider or vegetable), not necessarily destroyed the popularity of the design thesis, but the emergence of an from a transcendent mind or spirit. increasingly materialistic explanation of apparent design, as explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution. This means that the whole history of In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the astronomer Pierre the universe could be taken as a seamless unfolding of the potentiality Laplace presented copies of his Treatise on Celestial Mechanics to of matter and energy, which would thereby support a materialistic the new French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. In this book, Laplace worldview and not a theistic one. had given elaborate explanation for the origin of the solar system, not as arising from a divine design but as a result of purely natural gravitational The Re-Emergence of the Design Argument forces. When Laplace went to meet Napoleon in order to discuss about the Treatise, Napoleon directly asked Laplace about the role of God in With the dramatic developments in physics, cosmology and biology his theory. “Newton spoke of God in his book”, said Napoleon, “I have in the twentieth century, there has come up a renewal of the design perused yours but failed to find His name mentioned even once. Why?” argument in the second half of the twentieth century. Given the blow 52Omega June 2003 53 Sarojini Henry The Resurgence of the Design Argument that Charles Darwin dealt to the design argument in the nineteenth century, processes occurred. Scientists argue that it is the complexity within the it is significant that it has made its reappearance. Classical design microcosm of the cell which lies beyond the purview of the strictly arguments of the eighteenth century sought to draw analogies between biological evolutionary theory. Darwin, of course, neither knew about whole organisms and machines based upon certain similar features that the intricacies of life processes nor did he seek to explain their origin. they held in common. These arguments sought to reason similar effects back to similar causes. Philosophers, including Hume, could therefore The first example from biology is Michael Behe’s contention that point to the flawed analogy between the watch and organic biological molecular machines offer experimental support for design inference. systems. It is believed that with the new sciences the current argument According to him, the cell itself and the mechanism of replication for design is directed to the realm beyond the Darwinian mechanism of contained within it are powered by molecular structures of such random mutation and natural selection. tremendous complexity that the question whether all these could have arisen from chance poses difficulty. Using the concept of irreducible The current trend in design arguments is to employ some logical complexity, Behe presents a strong argument for design in the cell. apparatus involving mathematical probability. One such apparatus is the Bayes’ theorem which explains how one can revise the probability of an Some biologists like Stephen Meyer, have taken up the complexity occurrence in the light of new evidence, the probability initially applied found in the proteins and in DNA. The crucial factor is the information to competing systems. It is the application of probabilistic inference that content in the protein and in the DNA, and scientists are not able to distinguishes the contemporary design arguments from the analogical figure out how such a complicated process could arise due to chance versions of the sort that Hume criticized. For lack of space, the logistics alone. The specific sequencing of amino acids in the protein and in the of the probability approach will not be attempted in this essay. DNA, and thus the information passed on, lies at the heart of the current crisis in chemical evolutionary thinking. We shall consider three cases in contemporary science where the design argument seems compelling. The first is from physics, which Anthropic Fine-Tuning: A Designer Way to God? examines the fine tuning of the universe. A striking feature of the Big Bang cosmology is that the universe ought to be finely tuned at every In the 1960s physicists made a significant discovery that the stage of its evolution in order that humans could arrive on the earth. existence of life in the universe depends upon a highly improbable balance From 1960 onwards physicists became increasingly aware that the of physical factors. The constants of physics, the initial conditions of the physical conditions that enable life to exist are very sensitive to the values universe and many other contingent features appear delicately balanced of some physical constants (such as the gravitational constant or the to allow for the possibility of life. It is believed that even a small change electronic charge) governing the earth. This idea, known as the anthropic in the physical constants would have resulted in an uninhabitable universe. principle, is so astonishing that it appears as though the universe had These remarkable coincidences have led to the articulation of the anthropic been designed for the coming of the humans. principle that the natural laws must conform to what is needed for human life. Despite the renewed interest in the design hypothesis among cosmologists and physicists, many biologists have long remained reluctant Some examples of anthropic balance are in fact very convincing. to consider such options. Nevertheless, the rumblings of the design Stephen Hawking writes: “If the rate of expansion one second after the argument have entered the field of biology in recent times. Biologists Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand argue that in Darwin’s time, the cell and every microbiological function million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present was an unknown black box, because no one could explain how biological size.”4 On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the 54Omega June 2003 55 Sarojini Henry The Resurgence of the Design Argument universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form. have listed an impressive array of such cases. Scientists now refer to The expansion rate itself depends on many factors such as the initial them as anthropic coincidences, and to the convergence of all these explosive energy, the mass of the universe and the strength of the factors as the fine-tuning of the universe. Taken together, all these gravitational forces. To take another example, the early kinetic energy “coincidences” provide impressive evidence that life as we know it of the Big Bang explosion had to match very accurately the mass of the depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on material in order that the universe may be long-lived so that galaxies some actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, could be formed. Again, two energy levels characteristic of oxygen and force strengths, and the like. For many scientists, it is not the fact that carbon nuclei had to be remarkably well-matched for both carbon and there are anthropic balances, but the scale of them that raises the ‘why’ oxygen to be abundant as we need them to be. question.

The astronomer Fred Hoyle was struck by the fact that the element Thus it is not surprising that the design argument has been reopened carbon, so crucial to terrestrial life, exists only by a lucky accident. Carbon with the formulation of the anthropic principle. That the universe is fine- nuclei are made by a rather delicate process involving the simultaneous tuned to an astonishing degree in order that rational beings could evolve encounter of three helium nuclei inside the core of large stars. For this to has led some to argue for the existence of a designer God. The design happen, the internal energy levels of the nuclei have to be just right, that argument of the earlier years had failed mainly because Darwin dealt a is, there has to be what is called a resonance. If the resonant energy deathblow to it. Paul Davies points out that in the anthropic principle the were a little different, no carbon could be formed. Fred Hoyle was so supposed design argument is about the underlying laws, where it is immune impressed by such a fine contrivance of nature that he exclaimed, from the Darwinian attack. He further explains that “the essence of “Nothing has shaken my atheism as much as this discovery.”5 Darwinian evolution is variation and selection. This depends on nature’s being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.” Physicists have discovered some seventy physical or cosmological He continues, “When it comes to the laws of physics and the initial parameters that require precise settings in order to produce a life- cosmological conditions, however, there is no ensemble of competitors” sustaining universe. Scientists have classified force-carrying particles because “the laws and the initial conditions are apparently unique to our into four categories: gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the weak universe.” Hence, Paul Davies can conclude that in the case of the nuclear force and the strong nuclear force. If any one of these forces anthropic principle “the suggestion of design is compelling.”6 did not exist, life would not be possible. Also, a slight variation in any of these values would make life impossible. For example, let us take the Irreducible Complexity in Molecular Machines strong nuclear force, the force that keeps the protons and neutrons in the nucleus together in action. If this force were increased by a little, the Using the complexity of molecular machines found in all living nuclear resonance level would be so altered that all the carbon would be cells, the Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe has clearly burned into oxygen. If the strong nuclear force were slightly less, we articulated an empirical case for design. Molecular machines are would have only hydrogen in the universe. Scientists point out that if incredibly complex devices that cells use to process information, build gravity had been a little greater, stars would have developed into red proteins and move materials back and forth across their membranes. In dwarfs which would be too cold to support life. If it had been a little less, his book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe calls these systems irreducibly the universe would become composed entirely of blue giants which would complex and points out that neo-Darwinists have failed to explain the burn too briefly for life to develop. origin of these complex molecular machines. In his opinion, whatever the Darwinian evolution can explain successfully, it cannot account for The above examples are not some lucky instances. Physicists the biochemical complexity of the cell. 56Omega June 2003 57 Sarojini Henry The Resurgence of the Design Argument In Behe’s view, the molecular machines belong to what he calls going to produce an irreducibly complex system, has to produce it all at the irreducibly complex systems. He defines this term as “a single system once or not at all. composed of several well-matched intersecting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes Behe argues that if the biochemical machinery of the cell cannot the system to effectively cease functioning.”7 be produced by natural selection, then there is only one alternative, namely design by an intelligent agency. He concludes that his argument Then he points out that there are several microscopic machines is solid because it depends on what one knows, and not from what one that are irreducibly complex, namely the cilia and flagella that produce does not know. cell movement, and the cascade of blood-clotting proteins. He claims that irreducible complex systems could not have arisen within the DNA by Design universe by the Darwinian process of natural selection, and so must be explained supernaturally. From the middle of the twentieth century, advances in molecular biology and biochemistry have revolutionized our understanding of the In order to explain an irreducibly complex system, Behe takes the miniature world within the human cell. Research in molecular biology example of the mousetrap. A mousetrap has five parts, namely a spring, has shown that cells - the fundamental unit of life - store, transmit and a wooden base, a metal hammer, a sensitive catch and a holding bar that edit information and use that information to regulate their most are put together to produce a snapping motion when the trigger is activated fundamental metabolic processes. Most of the functions of the cell involve by a mouse lured by the bait. Since every part of the trap must be in proteins which provide much of the structure of the cell and also regulate place for the mousetrap to function, partial mousetraps where one or the chemical reactions by which the cells maintain themselves. Proteins two parts is missing is useless. Since the mousetrap has come through are thus the machinery of the living tissues that build the structures and the conscious intent and action of a human designer, Behe argues that carry out the chemical reactions necessary for life. A typical cell contains “irreducible complexity” is a feature of systems which are intelligently many different types of proteins to perform the many tasks necessary designed. for life.

According to Behe, irreducible systems cannot evolve in a In 1951 Fred Sanger, a molecular biologist, made it clear for the Darwinian fashion. This is because if an irreducible system misses just first time that each protein found in the cell comprises a long non-repetitive one of its parts, it cannot function. The argument, simply put, is this: in sequence of amino acids. According to scientists, these amino acids, the complex systems each component plays an essential role in the functional building blocks of protein, do not make protein any more than letters whole such that only when all the components are present and functioning alone make words, sentences or poetry. Rather, it is the sequencing of correctly does the functional whole exist. Since natural selection can the twenty different amino acids that determines the function of the only work on functioning systems, it cannot work with any part of an protein. Thus the function of all proteins (whether as enzymes, signal irreducible system. Thus it is impossible for natural selection to produce transducers or structural components in the cell) depends upon the such a system in a stepwise fashion since all the parts must already be specific sequencing of the individual amino acids, just as the meaning of present for it to function. Behe is sure that an irreducibly complex system an English text depends upon the sequential arrangement of the letters. cannot be produced by the modification of a precursor system, because any precursor of an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is In the same decade, scientific research on the structure of the by definition non-functional. It follows that natural selection, if it is protein showed that proteins also exhibit a surprising three-dimensional

58Omega June 2003 59 Sarojini Henry The Resurgence of the Design Argument complexity. Again scientists realized that in addition to their complexity, molecular biology have raised the question of the ultimate origin of the proteins also exhibit specificity both as one dimensional arrays and as a specific sequencing, namely, the information content in both the DNA three-dimensional structure. Further, it is the specific sequencing of the and the proteins. Scientists point out that the probability of achieving a amino acids in protein that gives rise to specific three-dimensional functioning sequence of amino acids in several functioning proteins at structures so that the protein is seen as a twisting, turning, tangled chain random is extremely small. Further, the informational content of DNA of amino acids. For a functioning protein its three-dimensional shape defies the explanation by reference to the physical and chemical gives it a hand-in-glove fit with other molecules in the cell enabling it to properties of the constituent parts. build structures within the cell. Proteins can perform functions only by virtue of their three-dimensional specificity to fit with other equally In his book, The Design Inference, William Dembski points out specified and complex molecules within the cell. Because of the specificity, that systems or sequences that have the joint properties of high complexity each protein is unique and any one protein cannot be substituted for and specification invariably result from intelligent causes, not from chance another. It is the complexity and specificity of proteins as one-dimensional or physical–chemical necessity. According to him, events are specified arrays and three-dimensional structures that raise important questions. if they exhibit an independently given pattern, and events are complex to the degree they are improbable. Therefore, Stephen Meyer could say In 1953 James Watson elucidated the structure of the DNA that design theorists in biology “infer design not just because natural (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule as a double twisted strand in the form processes cannot explain the origin of the biological systems but because of a double helix. Each strand is a linear arrangement of repeating similar these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed units called nucleotides, and information is stored in the form of specifically systems.”8 This would imply that intelligent design can be taken as the arranged nucleotides. There are four nucleotide bases, namely, Adenine best explanation for the origin of the specificity and complexity found in (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine(G). The particular order the DNA and in the protein. of the bases (the A’s, T’s, C’s and G’s) is called the DNA sequence. The Design Argument Reassesed In 1955 Francis Crick proposed the ‘sequence hypothesis’ suggesting that the specificity of the amino acids in proteins derives One of the shared interests between science and theological from a prior specificity within the DNA molecule – from information in reflection is the design argument, that there is a designer — may be God the DNA molecule stored in the specifically arranged nucleotides along — who created the world according to some definite purpose. Nature the spine of the DNA strands. Just as the letters of the alphabet of a exhibits such beauty and intelligibility that scholars often speak of written language convey a particular message depending on their reverence, awe and wonder. Many believe that such intricacies could sequence, so also the sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA molecule not have arisen by chance. However, the place of the design theory in conveys precise biochemical instructions that direct protein synthesis an intellectual environment is rather ambiguous. First of all, the design within the cell. theory is untestable. It is also not falsifiable. A pertinent question is whether the design argument really deserves to be considered as a It was also found that specific regions of the DNA molecule called scientific alternative to Darwinism. The scientists, however, are always coding regions have the same property of ‘sequence specificity’ or unhappy with the teleological approach of the design thesis, positing a ‘specified complexity’ that characterizes protein molecules. The purpose for the universe which they feel is questionable. The philosophers nucleotide bases of the DNA produce a functional protein depending warn that after all the design argument can arise from mere ignorance. upon their precise sequential arrangement. Thus, developments in The Christians are worried whether the designer God can be the loving

60Omega June 2003 61 Sarojini Henry The Resurgence of the Design Argument biblical God. They point to the natural evil in the world and question if a that a life-producing combination of factors will eventually arise. But benevolent God would allow so much pain and suffering. scientists affirm that we can have only a finite and non-random set.

It must be admitted that the claims for the design thesis put forth The biological examples favouring design have also come under in this essay have been taken to task by many scientists, who pose attack. The main contention is whether there can be a serious non- strong counter arguments, contradicting the design theory. To start with Darwinian explanation for the production of the biological structures. the fine-tuning argument, there are three interpretations which have The very concept of an irreducible complex system is often under been proffered to explain why the universe appears to be fine-tuned. question. First of all, scientists affirm that it is possible to build a mousetrap The first is that the fine tuning is a mere coincidence. The second with less than five parts. Further, they claim that the multiple parts of interpretation is in terms of the weak anthropic principle. The third complex interlocking biological systems do not evolve as individual parts relates to the possibility of the existence of a multiple universe. And as Behe claims; rather they evolve together as systems that are gradually finally there is the prospect of design. Often the first is discarded expanded and adapted to new processes. Kenneth Miller’s9 contention considering the immense improbability of fine-tuning. There are too many is that the components of an irreducibly complex system can have other cases of fine-tuning that make appeal to chance untenable. The advocates selectable functions against Behe’s argument that the components cannot of the weak anthropic principle claim that if the universe were not finely– be functionable. According to Miller, biological functionality is defined tuned to allow for life, we humans would not be here to observe it. In only in the context of an environment. As far as the biological evidence such a case the argument is, that fine tuning needs no explanation. for design is concerned, one important question would be whether the existence of a few biological structures that have not been given step Scientists also predict the possibility of the existence of many by step Darwinian explanation makes much of a case against a naturalistic worlds, not necessarily an infinite number but a finite set. The philosopher evolution. John Leslie9 argues that the fact that our universe meets the extremely improbable yet necessary conditions for the evolution of life supports Another important point is that many theologians are not the thesis that there exist very many universes. In the many “possible comfortable with the design argument since it often leads to what Charles worlds” scenario, any event that has a positive probability, however small, Coulson called the ‘God of the gaps,’ the God who provides explanations must happen somewhere in the universe. Hence, given a multi-universe, precisely at the point where science fails. Thus the ‘God of the gaps’ it is not surprising that at least one universe in the vast ensemble is fit for refers to the positing of a God when science is not able to prove the production of life. Thus the many world hypothesis stands as the something, as Newton did when he asserted that God occasionally most popular naturalistic explanation for the anthropic fine-tuning. stepped in to correct the irregularities in the motion of the planets. With Einstein’s new physics explaining the solar system, Newton’s ‘plumber’ But in contemporary times, there is much skepticism towards the God was found to be unnecessary. Many scientists point out that to infer many-world hypothesis. First, we have no evidence for any universe design is to give up on science and that it constitutes an argument merely other than our own. The most common reaction is that the many-universe from scientific ignorance. Thus the ‘God of the gaps’ has come to refer hypothesis is ad hoc, a sort of backhand compliment to the design to the positing of a God, to fill the gap whenever science is not able to hypothesis. There is also the principle of Occam’s Razor, according to explain some data. The problem is that when science begins to explain which entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Some argue that more and more, the ‘God of the gaps’ will have to be pushed from out of for the many-world hypothesis to suffice as an explanation for anthropic the gap. fine-tuning, there must exist an exhaustively random distribution of physical parameters, and hence an infinite number of universes to insure Another opposition to the design argument is from the fact that it 62Omega June 2003 63 Sarojini Henry The Resurgence of the Design Argument is almost always characterized as involving anthropocentrism, as in the 7 Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Bio-Chemical Challenge to case of the anthropic principle. The question is whether the human person Evolution, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 39. is at the centre of the universe and whether the universe is made for the 8 Stephen C. Meyer, “DNA and Other Designs,” First Things, April 2000, sake of the human person. The universe indeed consists of almost infinite p.36. complex and fascinating life processes beside the sentient beings. The animal lovers and the environmentalists would not be happy with the 9 Quoted in Neil A. Manson, ed., God and Design: The Teleological present understanding of the anthropic fine-tuning. Argument and Modern Science (New York: Routledge, 2003), p. 229. 10 Ibid, p. 349. When all is said and done, the pertinent question is whether the chief source of our belief in the world as the work of God is due to the logical reasoning of the philosophers or our intuitive faith. Many would opt for a ‘theology of nature,’ where the starting point is not science but religious experience and historical revelation. Thus, irrespective of the arguments for or against the design theory, many people tend to believe instinctively in a divine origin since such a belief alone can give meaning to life. They would go along with Newman who seems to have claimed “I do not believe in God because I look at nature and see design; rather, I look at nature and see design because I believe in God.”10

Notes

1 Dr. Sarojini Henry was former Professor of Mathematics at St. John’s College, Palayamkottai, Tamail Nadu and Professor of Theology at Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary, Chennai. 2 Quoted in David Wilkinson, God, the Big Bang and Stephen Hawking (Crowborough: Struik Christian Books, 1993), p. 104. 3 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton and Company Inc., 1996), p. 6. 4 Quoted in Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science (London: SCM Press, 1990), p.135. 5 Quoted in David Wilkinson, God, the Big Bang and Stephen Hawking, p. 108. 6 Paul Davies, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science,” in Evidence of Purpose, ed. John Mark Templeton (New York: Continuum, 1994), p. 51.

64 Omega June 2003 65 Francis P. Xavier Life Beyond Death extinguished? The flame is dead, but the light, which is indestructible electromagnetic radiation, streams into interstellar space where it keeps going apparently forever.2 In the same way, with regard to death, what happens beyond death is not visible.3 But what came into existence in time can exist even beyond death as time becomes eternal. Hence, from Life Beyond Death a scientific perspective, we can think, not of life after death, but of life beyond death.4 We can search how we might gain insight, through Scientific Perspectives scientific and logical knowledge and perception, into life beyond death. We might surprisingly come to understand that, even without the support - Francis P. Xavier1 of religions and religious scriptures, there is the possibility of life beyond death. This life-beyond-life might have different parameters that need to be understood. Often it is thought that the question of life after death is a matter of religious faith only, scientific and other rational considerations having no say on the question. The author points out that there are scientific The dynamic structure of reality and the unity of nature are in considerations to support continued human existence after physical agreement with the modern scientific theories in which dynamic systems, death. Using certain ideas of evolution and other scientific theories, he through the interrelation of its components, make the thing what it is and argues that the created being through the evolutionary process of matter- different from the other. This fact helps us understand the constancy energy-life-awareness/consciousness-soul has the inner urge and and continuity in the changes that we experience in our everyday life. It dynamic driving force to reach the ultimate Reality. This unity and is in the context of this dynamism that takes various forms that we harmony with the highest form of Reality can be obtained only in and experience our incompleteness in the present and perceivable life and through the continuation of life in the human being who is the most evolved entity in the universe. Death is nothing but the boundary between hope for the future. life in time and life in eternity. So we should talk not of life after death, rather life beyond death. Time and Life - Editor To exist as a human person is to be engaged in a process of Introduction becoming. To experience ourselves as becoming is to realize that we are incomplete and not in full possession of our complete reality. In our Reality is dynamic – it is also a systematic unity. In the reality that experience of incompleteness time plays an important role with regard we perceive there is always seeming change; but at the same time there to our understanding about life and the life-beyond. Human transcendence is constancy and continuity. Take, for example, the cycle of the seasons. is necessarily a transcendence experienced within time. According to There is fall; but there is spring as well. During the fall the leaves seemingly the analysis of Augustine, the human person is the subject of time in a die and fall, but in spring there are new leaves. The dynamic reality distinctive way. Not only are we in time, but we are also conscious of apparently changes, but we observe a basic continuity. In the same way being in time. Time allows us to think of the past, present, and future, but in our life there seems to be an end of everything when we die. But how what we experience is always the present moment of time, the NOW of much can we be sure that a reality such as consciousness, which has time. Most of us, when we think of the past, think in terms of events that evolved in time, will also end just like that, as time passes through its occurred in the past that have, in one way or other, been part of our life finiteness? One can raise the question: When a burning candle is blown or which might have their impact on our life. However, the past can be out, where does the flame go? Does it just disappear into thin air? Is it thought of in terms of our transcendental origin. When we think this 66Omega June 2003 67 Francis P. Xavier Life Beyond Death way, theologically it becomes the doctrine of creation. The question of complex in nature as perception, senses and consciousness evolve. All the future, on the other hand, becomes the doctrine of eschatology, that this happens in time and space. Hence, as time merges with eternity, is, life beyond death. one expects that the consciousness (expressed as life in human beings) crosses over the boundary of the present. Thus human life, as Neville Without much difficulty we can accept that time, in which our puts it, “is both temporal and eternal, and not one without the other.”10 universe, our planetary system, etc., began their evolution, has had a Thus life that begins in ‘time-space’ as temporal would become a- beginning (at creation). But it is progressing forward and it flows into temporal, even eternal, at some boundary. At this boundary, taking the the future transcending temporality and probably merging with eternity.5 individual into consideration, time that has been immanent becomes Time is related to space (Einstein’s space-time continuum) since we transcendent. “There is no dichotomy between immanence and experience units of time through units of space. When we say that time transcendence. There is only a distinction and a relationship in the ‘flows’ what is implied is not so much the ‘movement’ of time as our experience of ‘the boundary.’”11 This boundary is where the present own perception of an individual voyaging through space. Further, living temporal life becomes the eternal life-beyond-death. organisms develop an increasingly complex nature due to the upward sweep of evolution as the time arrow progresses in space. This implies Death, the End of the Observable that life can cross over the bridge of mortality, going along the cosmic time-scale. This is a pragmatic possibility without violating any known We have seen and observed people dying. Very often we raise law of physics. Progressive evolution implies ever advancing levels of the question: What is death? What happens at and beyond death? Biblically consciousness even to the level of being freed of time, since when the speaking, life beyond death is very strongly indicated: “Your dead shall consciousness is highly evolved, the reality appears as a timeless live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, you continuum. And thus one could say that to be free of time is to be free of that dwell in dust for...the earth shall cast out the death.”(Is 26:19). death.6 “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.”(Dan 12:2). We can notice that both these passages strongly imply the According to the big bang theory, “Time began with movement, resurrection of the physical body. Physical death is likened to sleep.12 and space was created by the internal trajectory of the expanding mass’s internally differentiating parts.”7 Thus time began, so to say, with matter What is death? It could be described in various ways. According coming into existence, expressing itself as energy and then life, bringing to Kantonen there are three types of answer: The first is that of biological in consciousness in due course. And the flow of time is continuous from science and the naturalistic philosophy based on it, according to which one moment to the next not losing its link with the past and ever life is solely a natural process and death its absolute end. The second is establishing a link with the future. This smooth flow of time is an eternal that of idealistic philosophy, according to which the soul has its own life state of affairs.8 underived from the body, and death is the release of the soul from the body. The third is that of Christian faith, according to which both life and For logical thought, creation is a singular act or event. In the death are defined on the basis of human’s personal relationship to God.13 words of Neville, ”Creation could not be a succession of acts because then a prior creation would be required to make them mutually relevant Clinical Death so as to be successive, just as eternal creation is required to provide the 9 context for temporal succession of future, present, and past.” So creation The declaration of Sydney, adopted by the 22nd World Medical is not just being, but becoming since from matter energy evolves and Assembly in August 1968, defines death as ‘a gradual process at the from energy life, from primordial to complex forms. Llife-form becomes cellular level with tissues varying in their ability to withstand deprivation 68Omega June 2003 69 Francis P. Xavier Life Beyond Death of the oxygen supply.’ In the case of brain-damaged patients death can immaterial.17 She/he does not become immaterial at some state of his/ be described as cessation of brain activity, or cardio-respiratory activity, her existence, but she/he is immaterial by his/her very humanity.18 Thus and the time interval may extend to hours or, occasionally, days. Even death takes us beyond the physical cessation of bodily function or within medical society certain authorities would argue in favour of multiple activities. In this context, one may say that death seems to take us on to kinds of death occurring at different times. These include organismal another phase of reality, namely, from the physical to the non-physical death, psychic death and vegetative death. Thus death cannot be world, from the temporal to the a-temporal realm. instantaneously determined under present medical criteria, though legally ‘death’ occurs precisely when life ceases, and it does not occur until the Is death just a subjective experience? In the realm of observation heart-beat stops and respiration ends. It is a staged process which a living implies movement - ability to act and achieve. The sign of active person goes through.14 life is growth. Both movement and growth need energy. So far as this creative and formative energy is in some entity, it is considered to be Near-Death Experience active and alive. When the ability decreases, the potentiality to live is reduced. When it is temporarily absent, one is not vibrant with signs of Still a comprehensive and clear definition of death is not easy. life. When energy has permanently gone off, one is declared dead. But Taking death beyond the physical world, Moody attempts two contrasting what happens to the energy that we label ‘life’ at death? Does the definitions of death, namely, annihilation of consciousness and passage energy just vanish away (like the flame from the extinguished candle)? of the soul or mind into another dimension of reality.15 He has studied Does the energy get instantaneously destroyed? Physics states: Energy numerous cases of near-death experience and classifies them into three cannot be created or destroyed, but can be transformed. If death is the categories: cessation of energy, does everything fall apart or does it emerge into another phase of reality? Subjectively speaking, for the individual death i. The experience of persons who were resuscitated after having is an encounter with reality that leads one into a different phase. It is, been thought, adjudged, or pronounced clinically dead by their according to Lifton, a form of awareness that combines the immediate 19 doctors; and the ultimate, that is the temporal and the eternal. It is a fusion of the mortal and the immortal, so to say, into one and the same personality. That fusion is an encounter/confrontation of temporal and material ii. The experience of persons who, in the course of accidents or breakdown (of energy) with revitalization on a higher plane of newer severe injury or illness, came very close to physical death; and (and ever lasting) energy.20 iii. The experience of persons who, as they died, told it to other people The Separation of Body and Soul who were present. Later, these other people reported the 16 comments on the death experience. Even the classical concept that at death body and soul get separated needs closer scrutiny. For example, Pieper upholds the hypothesis: Near-death experience, which is also known as out-of-body experience, is due to personal consciousness, and it is an activity First, that it is not man’s body nor his soul which “dies,” but man accomplished without the body, since in the near-death state sensory himself; and, second, that the spiritual soul, although profoundly capability has ceased. One cannot be conscious externally, because sense affected by death, connected with the body by its innermost transmission has stopped. Physiologically, sensation has become nature and remaining related to it, nevertheless persists 21 incapacitated. This, according to Geis, indicates that the human being is indestructibly and maintains itself, remains in being. 70Omega June 2003 71 Francis P. Xavier Life Beyond Death The sense of immortality, as expressed by Lifton, could be Beyond Death expressed in five general ways, namely, the biological, the theological, the creative (through ‘works’), the natural, and the special mode of Once material objects come into existence, energy as equivalent experiential transcendence.22 Immortality of human life could be viewed of matter (E = mc2) is exhibited, and out of energy life emerges. As life at three levels as: a) a possibility; b) a probability; and c) a certainty.23 form becomes more and more complex, the level of consciousness The physical aspects of the human being, namely the body, might suffer advances through the noosphere into the realm of the spirit. In the case decomposition and disintegration at death, but the consciousness (and its of human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, the life- culmination, the soul) continues to be, as consciousness in its structure breath becomes the soul. However, the life that emerges sometime along presents itself as being of things, whereas nothing physical so presents the eternal flow of time is expected to go on to the destiny of time, itself.24 The premise here is that consciousness is immaterial and the namely, eternity. This continuation of the eternal flow will be after the immaterial is indestructible,25 and hence consciousness is a-temporal. physical death of the human beings. (The scope of discussion here is not about eternal reward/punishment. It is just about exploring the possibility Evolution of life beyond death from scientific and logical perspectives).

Even if we approach death from the point of view of evolution Thus it can be seen that the human being has an eternal destiny. what we see as the evolutionary process ensures survival on a more Hence human life should be considered in a cosmic perspective which complex plane of awareness. On the one hand, the origin might be matter is, along the corridor of time, ever evolving. The human (physical) life, (atoms, molecules, etc). But as evolution progresses, the nature of evolved evolving as human personality and then as consciousness finally leads to beings, like the stages of rockets soaring high in space, points towards the spiritual element (soul) and survives and subsists beyond death. Thus permanence of life that would continue even beyond observable time. a passage beyond the limits of the present life which can be life even Though life begins as a single cell, due to evolution, awareness emerges beyond death seems possible, and it moves towards the ultimate reality, through complexity in higher forms of life. This gives, eventually in human known as God.28 The origin of matter (‘creating power’) may never be beings, expression to ‘personality’ creating an identity for each human distinct and differentiated from created being, but rather becomes the being. This emerges without losing identity with the origin of matter and dynamic force within for the continuous evolution from the physical into at the same time establishing a contact with the higher form of life.26 the spiritual (finitum capax infiniti). Thus, as Paul affirms, the Creator Thus evolution could be considered as the trajectory of continuation of enters into creation, without confronting it, so that by this permeation all life, namely, immortal life till all converge into the ONE, immortal and evil (or enemy), including death, will be overcome (I Cor 15:24-28). supreme.27 In the concept of Teilhard de Chardin evolution is convergence Thus there emerges a new reality at death. A passage is made from the towards the Omega Point which is expected to merge with the eternal. temporal to the a-temporal in order to merge with the origin of matter itself. Thus the human being is an unfinished system at death.29 Hence Thus death is not gloomy, depicting the end of everything. It is the system continues to evolve, of course on a different level, till life more positive. It opens the window to a newer reality on a higher plane merges with the eternal flow of time, in order to conglomerate with the of the continuum of time and life. As life emerges from matter, and as Origin of origins. awareness (consciousness) appears along the corridor of time, and as soul, as the higher form of consciousness, makes its way on the line of Cry for Freedom life, the time-continuum keeps flowing along. And all that is created in time tries to keep up with the dynamic force of evolution. This process can also be understood as a cry for freedom from within. In creation there is a struggle for liberation from the bondage of 72Omega June 2003 73 Francis P. Xavier Life Beyond Death decay. The tissues constantly change and are transformed into new or political liberation from oppression .... Further, a human society reality as the old ones decay. Matter in nature, especially in human beings, deserving of the name cannot be built without peace with nature seems to hunger for the new power of a new reality (in creation). As .... Exploited, oppressed and alienated people are often ‘a product Moltmann puts it, “The cry for liberty therefore unites humanity and of their bad conditions.’... There will be neither economic nor nature in a single hope.”30 political liberation, nor the liberation of nature, without man’s conversion from fear and despondency to the faith which Paul Tillich called ‘the courage to be,’ in defiance of non-being.... This Thus the spirit or consciousness intercedes with sighs too deep is shown by liberation from panic and apathy, the fear of death for words (Rom 8:26). “This cry for freedom is universal.”31 Even the and the death instinct.... We only hear the divine cry for freedom attempts in physics “to construct a world alien to consciousness and in when we listen to the universal cry for freedom.34 which consciousness is extinguished”32 have not succeeded, especially in the wake of modern physics based on the principle of indeterminacy Ultimately the cry for freedom, on the level of the individual, is and the theory of relativity, to suppress the cry of freedom of the spirit liberation from death into eternal peace and harmony. The existence from matter. and continuance of life beyond death (known as ‘pareschatology’) depends on some nonphysical component of the human being which can become Moltmann foresees liberation as a five-dimensional reality. immortal.35 Since there is some component in the human being which is According to him, liberation takes place today: vastly greater than the human being,36 which is not merely materialistic or temporal, the cry for freedom is ever growing as the human being i. In the struggle for economic justice against the exploitation of grows up reaching its finale at death. man. ii. In the struggle for human dignity and human rights against the Life Indestructible political oppression of man. iii. In the struggle for human solidarity against the alienation of man When life emerged from inorganic matter via organic cells, it was from man. quasi immortal. Among species lower than human beings death is neither iv. In the struggle for peace with nature against the industrial sought after nor feared. It is experienced, just like other phases of life, destruction of the environment. when the time comes. However, as evolution progresses to the higher v. In the struggle of hope against apathy in asserting the forms of the species, the development of the complexity of the brain and significance of the whole in personal life.33 the quality of the enlarged neocortex system seems to be accompanied by the dawning of self-awareness. As the human being emerges, the conceptualization of death comes in. By intuition or by instinct there He explains further the significance and implication of this universal arises an awareness of life even beyond death. This explains, in ancient cry for liberation: history, ‘rites of passage’ at death. The dead were buried with provisions for the life beyond.37 D. F. Jonas remarks: “The practice of wrapping There is no liberation from economic need without political the body in shrouds also echoes the covering of the foetus by membranes, freedom. There is no political freedom without economic justice.... If we add the third dimension of the alienation of man from man and the cleansing of the body of the dead is a ritualistic equivalent (perhaps 38 through radicalism, nationalism and sexual discrimination, the magical) of the cleansing of the newborn.” This is due to the reciprocal effect of condition on one another expands even more. phenomenon, believed by our ancestors, that each one has within him/ As long as the alienation of man from man is not overcome, it will herself a manikin or animal that dictates his/her activities. This miniature be impossible to achieve either economic liberation from hunger man is the primitive’s soul. Lastly the soul is pictured as being a person’s 74Omega June 2003 75 Francis P. Xavier Life Beyond Death breath (anima). In this context the understanding of life as a whole and Conclusion of death could be a biological function. Jonas asserts: In the physical world the theory of relativity has created an indelible Surveying the panorama of the evolution of life and earth in its impact. According to relativity, the velocity of light is very important and totality, we may discern a continuum arising in inorganic matter it is a demarcation line of moving objects. There are two types of objects and progressing from the simplest forms to increasing complexity, in the world. Any object that could start from rest can never exceed the ultimately achieving self-awareness and a sense of concern about individual destiny. But whatever we hold life to be, a divine gift velocity of light, and the particles that have velocity above that of light or an inevitable consequence of the chemical properties of matter, cannot have velocity less than that of light (and they can never come to death is in either case an inherent part of it, and indeed essential rest). Thus the velocity of light makes the bridge, analogically, between for its continuation.39 the two apparently different worlds. In other words, the velocity of light is the demarcation line between two phases of reality. In a similar way There is something inherent in the human being that directs one’s (though not exactly in an identical way) ‘death’ is the bridge between hope towards something beyond the observable present, and there is different phases with regard to the reality of life. From considerations of something in the human being that arrives somewhere after the different angles and phases death is the demarcation point in the termination of the course, and therefore persists undestroyed through ‘continuous’ life process. Before death, life has the distinction of past, the events of death and in spite of it. This dynamic force ‘within’ inevitably present and future time but after death it is one eternal flow of time. The makes possible the indestructibility and imperishability of the ‘soul,’ thus external observable might change but the inner reality of life does not leading to ‘immortality’. Thus death is basically a mere transition which change in essence. scarcely affects the core of our being, and what lies on the other side of death is a ‘continuance’ of life. Thus the indestructible inner-self of the In death, therefore, life does not come to an end, but the phase of human being is immortal and leads to life beyond death.40 life changes, and it is the reality of dynamic life with a change-over for the better, that is, from temporal life into atemporal or eternal life. Thus Possibility of the Resurrection death is a quantum leap, not into the dark but into the light of eternal life where the fragments of matter reach a new phase and a ‘glorified’ reality. Newton’s first law of motion says: A moving object keeps on Pieper further critically analyses the possibility of eternal life with moving unless another force stops it. But there is nothing to stop the regard to the soul. He writes: flow of life, created in time and space, and hence life keeps flowing even beyond death. One who is steeped in the empirical knowledge that the living person is a matter of the reciprocal influence of body and soul, and who regards death as the end of the real physical-spiritual Creation is groaning and longing for unity and harmony. The man, stands mute and perplexed before the question of how a created being through the evolutionary process of matter-energy-life- soul separated from the body is to be imagined as ‘existing’ at all, awareness/consciousness-soul has the inner urge and inner dynamic let alone as ‘alive.’41 driving force to reach the ultimate reality. This unity and harmony with the highest form of Reality can be obtained only in and through the This perplexity with regard to the indestructibility of the soul would require continuation of life in the human being who is the most evolved entity in the possibility of the resurrection (when the soul would be reunited with the universe. This is ensured by life beyond death. Thus death is not an the glorified body).42 end, but a passage or a bridge into the next phase of evolution, a step towards the Omega Point. 76Omega June 2003 77 Francis P. Xavier Life Beyond Death The cry for freedom in a created being finds its fruition in death 17 Or has an intrinsically immaterial dimension. which is a demarcation and a ‘passover’ phase between two phases of 18 R. J. Geis, Personal Existence After Death (Peru, IL: Sherwook Sugden life, namely, the temporal and the atemporal (eternal). The created matter and Co., 1995), pp. 97-108. through the evolution of energy and life reaches the realm of 19 R. J. Lifton, The Broken Connection (New York: Simon and Schuster, consciousness, with its culmination as soul, and at the death of the physical 1979), p. 394. body it does not vanish from reality but merges with The Consciousness. 20 Lifton, p. 394. Thus life which originates from the eternal breath of life continues to 21 J. Pieper, Death and Immortality, tr. Richard and Clara Winston (South exist even after physical death, and one understands, apart from any Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 1969), p. 27f. religious affiliation, that life is eternal, and hence there is life-beyond- 22 Lifton, p. 18. death. 23 See Geis, p. 10. 24 Notes See Geis, p. 16. 25 See Geis, p. 17. 1 Dr. P. Francis Xavier is visiting physicist at Boston College, Boston, USA. 26 2 See B. Shannon, Immortality in a Temporal World (London: Vision Press, T. A. Kantonen, Life after Death (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962), p. 1974), p. 172. 20. 27 See Shannon, p. 116. 3 D. Cohn-Sherbok and C. Lewis, eds., Beyond Death (New York: St. 28 Martin’s Press, 1995), p. 5. See Cohn-Sherbok and Lewis, pp. 119-125. 29 4 Cohn-Sherbok and Lewis, p. 9. See Moltmann, pp. 124-126. 30 5 F. P. Xavier, “Eternal Flow of Time,” Indian Theological Studies 39 Moltmann, p. 98. (2002). 31 Moltmann, p. 99. 6 Reanney, After Death (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1991), pp. 215- 32 O. Rank, Psychology and the Soul, tr. G.C. Richter and E.J. Lieberman 219. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), p. 112. 7 R. C. Neville, Eternity and Time’s Flow (Albany: State University of New 33 Moltmann, p. 110. York Press, 1993), p. 5. 34 Moltmann, pp. 110-114. 8 Neville, p. 105. 35 See Cohn-Sherbok and Lewis, p. 139. 9 Neville, p. 177. 36 See Cohn-Sherbok and Lewis, p. 182. 10 Neville, p. 186. 37 See A. Toynbee and A. Koestler, eds., Life after Death (London: 11 J. Moltmann, The Future of Creation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976), pp. 169-173. p. 1. 38 Toynbee and Koestler, p. 176. 12 R. A. Moody, Life after Life (Harrisburgh, PA: Stackpole Books, 1976), p. 39 Toynbee and Koestler, p. 180. 106. 40 See Pieper, pp. 93-105. 13 Kantonen, p. 11. 41 Pieper, p. 117. 14 D. J. Horan and D. Mall, Death, Dying, and Euthanasia (Frederick, MD: Aletheia Books, 1980), pp. 27-35. 42 See Pieper, p. 118. 15 Moody, p. 13. 16 Moody, p. 16. 78 Omega June 2003 79 D. K. Rai Science, Technology and Society Both science and technology are the products of the human mind which has through its course of evolution developed an urge to know and understand its environment. This urge might have had its origin in the need to survive, but, as many researchers have now come to believe, even language developed not primarily as a means of communication but Science, Technology and Society1 also as a device to make images of the world around us. These images permitted the human species in the course of evolution to develop a capacity to recreate the past and hence invent the future. In fact, it gave - D. K. Rai2 us the power to realize our existence in time without which all concept of a society would be futile and worthless. This paper is an attempt to study the inherent nature of science and technology and its impact on society in order to pose certain important This in itself, and in view of its effect on the utilitarian view of ethical questions in a contextual framework. First of all, the author tries ethics, may be a subject of independent discussion, but for our purpose it to dispel some of the popular incorrect and unjustified beliefs and is sufficient to realize that our mental capacity to disassemble an event expectations concerning science. He points out that science and society has given a great fillip in the development of science and technology. influence each other. Furthermore, science and technology are a two- edged sword. All these considerations necessitate the introduction of ethical principles and values to make sure that science and technology Initially science, technology and in fact all knowledge (history, do not lose sight of their original goal of achieving human wellbeing. arts, philosophy, etc.) were one, and the same person engaged in the - Editor studies on all these fronts. However, later on a certain separation of roles has taken place. The urge to understand the natural phenomena taking place in our vicinity, rain and rainbows, thunder and lightning, Our age is in many respects a scientific and technological age. day and night, movement of the stellar firmament, etc., all were grist to Our lives are greatly, both extensively and intensively, affected by the the mills of the human mind. Science originated from this grinding. developments in science and technology. While on the one hand these Technology is essentially the use of scientific knowledge for the benefit handmaidens of the human mind and creativity have created a world in of humans. However, this should not be taken to mean that technology which natural forces have, to a large extent, lost their terror for humanity, always follows science. The understanding that rolling friction is much they have also given birth to human-made terrors of unimagined severity. less than sliding friction came much later, but the use of the wheel for In this paper an endeavour has been made to present a somewhat locomotion is one of the most important technological feats of the broad perspective on the inherent nature of science and technology primitive people. Later on as science became more formal and different, and their impact on society, with a view to pose the ethical problem in the relationship between science and technology became more intimate, a contextual framework. The perspective and the presentation is a and consequently complex. personal one and may contain certain controversial and not generally accepted argument, and I must be excused for the same. Although Let us first spend a few minutes on the nature of the scientific ethical judgments are usually regarded as universal, meant for all, progress. The classical scientific method involves three identifiable steps personal viewpoints may still have some value and relevance. - observation, hypothesization, and lastly controlled experimentation. It is assumed that observation and accumulation of data provide the impetus for the formation of a viable hypothesis. A scientifically viable hypothesis 80Omega June 2003 81 D. K. Rai Science, Technology and Society is not so general that it loses its specificity to the problem at hand, nor is the published literature of science usually gives no inkling of the mental it so specific that its applicability is limited to one specific problem. struggle that the scientist has undergone prior to his/her sudden insight Moreover, the hypothesis should be falsifiable through an actual or and illumination. In this process of discovery a scientist is functioning gedanken Experiment (thought experiment). This falsifiability is an almost like an artist or creative writer who creates an image of the essential characteristic of a scientific hypothesis according to Karl Popper, world from his/her own mental images. It is for this reason that Sri a philosopher of science. The controlled experimentation provides C.V. Raman corrected Homi Bhabha who while presenting a portrait verification or confirmation of the hypothesis, but it must be emphasized that this verification is within certain ranges of the variables involved. of Raman drawn by himself (Bhabha) said “a scientist painted by a No amount of experimentation can finally prove a theory, but a single scientist.” Raman’s statement was “no,” “an artist painted by an artist”. deviant experimental result can disprove it. The scientific theory - a In fact Raman held that “science is a fusion of man’s aesthetic and hypothesis which describes a vast range of phenomena reasonably well intellectual functions devoted to the representation of nature. It is is usually raised to the status of a theory – is thus always only an therefore, the highest form of creative art.” We can thus conclude that approximation to the truth. Science approaches truth asymptotically, never science attempts to fashion a model of the world as we see and completely. experience it. There is no insistence, as there cannot be, that this model is the true reality. It is at best an approximation to the reality, and at There is often a misconception in the minds of the lay public about worst a subjective description of the universe. the absolute validity of a scientific result. The public often believe that the result of a scientific study has universal validity, but it is not true. As science has progressed, its objects of inquiry have become Despite the claim to the contrary, every scientific study is limited by the farther and farther removed from our everyday life and experience. experimental constraints, and the result may be valid only in that limited From studying objects of sizes comparable to human dimensions we range. Scientists also often do not try strongly enough to dispel this myth have progressed, on the one hand, to dimensions of 10-33cm (the size of for various reasons. This is one of the areas where introduction of ethical the nucleus) and shorter, and, on the other, to objects of the size of stars, studies in the curricula of science and technology would serve a very galaxies and even clusters of galaxies. Even in the area of life sciences, valuable purpose. from studying species, whole animals, organs, etc., we have climbed down to the level of molecules and elementary particles. This has become Another misconception about scientific progress is that it takes possible only due to the developments in technology which have extended place in a logical, linear and almost foreseen manner. This is also not the range of our senses to an astonishing degree. Each new technology true. Most of the momentous discoveries of science have involved has permitted new questions to be asked, and every new solution has essentially a new way of looking at phenomena which were supposedly added to the further development of technology. This mutual dependence well understood earlier. Thus Newton was the first to see an analogy precludes a separation between science and technology as far as their between the fall of an apple and the orbital motion of the moon, thereby impact on society is concerned. at one stretch increasing the range of human understanding to regions which were till then regarded as ‘celestial.’ Society impacts on the development of science and technology in a variety of ways. First and foremost every scientist/technologist is a One can give numerous examples of such illuminating insights, member of the society, and hence is imbued with the culture and social which are to a very large extent intuitive and form the content of what needs and aspirations of that society. A society which does not permit Francois Jacob has termed ‘night science.’ The name is very apt because its members to question authority is not likely to encourage the free

82Omega June 2003 83 D. K. Rai Science, Technology and Society imagination needed for progress in science and technology. The so-called fiber of society. The symptoms of sick environment both physical and dark ages in the European civilization was one such period in history. human are very obvious and hardly need any repetition. But is it proper Both arts and science seemed to come out of their shell and almost at to blame only or even mainly science and technology for the same? An the same time, when a desire to challenge the past beliefs and value apologist for science would probably answer this question with an system emerged. It is not only the social context that is important, even emphatic no, while many would give an equally resounding yes as an the scientific milieu of the society plays a crucial role in the manner and answer. The truth is, as usual in such circumstances, somewhere in the rapidity with which science progresses. The emergence of quantum middle with both answers being partly correct. ideas in the first quarter of the 20th century and the growth of molecular biology in the second half of the same century are examples of this Let us see what a few scientists and technologists say about their effect. Of course, one must not minimize the role of accidental discoveries vocation. Abdul Kalam has stated “Science is a passion - a never ending which can also open up entirely new vistas of research - the discovery voyage into promise and possibilities.” Erwin Schrödinger, the person of X-rays being one such example. who helped mightily in the development of the presently accepted worldview of the physicists, states: “What is the value of natural science? Society and its administering body, the state, also often try to direct Its scope, aim and value are the same as that of any other branch of the course of science and technology along avenues of perceived interests. human knowledge - it is to obey the command of the Delphic deity- “Get Much of present-day science and technology is being directed in this to know yourself.” manner. Very often this is not a very successful process, specially in the pure sciences. Pure scientific research in its fundamental sense is Albert Einstein had advised his fellow scientists not to forget hat unpredictable. It is driven by an urge to understand, and the results of “the betterment of the human condition is the sole purpose of science.” any experiment are definitely not known in advance. Technology is more Where have science and technology gone wrong so that they are being amenable to direction from outside as long as the basic scientific problems blamed? are well known, and at least in principle solved. The American programme to land a man on the moon in a decade was an example of a successfully As stated earlier, technology which seeks to apply knowledge for directed technological feat, but the same country’s effort to find a cure practical purposes is very often a source of power and pelf, and hence for cancer in 10 years in the 1970s came a cropper. Since technology is any one may like to use it for personal or group gain. This is the place a source of financial gain and power, often the direction of its growth is where misuse of science and technology begins. Use of scientific based on considerations other than the human good. The recent decision knowledge and technological powers for state purposes is another area of the prestigious medical journals to verify the results of the drug testing where misuses occur. Let us consider a few examples. Eugenics was programmes conducted by the pharmaceutical companies before developed as a theoretical idea in the early days of the 20th century and recommending public use of the drug is a repercussion of this feeling. gained an enormous momentum. The theory which was later proved to be erroneous contributed, according to many scholars, towards the Science and specially technology for a long time have been hardening of the Nazi racial prejudice, and Hitler and his followers brutally regarded as a panacea for all the problems of society. Our own Science resorted to it in dealing with the Jews and the gypsies. Lest we forget Policy Resolution adopted by the Parliament in 1956 reflects this view even Plato and Franklin were to a certain extent believers in the false of science. However, during the past several decades science and myth of eugenics, though they lived much earlier. specially technology have come under attack for allegedly degrading our environment, creating a mechanization of the human society, creating Atomic energy is one area which is usually regarded as the weapons of mass murder and also as disruptive of the moral and ethical clinching issue as far as the debasement of moral and ethical values is 84Omega June 2003 85 D. K. Rai Science, Technology and Society concerned, chiefly because of the role of scientists and technologists in bomb development programme in the late fifties, and from the star war creating the atomic bomb. It might be interesting to describe in brief the program in the seventies and early eighties, was probably a reflection of main steps in the drama. Ever since the discovery of radioactivity the same feeling. They probably felt that their participation in the original scientists felt that there was a lot of energy hidden in the interior of the Manhattan Project was justified by the exigencies of the situation only, atoms. The energy was measured, but as late as 1938 just before the and was not a norm to be followed. discovery of fission by Hahn and Strassman in Germany, even as perspicacious a person as Rutherford dismissed the idea of ever using “Atoms for peace” became a slogan in the mid fifties as atomic this energy as “moon shine.” Then in 1939 came the discovery of atomic energy was regarded as a source of plentiful power. Many reactors fission, in which the nucleus of uranium was found to break into two were built and began to operate. Nuclear energy started to contribute a almost equal-sized parts with the release of a vast amount of energy. significant part to the national grids in many countries. However, in the The crucial fact was that the fission also released neutrons which could initial euphoria many of the safety regulations were relaxed in favour of under suitable conditions cause more fission. The idea of chain reaction economy. Accidents which had taken place, but had been kept secret, was thus developed. Hitler had come to power in 1933 and in September came to light, and with plentiful oil and coal available these combined to 1939 attacked Poland, thereby launching the Second World War. For create a ground swell of opposition to nuclear power. Just as the euphoria almost two years his armies were irresistibly marching from one victory in the fifties was unjustified, it is not far off the truth to state that the to another. Their attitude towards the so called ‘non-Aryans’ had by opposition was also not fully justified. All the accidents that have so far then become well known, and there was a genuine fear in the minds of happened in association with nuclear power have claimed much less many scientists, specially those of European origin, that if he could get lives than in the mining and use of coal for the generation of power. hold of a superior weapon, there would be no hesitation in its use. It was Alternative sources of energy despite continued and increasing spending in a situation so fraught with real and imagined dangers that Einstein are not able to contribute significantly in the near future. Recourse to was persuaded to write his famous letter to President Roosevelt nuclear energy, specially in countries poor in fossil fuels, is essential if recommending a heightened research programme to develop, if possible, living standards are to be raised. military weapons based on atomic fission. It is a tribute to the ingenuity of the persons involved and the massive technical and financial inputs This brings us to an essential dilemma. Science and technology that the mission succeeded. In July 1945 the first test was held in New are essential for the wellbeing and continued improvement in the living Mexico and the scene was awesome. standards of humans. But their indiscriminate use can be disastrous. Without refrigeration perishable commodities cannot be stored and Jungke has described how Oppenheimer was reminded of the transported from the point of production to consumers. But refrigeration Gita wherein Arjuna was at first blinded by the glory of the Lord - was till recently dependent highly on fluorochlorocarbons shown to be described as ‘brighter than a thousand Suns.’ It is however poignant and responsible for the damage to our ozone shield. Synthetic fertilizers are probably more reflective of the attitude of a scientist that while many needed to produce sufficient food for our burgeoning population, but were jubilant at their success, Fermi, standing about a kilometer away their use is polluting our soils and waters. Biotechnology and genetic from the test tower, was dropping small pieces of paper to the ground to engineering promise to create a revolution in agriculture and medicine, estimate the power of the blast. Once the bomb was made, many of the but are also capable of creating disasters. same scientists had second thoughts about its use in war, and suggested a demonstration on an uninhabited place. But by then the decision was What is the path to follow? We cannot stop the growth of science no longer in their hands. However, its scar remained in many psyches. and technology as it is inherent in human nature to try to know, to The withdrawal of many of these scientists from the thermonuclear understand, and once known to use. Should we be afraid of this new 86Omega June 2003 87 D. K. Rai Science, Technology and Society knowledge? Is there something akin to forbidden knowledge? The answer to both these questions must be no. Knowledge is not dangerous, ignorance is. Our rishis have taught us that knowledge is that which liberates. What is needed is that application of knowledge has to be carefully made, and its limitations must be kept in mind, and this is where scientists have a great responsibility to society. They must outline clearly and Hermeneutical Proximity Between truthfully the limits of their knowledge. The final decision on use is, of course, to be made in a democracy by society. In this connection one of Science and Religion my associates Br. Karunanda has drawn a certain parallel between the path of self knowledge in the old spiritual tradition of India and that - Victor Ferrao1 followed by modem science. Both are attempting to understand the secret of the universe. The former - spiritual seeker - proceeds through the This paper is a fresh attempt to present a better understanding of the path of asceticism overcoming his desires and undergoing penance. The true nature of science and religion, one that avoids the narrow scientistic seeker, according to our scriptures, acquires many miraculous and semi- perspective of science on the one hand, and the myopic fundamenatalistic divine powers in this process. However, if he becomes enamoured of view of religion on the other. Such an understanding can give us a these powers and lusts after them, he falls down in the quest for self better insight into the relationship between science and religion. The knowledge, and unless he recovers in time (essentially through the grace author makes use of the latest developments in the philosophy of science of the Lord), he is condemned to ignorance. The scientist in his continuing and in hermeneutics to carry out this task. Finally, he introduces Habermas’ concept of ‘life-world’ which both shape the specific form of endeavour to understand the world around him/her has acquired a lot of science and religion in a given context and is, in turn, shaped by it. knowledge which can be and is being used for power and pelf. But the - Editor scientist has to remain ever watchful lest he should lose sight of his ultimate objective and gets enmeshed in the results of his midway achievements. This is probably the right note to strike at this moment. “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility,” says Albert Einstein. Humans as beings-in-the-world have sought to understand the world from the first moments of their existence. Science is a great Notes window through which humankind has attempted to understand our universe, our planet, ourselves and other living as well as non-living things. 1 This paper is based on a lecture delivered in Maitri Bhavan, Varanasi, on Religion too has its significance in our attempt to understand the world. October 2, 2001. It does provide us a big picture of life and indicates how we fit into the 2 Dr. D. K. Rai is professor of Physics at Banaras Hindu University, Banaras, whole scheme of things. In this paper we shall try to arrive at an Varanasi. understanding of both science and religion. Perhaps this can pave the way for a deeper understanding of the relationship between science and religion.

Understanding Science

The problem of demarcation that sets the borders of science and non-science was raised by Karl Popper, a philosopher of science of the 88 Omega June 2003 89 Victor Ferrao Hermeneutical Proximity Between Science and Religion 20th century. Although philosophers like Quine opposed such a project, in only to explain failure and error, never to explain scientific success we can trace such a criterion of demarcation between science and within a paradigm-based research tradition. Thus, whenever a para- pseudo-science operative quite openly among the Logical Positivists in digm-based form of inquiry met with success, the explanation for the the 1950s. They seem to identify science with every form of rational success was that the paradigm was accurate, that the model of reality it and empirical knowledge. Basing themselves on this perspective, they contained was true. This asymmetry was unacceptable to David Bloor bestowed the status of being a paradigm of all knowledge on science, and his fellow sociologists of knowledge. They saw it as a Weak and taught that only that which can be empirically verified qualified to be Programme. Against it, they advocated what came to be christened as knowledge. Thus the notorious principle of verification separated science the Strong Programme. The Strong Programme taught that false beliefs from that which was deemed non-science. But the fact that this principle and true beliefs in science are to be explained by the same kinds of of verification itself could not be verified reduced their position, and social, non-rational causes.5 Thus thinkers like Bruno Latour and Steve along with it an elitist purely empirical vision of science, to ashes.2 Karl Woolgar attempted to corroborate these views with their case studies. Popper appears to have rejected this narrow elitist view of science when They studied the researchers at work in the Salk Institute in California, he taught that the community of scientists is an open society in which a laboratory specializing in the investigation of hormones that originate anyone may propose ideas or theories and anyone may criticize the in the nervous system, and attempted to demonstrate how their science same. Thus in the Popperian vision all are seekers of truth, and all was strongly socially constructed.6 recognize the extent of their ignorance and the uncertainty of their knowledge. In the light of these limitations the attempt to prove is displaced by Social constructivism when taken to its logical end can cut an the attempt to disprove. Hence he proposed his principle of falsification anti-realist or ‘anything goes’ relativistic picture of science. Hence, as a criterion of demarcation. It teaches that science is something that is philosophers of science tend to take a position which is today referred to potentially falsifiable. The Popperian principle of falsification seems to as historical realism. Historical realism strives to avoid the extremes of rehabilitate that which is rejected as non-science (non-sensical) by the positivism as well as social constructivism inspired by Thomas Kuhn. Logical Positivists. Yet we have to note that both verification and They teach that science is partly discovered and partly constructed.7 falsification basically suffer from the same assumption that there are neutral observation statements.3 The focus of the philosophy of science today seems to move to the reflection on science as actually practised. We know that science as The constitutive role of non-science has been effectively brought practised involves an organizing process of observation, experiment, to the fore with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions of Thomas S. recourse to prior theory, reliance on various metaphysical principles and Kuhn, according to which science is paradigm-centered and paradigm- so on, exploited via reason and argument to propose hypotheses, evaluate controlled. Kuhn admits that it is not easy to define a paradigm. It is “a their promise for further progress, debate their adequacy, accept them cluster of items such as laws, theories, goals, methods, etc., that provide as true or false. The point of this noble enterprise is to obtain systematic models from which spring forth a particular tradition of scientific knowledge that can assist us to understand the world and transform our research.”4 Hence, we can see that Kuhn effectively demonstrates that life. Hence, scientific activity that always takes place in a social setting the boundaries of science are porous. Science gains its specific character is always influenced by the worldview that guides that particular from non-science also. Non-science also contributes to the formation of community. Since the worldview belongs to the level of the horizon, it the horizon that underpins and circumscribes our scientific activity. cannot be pinned down. Perhaps the analogy of light will illumine our position. In the light of light we can see most things while light itself Many Kuhn-inspired philosophers of science began to teach that remains invisible. Similarly, the worldview is a womb in which our entire the irrational ‘social’ factors in the practice of science were to be called life becomes meaningful. We can notice how a particular scientific activity 90Omega June 2003 91 Victor Ferrao Hermeneutical Proximity Between Science and Religion is guided and centered on a specific paradigm. There is a hermeneutical extent, generates, circumscribes and renders meaningful our scientific circle between the scientific activity and the paradigm that builds a activities mapped by the three circles that we have considered above. particular scientific community. Understanding Religion

Religion has no one meaning for all. Modern usage of this term covers a wide spectrum of meanings that reflects the enormous variety A B of ways in which the term can be interpreted. On the one extreme we EMPIRICALLY THEORETICAL DESCRIPTIVE generalization might place the recognition of one’s own tradition as a religion, while on ANALYTIC conceptualization the other extreme we can trace those who equate religion to ignorance, observation explanation superstition, wishful thinking, etc. Indeed, religion does not have a fixed experimentation prediction data gathering meaning, nor is it a zone with clear boundaries. Perhaps, Wittgenstein’s notion of family-resemblance might assist us to grasp the complexity of the phenomenon. There is a trace of some generality, which expresses that which all religions appear to share in common. At the same time there is some specificity in the concept of religion inasmuch as it attempts to map some concrete phenomena. That is, whatever we ab- C stract as common elements from various religions are always found TRANSFORMATIVE localized, and hence take on various forms according to the context. application of law and theories

A B The level of The level of religious Harold K. Schelling portrays the dynamic circularity of our Religious experience expression scientific activity. He speaks of three circles: a) empirically descriptive circle; b) theoretical circle; c) transformative circle. The empirically descriptive circle engages in data gathering with the help of observation and experimentation; the theoretical circle strives to produce symbolic structures for the purpose of the correlation of concepts, generalization, explanation and prediction; and the tranformative circle attempts to transform human natural and cultural environment. All these three circles are inter-linked.8 C The level of Religious Edification Our analysis radicalizes the proposal of Harold K Schelling by embedding all the three circles into a larger circle that we christen as worldview or Weltanschauung. It is the specific paradigm that, to some 92Omega June 2003 93 Victor Ferrao Hermeneutical Proximity Between Science and Religion Religion appears to have three levels: a) the level of religious prayers, the rites, the rituals and the symbols, etc. The Creed, the Code experience; b) the level of religious expression; c) the level of religious and the Cult need not form the essence of any religion, yet they are edification. These three levels are deeply intertwined in a dynamic cir- warranted by our embodied nature.11 cularity. That is, there is a hermeneutical circle between them. The level of edification deals with the transformation and growth The level of religious experience forms the core of religion inas- that an individual and the community undergo due to the operation of the much as the other two levels depend on it. But we can find some phi- above two levels. All these three circles are also embedded in a larger losophers raising their eyebrows on the issue of the very possibility of circle that we christen as the worldview. such experiences. These skeptics of religious experience strive to demonstrate either that religious knowledge is not based on experience or it Understanding the Weltanschauung does not lend itself to any experiential check. Even Kant seems to sail in the same ship as he found only a moral ground for religious belief. Thanks We humans as beings-in-the-world find ourselves thrown into a to the labours of Richard Swinburne, Alwin Plantiga, William P. Alston, Weltanschauung or worldview. It forms the universe of meanings. such a rejection of religious experience is shown to be largely based on Meaning is intrinsic to us. Without meaning we shrivel and die. Viktor a naïve understanding of experience itself. The work of these scholars Frankl aptly describes us as a will to meaning. Neitzche is also said to points out that the objectors take ordinary perception as the paradigm of have said, “He, who has found a why to live for, can cope with any all experience, which they then use as a criterion to dismiss all forms of how!” We humans as beings-in-the-world are in constant search for religious experience. These above scholars view that there is a parallel meaning. We strive to make sense of our own existence and of the between perceptual and religious experience. Hence, religious events in the world through our meaning-making endeavours. This quest experiences are as valid as our perceptual experience. In this context it for meaning is not always visible at the surface level, yet it surrounds us will be important to remind ourselves that William James has already like a horizon from which we can never escape. Human life devoid of attempted to demonstrate that there can be diverse forms of experi- meaning leads to despair and self-annihilation. Thus meaning becomes 9 ences in his famous book, Varieties of Religious Experience. our basic need, even more basic than our long-accepted basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. Hence we might say, “If there is no meaning Today many scholars speak of mediate as well as immediate forms in life, we will have to invent it.” The meaning that we construe for of religious experience. Immediate religious experience is a direct ourselves underpins our values, our beliefs and our general view of life. experience in which the divinity or whatever the person considers as transcendent enters the little-ness of one’s personal space, and one is Perhaps the concept of life-world popularized by Jürgen Habermas lifted into a transpersonal dimension. Mediate religious experience takes could help us to understand this. The life-world is the everyday world in place through the medium of some structures that may belong to the which we are born and live. It shapes us into the people that we become. 10 level of religious expression. The shared meanings, perspectives, values, beliefs about how things should be, what people should do, how our institutions should be, etc., go At the level of religious expression we can trace the so-called to form the life-world.12 The life-world can be identified with the unholy trinity: the Creed, the Code and the Cult. The Creed forms the Panikkarean Mythos, which is a horizon against which all human living belief system of a particular religious group, while the Code consists of derives its meaning. It is like the light that remains invisible, but with the the rules, customs, laws, modes of behavior, etc., that govern the reli- help of which we can see everything illuminated by it.13 The life-world gious life of the group. The Cult deals with the domain of worship, the is not a static given because it is shaped and reformed by those that

94Omega June 2003 95 Victor Ferrao Hermeneutical Proximity Between Science and Religion have been shaped and formed within it. Habermas refers to the former 5 See Robert Klee, Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: Cutting Nature as the phylogenetic aspect, while the latter he looks at as the ontogenetic at Its Seams (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 157-162. aspect. Thus an individual is shaped as well as shapes his/her life-world. 6 See Klee, pp. 165-174. In the context of the above discussion we can see how science 7 See Frederick Suppe, The Structure of Scientific Theories (Urbana: Univer- and religion emerge from a life-world and in their turn help in the sity of Illinois Press, 1977), pp. 650-728. transformation of the life-world. The relationship between these two 8 See Harold Schelling “ Three-Fold and Circular Nature of Science and great pillars of our society that we have now called life-world is circular. Religion,” in James E. Huchingson (New York: Harcourt Brace College The life-world is the womb in which we humans become what we are. Publishers, 1993), pp. 40-43. It is in dialogue with our respective life-world that we grow as humans. Today science and religion along with other things form the integral part 9 See George Karuvelil, Interrelations and Interpretation, ed. Job of our life-world. Hence they are important means through which we Kozhamthadam (New Delhi: Intercultural Publications, 1997), pp. 109-119. make meaning of our life. Yes, science and religion may not need each 10 Peter Lourdes, “Less Religion, More Experience,” Divyadaan: Journal of other but it is we humans who need both. Philosophy and Education (2002), pp. 327-328.

11 Conclusion Lourdes, p. 326. 12 Terrence Tilley, et al, Postmodern Theologies (New York: Orbis Books, Our study invites us towards a re-understanding of both science 1995), p. 6. and religion. It attempts to move away from the narrow scientistic 13 Raimond Panikkar, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics: Cross-Cultural understanding of science as well as the fanatic fundamentalist under- Studies (Bangalore: ATC, 1983), p. 4. standing of religion. Having rooted both science and religion in our life- world, it has paved the way for a deeper understanding of the relationship between science and religion and their dialogical search for truth and meaning.

Notes 1 Victor Ferrao teaches Philosophy of Science at Rachol Seminary, Goa. He is doing his doctoral studies in Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune. 2 See Anthony O’Hear, Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), pp. 106-113. 3 Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 16.

4 See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1970).

96 Omega June 2003 97 Jojo Varakukala Bio-Theology The author presents the God Part of the Brain in such a lucid and systematic style with logical arguments, phenomenological analysis and speculative rigourism. The book is sandwiched with a prologue and an epilogue. The book is neatly divided into two parts with different chapters comprehensively reading into the question of the genetically hardwired human make up of the brain. The author comes to the conclusive answer that God is not out there but is part of the human brain.

Bio-Theology Scientific Reading of Theory’s Evolution A Neuro-Scientific Interpretation of Scientists are the high priests of the new faith referring to particles Human Spirituality and God that are incomprehensible and elusive. Science is the genuine truth by which human beings could gain a clear and distinct insight into the - Jojo Varakukala1 underlying nature of the reality. It has taken man to a scientific knowledge of God. The grasping of world by human is no better than others but The God Part of The Brain - A Scientific Interpretation of simply a different grasping for just as a fly sees the world from its fly- Human Spirituality and God. By. Mathew Alper. New York: perspective we humans grasp the world from human-perspective. Hence Rogue Press, 2001. pp. x + 206. the human interpretation of the world or reality is neither better nor more real but it is just different. One of the fundamental principles of Is man a product of God, or…Is God a product of human evolution? science is that every action has got an effect, which would imply that Man, the most powerful creature of this earth has the power of reason, every effect has its cause. Today we are well informed of the happenings the most precise and distinguishing feature that enables him/her to create of the world through a scientific interpretation. We know why it rains himself/herself. Yet with all the knowledge, we still remain puzzled and we don’t better believe in that rain is produced by the whims of before that mystery which looms over all the physical sciences, the God. Alper takes a step further to answer the God question from a question about God. The problem of God’s existence demands to be scientific perspective. The various sciences, which are so integrally solved before all others. Probably, the question of God’s existence interrelated and integrated, takes us to the quest for a scientific underlies the answer to man’s. From time immemorial humanity was interpretation of God. The evolution of things and human chromosomes grappling with the question of God and the intellectual culture has speak of the story of gene. Each gene contains information that could maintained a dualistic interpretation of reality consisting of two distinct bring about an individual physical race. Even the slightest individual substances: the physical and the spiritual. It was cross-culturally perceived differences are caused by the formation of gene. The human beings as the first cause of all that exist. The question of God is one concerning possess an evolving brain. all for without God there is no absolute moral order and even the individual existence. With God one is conceived in meaning. Does God exist or Science could heed to everything in the physical universe. It was not? Does death mark the decisive end of my existence or the inception true to its method. Science accounts a lot for the fifteen billion history of of my new beginning? The author is of the opinion that God is wired into universe from its origin to the present status without the backing of any our system as an inherited human gene. spiritual power or transcendental deity. But however the question remained unanswered: why was I here? The author brings in the Kantian notion of inherent mode of perception which humans possessed by birth 98Omega June 2003 99 Jojo Varakukala Bio-Theology that shape human perspective of reality and he says that the God question site in us. This could be applied to human spirituality also. Man, just as a does not lie out there but within the workings of human mind, the brain. musical, linguistic and mathematical animal is also a spiritual animal. Science could however give no clear knowledge of God though it equipped The author opines that we inherit our propensity to perceive a spiritual humanity with the knowledge of the origins of matter, atoms, planets, reality, and there exists certain physiological site in us from which spiritual man, life and of himself. perceptions originate. If all perceptions originate from the brain, it would follow that the spiritual consciousness must also be generated from that Alper says that, ‘God was a word’, which represents a concept same order. It amounts to say that our species possess a neuro- of transcendent force, word just like all other words, which originated physiologically based spiritual function - God as part of the brain. Karl from the workings of human brain. Before humans existed there were Jung finds a collective consciousness common to all, which he calls the no such thing as words. He says, “Now if brains were strictly biological ‘natural religious function.’ Applying the bio-psychological sciences to in nature and the word ‘God’ originated from within that same organ, the study of human spirituality, it would be possible to construct a physical, then perhaps the concept of God was somehow inextricably linked to organic, scientific and mechanistic interpretation of human spirituality as our biological natures as well” (p. 49). Does it mean that the question of well as of God. All cultures have notions of after life, which is manifested God represents the consequence of a genetically inherited trait and if through cross-cultural funeral ceremony. The universal spiritual this is the case how to account for it? He is of the opinion that the proclivities must represent an inherent characteristic of our species, a physical characteristics that are cross-culturally shared represent a genetically inherited trait innately predisposed to believing in the existence genetically inherited trait. In other words, the behaviours of human beings of spiritual reality. Humans hence possess spiritual genes. are hardwired with the genetically inherited trait. Within the brain there exist specific structures responsible for generation of universal behaviour Mankind is hardwired to have faith in a spiritual reality and this patterns. He analyses the musical responses of our species cross-culturally spiritual consciousness is just integrally linked to our neuro-physiological which is responsible for the musical part of the human brain. That is to nature as in any of our cognitive capacity. It could mean that God does say there exists in brain the capacity for music directly connected to our not exist as something out beyond and independent of us but he becomes cerebral physiology. “Humans from every culture express the emotions a product of the inherited perception. If this is true there is no actual of grief, fear aggression and amusement with the same exact facial spiritual reality. Consequently man is not a product of God but God as expressions. As an exception to this rule, the people born with a damaged the product of human cognitive evolution. That is to say we are or dysfunctional “fusiform gyrus,” that part of the brain from which we programmed to interpret reality. All of our spiritual cognition, perceptions, derive our capacity to distinguish certain facial cues, will not possess sensation and behaviours are the manifestations of inherited impulses this capacity” (p. 56). The same is applied to our species cross-culturally, generated from the neural connections in the brain and therefore not the propensity to believe in a spiritual reality. If we possess such hardware indicative of any actual spiritual reality. The author asks the question, must not it originate from the distinct physiological site within us? This “why would our species have evolved a spiritual function?” could be perhaps told as the God part of our brain? Why a Spiritual Function for Humans? Emergence of the Bio-Theology If man possesses spiritual consciousness, what is its purpose? It Every generation has the potency to articulate and comprehend might be a forced neuro-physiologically based function. We have the the language. Within the chromosomes there exist the genes from which awareness of death, the possibility of my impossibility. With this awareness the linguistic capacity emerges. Every behaviour that exists has a humans have suffered life’s first existential crisis. The pain, or the specialized gene, which prompts the development of neuro-physiological Dhukha (of which Buddha speaks) experience keeps organic forms 100Omega June 2003 101 Jojo Varakukala Bio-Theology alive and intact. “Pain is nature’s electric prod that is incessantly goading brain. Neuroses are the behavioural consequences of an unhealthy us towards those things which benefit us and away from those which developed ego function. It is the ego function that experiences needs can do us harm” (p. 91). The experience of pain is the chief stimulus by and wants and not a particular organ of our body. That there are certain which life is formed to survive. Anxiety, a specific type of painful response, drugs, which can evoke spiritual experience in us grants the notion, that has motivated us to be equipped to face the potential future threats. The spiritual consciousness must be physiological in nature. The author brings human capacity for foresight envisioned him to see the possible future. in studies that substantiate the neuro-physiological origin of the spiritual It is an advanced type of intelligence that comes with high price. The experience. He hopes for a new gene-theology so as to account for the capacity for foresight mixed with anxiety function keeps us perpetually human spiritual gene that causes spiritual function. Such evidences go to vigilant to venture out any next possible threat. the heart of the matter and make it difficult to argue against a neuro- physiological explanation of religiosity and thus supporting an argument Man is the only creature of this planet that comprehends the for the existence of a spiritual religious function – a “God” part of the concept of his own existence. Alper says that we possess the elements brain. of the eternal and the infinity, a series of neurological connections emerged in our species that compelled us to perceive ourselves as The act of prayer has the distinct healing power. The new age spiritually eternal. Alper summarizes that we have come up with an sciences across the world speak of the healing properties of prayer. enabled status to cope up with the awareness of that by having the Healing through the act of prayer is not the act of miracles but purely cognitive mechanism; neuro-physiologically generated cognitive physiological response to having one’s anxiety level diminished. We are phantoms that can protect us from inevitable death. Religion is of the also the converting animals whose sense of personal identity can be function to reduce the fear of death. Hence God is not a transcendental suddenly and drastically transformed in a way that religious concerns power actually existing out there but rather expressing the manifestation come to predominate in our conscious experience. If humans are of an inherited human perception, a coping mechanism generated from inherently spiritual why are there atheists? If in a sense we are wired to human brain. believe in a spiritual reality, how is some who do not? Though an atheist is inherently spiritual, they are brought up in a non-religious or aspiritual Inner Propulsion for the Beyond environment where their innate proclivities may have atrophied and consequently being substituted by a secular worldview. There are some Experiencing spiritual sensation in us truly represents the inherent others who suppress their inherent proclivities. He says that similar to all characteristics of our species, the physical mechanism of human con- other spiritual experience, near-death experiences are rooted not in the sciousness. Contemporary neuro-scientists are of the opinion that spiri- soul but in our brain’s neuro-chemistry. Glossolaliya, speaking in tongues, tual experiences are not the result of the contact with the divine but constitutes yet another universally enacted behaviour through which rather the effects of the electrochemical elements as they are interpreted mystical experiences could be evoked. The universal taboos exist because by our brain. None of such spiritual experiences give us the proof of any we as species are neuro-physiologically hardwired to be repelled by spiritual reality. The fright of man’s self-conscious awareness of his such acts. People who suffer the brain injury of the particular area of death is really great. Even though no spiritual reality might exist, in cortex of the brain exhibit severe anti-social activity. Our guilt function merely believing in one, one is able to undergo this cathartic and is also integrally linked with our spiritual function. therapeutic experiences. Cross-cultural concepts like God, soul and afterlife constitute Human consciousness is also a physical phenomenon, the nothing more than manifestation of the way our species happens to manifestation of electrochemical impulses being transmitted through the process information and interpret reality. If God is a cognitively generated 102Omega June 2003 103 Jojo Varakukala Bio-Theology subjective human phenomenon, it may be difficult for many to grasp the rational, reductionistic, evolutionistic, organic, and cognitive interpretation of God. Whether God exists or not, our ultimate goal is still the same. Without a God all is not necessarily lost. The underlying logic - a biotheology by which we explain our religious and spiritual properties - would tell us: “What kind of a God would install a device in us that would compel to believe him to be so many different things that we would each The Unity of Patterns be prompted to kill one another in order to prove that our version of him Discovering the Hidden Connections is the right one” (p. 182). We live in a global community with diversity of belief systems. What we need perhaps is that we create and embrace a Between Life, Mind and Society simple humanistic ideology of tolerance, compassion and forgiveness. If at all we are just composed of matter and nothing more and if there is no - K. Babu Joseph1 spiritual reality like God, soul or afterlife - none of which are warranted by the present day developments in neuroscience as of now, even then The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. we have the neuro-scientific compulsion to shift our priorities to deter By Fritjof Capra. Flamingo, 2003. xv + 272 pp. future wars to minimize our suffering and pain and maximize the chances of happiness in life and this is what is entailed by a scientific interpretation That traditional Indian philosophy’s most important contribution is of human spirituality and God. the concept of unity in diversity is too well known to be described. In science too there is a growing awareness that the same kind of patterns Alper comes to the lifelong quest for God. Even if no spiritual are encountered in apparently unrelated domains. A pertinent example reality exists the most meaningful moment in life is to experience of such parallelism is seen in physics and biology: the so-called unified happiness in the fleeting show of its vanity. Whether human is a spiritual theories of living and non living matter. The quark model seeks to explain being or spiritless organic mechanism, the experience of happiness is the structure of all matter in terms of its constituents called quarks and true to him. He interrogates, either way, am I any less me? Alper puts it gluons, or leptons while genetics seeks a description of all life in terms of in such a scientific style that his elucidations are scientifically verified DNA and the cell environment. In both cases the same trend is evinced: with deeply experienced life’s momentums and scientifically conceived a desire for unity, simplicity and elegance. conceptions are to the embellishments of the arguments. He argues out that our concepts are derived from the mechanics of our brain. Thus on One of the purported aims of complexity theory, a modern paradigm the whole, The God Part of The Brain is a beautiful piece of scientific spun from the yarns of non-linear science, is a plausible explanation of and philosophical truth, a living memento with philosophical brilliance the phenomenon of life. Like the unity models mentioned above, it is also and scientific fascination, a scientific reading of man’s spiritual nature a reductive framework as Fritjof Capra strives to show in his recent with neural basis of spirituality, a very positive and dynamic understanding book Hidden Connections in which he successfully articulates a unified of human make up of the brain. It has opened the way to the currents of perspective of life, mind and society. There is also a systemic analysis of bio-theology and scientific hermeneutic of human internal hard-wiring several critical issues of the present time that one may be amused to spiritual genes. read. In part one, the theoretical framework, though not original, is laid while part two explores an alleged parallelism between human 1 Jojo Varakukala is professor of systematic philosophy at Little Flower organizations and a living system. The analogy is stretched to the point Seminary, Institute of philosophy and Religion, Aluva. where links are envisaged between global capitalism and biotechnology’s

104Omega June 2003 105 K. Babu Joseph The Unity of Patterns ethical dimensions. The concluding chapter gives a sketch of attempts observations suggest is that one has to dig deep into the earlier works currently being made by various NGOs across the world, for injecting for a fuller grasp of the terminology used in the present work, despite human values into the supposedly unscrupulous agenda of global several cosmetic changes that have been made. These remarks are not capitalism, the new social order created by globalisation. meant to disparage Capra’s contribution, far from it. All I want to say is that his ideas have evolved over time into a matured form. In some of his earlier works such as The Turning Point2 and The Web of Life,3 the author introduced a life-centred approach to problems Capra summarises Morowitz’s 1992 explanation of the mechanism in the social domain. In particular he studied paradigm shifts in a number underlying the formation of closed membranes or vesicles, the precursor of disciplines. The upshot of his multifaceted investigations is the to a living system. According to this theory, lipids through association emergence of what he calls the systemic view. Central to his analysis is with water molecules which have an electric polarity, can give rise to the use of a battery of concepts taken from chaos or complexity theory. membrane structures having properties similar to those of the cellular The essential point is that mathematical concepts that are found useful membranes. Membranes developed through the condensation of lipids in describing the behaviour of living systems seems to provide a suitable into droplets which in turn, under the influence of waves, spontaneously framework for understanding all types of sustainable institutions. A configured themselves into vesicles. Evolution is the trend towards satisfactory definition of life in terms of its characteristics and greater complexity resulting from the incorporation of elements such as requirements is given. The most elementary form of life is not the DNA carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorous and sulphur into the protocells or RNA or protein but the cell that contains all these ingredients. It is through processes energized by sunlight. Some molecules assumed the described as “a membrane-bounded self-generating, organizationally role of catalysts that drive certain crucial reactions. The next stage is closed metabolic network that is materially and energetically open.” The the emergence of networks of interlinked chemical reactions, a non- cell operates away from equilibrium, as long as the metabolic processes linear dynamic effect. The final step in this tortuous chain of processes outsmart the decay reactions. Technically speaking, such a phenomenon is the appearance of life through the interplay of proteins and nucleic causes the emergence of dissipative structures in the sense of Illya acids in accordance with the scripting called genetic code. The first Prigogine. protocells must have formed about 3.8 billion years ago. As already pointed out in The Web of Life, there may have been three principal A careful reading would reveal the fact that a lot of material modes of evolution: mutation, gene transfer and symbiosis, commencing introduced in the two other books listed above finds its way again into with bacteria and climaxing with humans. the present book. As an instance, we cite the following statement occurring for the first time in The Turning Point. “We live today in a The book contains an interesting discussion of the so-called globally interconnected world, in which biological, psychological, social Santiago theory of cognition developed independently by Bateson, and environmental phenomena are all interdependent.” Maturana and Varela in the 1960s and 1970s. Cognition or the process of knowing, according to them, must be identified with life. They propose He calls this view the ecological perspective. In the book The a mechanism called autopoiesis which involves the self generation of Web of Life the very same idea is recycled under the label, system living networks. The appearance of new structures is the outcome of thinking, a concept apparently borrowed from systems engineering which new connections in the autopoietic network. Again, for readers who appeared during the 1960-70 period. This branch of study, incidentally, have previously read books like The Web of Life and Uncommon attempts to predict emergent properties of a system which reside in the Wisdom4 both by the same author, there is not much stuff by way of system as a totality, and not as a mere sum of its parts. What these new arguments in this respect. Varela is given credit for the view that consciousness-study should focus on the physics, bio-chemistry and 106Omega June 2003 107 K. Babu Joseph The Unity of Patterns biology of the nervous system besides the non-linear dynamics of neural For example the global market with its sole aim of moneymaking cannot networks. Experience is an emergent phenomenon the likes of which continue indefinitely with its oppressive policies, argues the author. There are well known to arise in complex systems. The relationship between should be a profound change in values which will halt the present depletion experience and social reality may be traced in language the proto-form of natural resources, extinction of flora and fauna, and global warming. of which is gesture. Though extremely difficult to implement in one stroke, small but meaningful disturbances here and there, now and then, may trigger an The major contribution of the present work, which is well avalanche of changes engendering a new order. Recall the fall of the documented and heavily referenced, is a synthesis of three concepts Berlin Wall or the end of apartheid which were complex processes in that govern living and non-living worlds. These correspond to the study the sense of systems theory. So, taking the cue from the author, we may of form or pattern of organisation or relationships, the study of matter or believe that the situation in the world today is not totally hopeless. There material structure and the study of processes. In particular the cellular is hope round the corner. metabolism or living things is a pattern of relationships among specific chemical processes. Evolution is the mechanism of structural changes in this network pattern that leads to conscious experience and conceptual Notes thought. Why is it that there is such a manifestation? Why should there 1. Dr. K. Babu Joseph is currently the Dean in Rajagiri School of Engineering be ‘progress’ in evolution? If such processes are simply physical, the and Technology, Kakkanad , Kochi - 682 030. terrestrial environment need not be unique and they should occur throughout the universe and in sufficient abundance, but the observation 2. Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture, Flamingo Imprint 1983. First published by Simon and Schuster, U.S.A and is that life, let alone consciousness, is one of the rarest types of by Wildwood House, U.K., 1982. phenomena. There is no answer to these remarks in this thesis; however, meaning is identified as a fourth perspective having a bearing on social 3. Fritjof Capra, The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter, Flamingo interaction. Self awareness is assumed to have emerged at the zenith of Imprint,1997. First published by Harper Collins, U.K., 1996. evolution producing the capacity to retain mental images of the external 4. Fritjof Capra, Uncommon Wisdom, Simon and Schuster, U.S.A, 1988. world. The basis of social life is language in so far as it involves the communication of meaning between humans. It is argued that fundamental network pattern of organizations of living systems is extendable to the social domain. A social network is one of communication involving symbolic language, cultural constraints, power equations and so forth. Principles of non-linear dynamics or complexity theory are applicable to social networks as well as life’s networks.

Part two deals with problems of the present century such as leadership in organizations, the operational networks of global capitalism, turning point in biotechnology, environment, globalisation and alternative energy sources. The discussions throughout the text are within the systemic framework advertised by the author. The network is the new jargon and the assumption is that networking takes place not only in nature but also in society. Some of these networks are hardly sustainable. 108 Omega June 2003 109 Gimmy Akkatt Indian Astronomy in his country. Within the 20 years of his scientific endeavors, he worked out diverse instruments, constructed observatories, compiled an outstanding library, organized competent astronomers of different scientific background and sent a fact-finding scientific mission to Europe.

The Hindu and Islamic Astronomical Traditions in India

Jai Singh: A Tribute to Indian Astronomy When Jai Singh embarked on the task of reviving Indian astronomy, there were two prominent traditions of astronomy prevalent in India, - Gimmi Akkatt1 namely, the Hindu and the Islamic. Vedanga Jyotisa, written by Lagadha around 500 B.C., the only text and canon on Hindu astronomy, gives us Sawai Jai Singh and His Astronomy. By Virendra Nath Sharma. a glimpse into the Hindu astronomical tradition. The composition of a Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1995. 347 pp. series of astronomical texts or Siddhantas from around 400 A.D., made rapid growth in the astronomy. Varahamihira who summarized five Introduction siddhantas in his Pancasiddhantika, Aryabhatta, Bhaskaracarya I, Brahmagupta, Lalla, Vatesvara, Sripati, and Bhaskaracarya II are some Virendra Nath Sharma’s scholarly work Sawai Jai Singh and of the prominent figures in the history of the Hindu astronomical tradition. His Astronomy sheds light on the scientific quest and accomplishments Despite the reluctance of the Indian astronomers to accept the of an Indian mind in an age far behind the modern technological wisdom astronomical insight of the West, there were noteworthy astronomers and scientific developments. Nath attempts brilliantly to bring to light the between the period of Bhaskaracarya II and Sawai Jai Singh. long-forgotten inventions and contributions of an Indian emperor and Mahadeva compiled planetary tables (Mahadevi Sarani) in 1316 astronomer to the world of astronomy. This authentic work based on to calculate the apparent and mean positions of the planets. Makaranda many scattered resource materials in many languages like Rajasthani, wrote a text for preparing a Pancanga or almanac and Kesava II made Hindi, English, French, German, Latin, Portuguese, Persian and Sanskrit a good contribution to astronomy through his work Grahakautuka. is the outcome of the author’s quest to know why Jai Singh built Ganesa Daivajna’s Grahalaghava and Nityananda’s Siddhantasindhu instruments of stone and masonry in an age of telescope. on the subjects of astronomy were very popular. Many texts and treatises Jai Singh: The Ruler-Astronomer on instrumentation were written during the period between Bhaskaracarya II and Jai Singh. Yantraratnavali, a treatise on Sawai Jai Singh was born on the 3rd November, 1688, in a royal instruments written by Padmanabha, Yantracintamani, a treatise family in the town of Amber in the state of Rajasthan, India. He describing the quadrant by Cakradhara, Jyotimimamsa of Nilakantha learned many languages, mathematics, science, astronomy, fine arts and are only a few of them. Though the early instruments of Hindu astronomy th marital arts. When his father died, though he had to cut short his formal were rather simple, the dawn of the 18 century witnessed the education and ascend the throne of Amber on January 25, 1700, he construction of a large variety of complex instruments. A variety of acquired mastery over the subjects of astronomy and mathematics along time measuring instruments portable and small in size show that the with the administration of his empire. As a powerful ruler, he used the main concern of Hindu astronomers was with the measuring of time great wealth and resources available to him for the revival of astronomy than measuring the coordinates of stars and planets.

110Omega109 June 2003 111 Gimmy Akkatt Indian Astronomy The invasion of India around 1000 A.D., from the Northwest of the ancients, is used to measure the meridian altitude or the zenith marked the advent of Islamic art and science. Many Muslim scholars distance of an object such as the sun, moon, or a planet. In the opinion of migrated to India with the ascendancy of the Mughals and brought with Jagannatha, it was with this instrument that Jai Singh established the them astronomical literature such as Zijes, which consist of numerical obliquity of the eclipse in 1729 (p. 66). The Kapala and Jaya Prakasa tables to measure time and to compute planetary and stellar positions, Yantras are designed to indicate the local time and to measure different and the appearance of the moon and eclipses. Jai Singh’s primary source astronomical parameters, like the coordinates of a celestial body. of inspiration was the Islamic school of astronomy. Though most of the Jagannatha, in his Samrat Siddhanta gives us a detailed description of contributors of this school were followers of Islam, major contributions the construction of the instrument. Though there is a mention of Kapala were also made by Zoroastrians, Sabians, Jews and Christians. in Suryasiddhanta, the canon of Hindu astronomy, there is nothing in common with the Kapala constructed by Jai Singh. By the time Jai Singh began his scientific career, European astronomy had made remarkable advances in the theoretical and the Nadivalaya is an equinoctial sundial to indicate the apparent solar observational aspects of this branch of science. Copernicus (1473-1543) time of the place. This is an effective instrument to show the passage of in his De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium revived the Greek idea the sun across the celestial equator. Jai Singh built Digamsa yantra at of heliocentric cosmos. In 1609, Kepler (1571-1630) expounded the first Jaipur, Varanasi, and Ujjain to measure the angle of azimuth of a celestial two laws of planetary motion in The New Astronomy and the third law body. of planetary motion was published in 1619. Newton, in Principia depicted the laws of mechanics and those of universal gravitation. Jai Singh’s Observatories

A Designer of Astronomical Instruments Jai Singh constructed observatories at Delhi, Jaipur, Mathura, Varanasi and Ujjain, which were completed between 1724-1735. The Jai Singh built Dhat al-Thuqbatayn or dioptra, an instrument to Delhi observatory was constructed around 1724. Many foreign travelers determine the diameter of the orbit of the planets. In the Yantraprakara, some of whom have given us valuable information about the observatory we find a description about Dhat al-Shuhatayn, the instrument Jai Singh visited Delhi, being the imperial capital. According to the visitors to the designed to measure the zenith distance of an object such as moon. observatories like Tieffenthaler, W. Franklin, William Hunter, William Another instrument Jai Singh designed was Dhat al-Halaq or armillary Daniel, Leopold Von Orlich and Garcin de Tassy, the Delhi observatory sphere to determine the longitude of the rising point of the eclipse and had seven instruments of high precision. Along with many visitors, Claude the time elapsed since sunrise in the afternoon or remaining till sunset in Boudier, a French Jesuit who visited the observatory hailed the precision the afternoon. The Suryasiddhanta, written around 400 A.D., has already and accuracy of the measurements obtained by the instruments at the mentioned about a rudimentary armillary sphere. observatory.

The Samrat Yantra or the “Supreme Instrument” designed to Tieffenthaler speaks about the instruments that it “is astonishing measure the local time or apparent solar time (not the standard time of a and striking for the novelty and size of the instruments” (p.125). The country) is Jai Singh’s most important contribution. He designed great Samrat Yantra in this observatory is the ”largest sundial in the Sasthamsa Yantra to measure the declination, zenith, distance and the world.” Kapala is the only instrument at the Jaipur observatory to convert diameter of the sun. The Sasthamsa of Jaipur observatory is one of the graphically the horizon system of coordinates into the equatorial system most accurate instruments of Jai Singh that still maintains the precision. and vice versa. Robert Barkur who came to India in 1748, was curious The Daksinottara Bhitti Yantra, a modified version of the meridian dial about the astronomical wisdom of the Indians (p.193). Many travelers

112Omega June 2003 113 Gimmy Akkatt Indian Astronomy visited the observatories at Varanasi, Ujjain and Mathura and gave a and equipped them with masonry instruments many of which were detailed account and admiration of the observatories. designed by Jai Singh himself. Though he recommended the future kings to advance the efforts in astronomical observations, the astronomical Jai Singh’s Intellectual Pursuits pursuits at Jai Singh’s observatories came to an end with his death. He patronized scholars of Hindu, Persian, Arab and European astronomical Jai Singh had an excellent set of books on mathematics, astronomy traditions. and astrology for his library. He also wrote a zij or a set of astronomical tables, which made the computation of the occurrence of celestial Jai Singh’s European assistants on whom he depended for the phenomena easier and gave rules and regulations for calendar information of neo-astronomical advances, primarily the Jesuits, were transformations and trigonometry and spherical astronomy (p. 236). Jai threatened of inquisition if they “hold or defend the views supported by Singh has, to a certain extent, depended upon the Tabulae Astronomicae the discoveries of Kepler or Galileo” (p. 311). Jai Singh was more of De La Hire (1640-1718) to complete his work. His earnestness in interested in observing and mathematically predicting the positions of constructing observatories and the making of an excellent library on the heavenly bodies. Boudier, after visiting the Jaipur observatory, writes: astronomy, astrology, and mathematical subjects in different languages “he (Jai Singh) is the most capable astronomer in India. Jai Singh was give us a glimpse into his interest in astronomy. A large group of scholars interested in the prediction of solar eclipses, and in calculation of the with background in different astronomical traditions was participants in occultation of stars and planets by the moon” (p. 312). his astronomical endeavors. Jai Singh’s major contribution to India was Zij-I-Muhammad Because of various reasons, Jai Singh’s astronomical endeavors Shahi, a set of astronomical tables based on his observations. Despite could not usher in a new age of astronomy in India. Under the pathetic Jai Singh’s genuine interest and multifaceted efforts, he could share the condition of communications between Asia and Europe during the 17th- concerns and interests of only the medieval astronomers of Islamic period. 18th centuries, an Eastern scholar like Jai Singh could easily remain His various undertakings and astronomical ventures could not mark the ignorant of the contemporary scientific advances in Europe. The inflated beginning of a modern age in science in India. He was modern in his view of the biased and tradition-bound scholars of India, especially the approach and open to novel scientific ideas. Jai Singh realized more than Brahmins about their own science and culture made it difficult to be anyone else that fresh ideas and the spirit of Islamic and European open to anything relevant coming from the West. Their acceptance of traditions are to be infused into the astronomy of the country. Jai Singh Suryasiddhanta as the divinely inspired text on the complete astronomical was an enlightened scholar, a man far ahead of his times, in his outlook knowledge made them complacent and less curious about the scientific and endeavors. And in presenting Jai Singh and his accomplishments in developments in Europe. Brahmin pundits had their religious taboo against its comprehensiveness, the book Jai Singh and His Astronomy is also “crossing the ocean,” the violation of which would lose their caste. a testimony to the painstaking efforts by the author Virendra Nath Sharma. Besides, the Europeans especially the Jesuits, had to reject Copernicus and Kepler because of their theological beliefs and allegiance to their 1 Gimmi Akkatt did his Masters in Philosophy at Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, superiors. Pune.

A Man Ahead of His Times

The primary objective of Jai Singh’s endeavors in astronomy was to revive the existing astronomical tables. He constructed observatories

114Omega June 2003 115 Augustine Pamplany Scientific Materialism Even before venturing upon outlining the central arguments of the book, the author has made clear his perspective on the dialogue between science and religion as he states quite rightly that, “The discoveries of earlier period did not prove materialism, and one should not look to more recent discoveries to prove religion. Even if religious tenets could be How far Scientific is directly proven by science, the real grounds for religious belief are not to the Scientific Materialism? be found in telescopes or test tubes. Faith does not need to wait upon the latest laboratory research. What the debate is all about … is not proof but credibility” (p. 2). This kind of discernment is quite ingenious in 1 - Augustine Pamplany science-religion enterprises.

It is the major contention of the author that what is at war with Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. By Stephen M. Barr. Notre religion is not science itself, but the traditional false philosophy termed Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003. xii + 312 pp. as scientific materialism. Although scientific materialism is much debated an issue, Barr finds a new element necessitating a fresh look at scientific While the systematic thought, as physicist Bernard Despagnat materialism. According to Barr, paradoxically, the discoveries coming had observed, had been gravely hampered by an ideal of purity whereby from the study of the material world itself, have given fresh reasons to each specialist looked at reality solely through the spectacles of one’s disbelieve that matter is the only reality. Barr begins with an adequate own specialization, it was the salient feature of the postmodern pursuit sketch of the materialist creed itself. Barr sees at least three highly after truth that it showed an unprecedented level of systematic inter- interwoven strands in the materialist creed. In its crudest form it is a disciplinary attention. But a critical observation may suggest that this prejudice which looks upon all religion as a matter of primitive superstition. interdisciplinary attention, especially in the context of science and religion, At best it is a charming tale and at worst a dangerous form of at least in some cases, fall short of an adequate mastery of either the obscurantism which breeds fanaticism and intolerance. The philosophical scientific foundation or of the religious traditions under consideration version of materialism is epistemological in its critique of religion owing depending on the background of the author. to the non-testability of the religious statements. It is his concluding finding of the analysis of the materialist creed that the “materialist …is in a The most remarkable feature of Stephen Barr’s Modern Physics strait jacket of his own divising. Nothing is allowed by him to be beyond and Ancient Faith is the skillful mastery of both physics and theology explanation in terms of matter and the mathematical laws that it obeys. and the balanced presentation of both disciplines in clear and logical If therefore he comes across some phenomenon that is hard to account arguments. The 312 pages long book has a balanced distribution and for in materialist terms, he often ends up by denying its very existence. inter-placement of the scientific and religious arguments throughout, For instance, many materialist philosophers deny that there really is any which is rarely found in science-religion literature. The substantively such thing as subjective experience. Philosophers call this view critical level at which the dialogue between science and religion takes ‘eliminativism’” (p. 17). place from the viewpoints of the origin, design, human and the mind is yet another scholarly beauty to the Modern Physics and Ancient Faith Having made a most up-to-date discussion of the Big Bang, Barr already resplendent with the scientific and theological landscape outlined takes the discussion one step ahead of the usual debates with the question, in it. “What if the Big Bang wan not the Beginning?” Convincingly, Barr argues that the current trend in the scientific scenario itself is unlike the 116Omega June 2003 117 Augustine Pamplany Scientific Materialism traditional beliefs that the progress of knowledge has revealed a world sciences. Barr’s re-conceptualization of mind entails a reinterpretation that ever more conforms to the expectations of materialists and rightly of the quantum theory as well. and boldly Barr dares to quote a contemporary theologian Cardinal Ratzinger. Barr finds the reconciliation between modern physics and As the arguments of the book come to its closure, the reader will ancient faith regarding the origins that God can be viewed upon not only be really inspired to notice that Barr not only succeeds in his central as a First Cause but also a continuing cause. contention but also opens up the scope for the eradication of many such unscientifically postulated scientific arguments for materialist creeds. In the third part of the book Barr’s affection shifts from what the While the substantive inter-sectioning of science and religion is progressing universe came from to what it is like. The argument from design is the today in the world at large, path-clearing works, as the one by Barr, most solid foundation for such an investigation. The methodic caution of would really add an extra impetus to the already vigilant momentum. Barr is such that he presents the opponent’s views as well, which is The allusion “ancient faith” in the title of the book may not be that followed by an authoritative counter attack on the central pillars of the overbearing and universal given the content of the book. For the oriental opponent’s position. The same suit of methodic pattern also resembles ears, ancient faith connotes more the Eastern religious philosophies of where the objections to anthropic coincidences are answered with strong Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. The title may conclusively convey itself to the scientific and philosophical contentions. The new formulations of the Western audience and it can well meet the expectations of the reader as design argument like in science “order comes from order” and “order the religious defense of the book is purely of the Western Christianity. comes from greater order,” etc, are suggestive enough to answer the However it may be slightly misleading to the Eastern mind-set which by attack on the argument from design. Barr’s re-conceptualization of the “ancient faith” is naturally tuned to more ancient faith than that of laws of nature as “simply patterns which we discovered empirically Christianity. with world around us, but which could have been otherwise” (p.77) is a good example of the many sublime elements of originality and insightful 1 Augustine Pamplany is presently the director of the Institute of Science and revisions in Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Religion at Little Flower Seminary, Aluva.

The central materialist claim of the progressive ‘dethronement’ or marginalization of man by scientific discovery is critically examined in the fourth part of the book under the section ‘Man’s place in the Cosmos’. Barr has not only got his question perfectly right but also anticipates the hermeneutical bias of the materialists as he asks, “whether it (materialist claim) is justified by a dispassionate examination of the scientific data, or is based on their own philosophical pre-conceptions” (p.116).

The viewpoints of an accomplished physicist reach its philosophical maturation in the fifth and final part of the book as Barr discusses “What is Man?” from the scientific, philosophical and theological viewpoints which sends aching signals to the materialist ideology. The scientific myth of the mechanical and physical reductionism of humans are shown to be no more scientific with strong and diverse arguments from a variety of sources varying from anthropology and quantum physics to the mental 118 Omega June 2003 119 National Conference on Biotech Revolution Challenges to Society, Religion & Ethics on September 27 - 28, 2003 Omega at Indian Journal of Science and Religion ASHIRBHAVAN, KOCHI. I JSR Topics of Papers  Biotechnology & Society  Bioethics SUBSCRIPTION RATES  Human Genome Project  Consciousness Genetics & India Foreign  Stem Cell Research Evolutionary Biology 1 Year Rs. 100.00 $ 30.00 € 30.00  Biotechnology & Biotheology  Genetics & Environment 3 Years Rs. 250.00 $ 80.00 € 80.00 SPEAKERS  Dr. G. M. Nair • Subcription to be paid by Money Order, Demand Draft or Cheque. (Director, Tropical Botanical Garden & Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram) • Make Cheque / DD / MO payable to “Manager, Omega.”  Dr. Job Kozhamthadam • Add Rs. 15/- for outstation cheques (in India). (Member, Indian National Commission for the History of Science, Indian National Science Academy) • Subscription could begin with any number.  Dr. C. S. Paulose (Department of Biotechnology, Cochin University of Science & Technology) All Correspondence to :  Dr. Joseph Padayatti (Rtd. Professor of Biotechnology, Managing Editor, Indian National Science Academy, Bangalore) Omega, Little Flower Seminary,  Dr. Mathew Maleparambil Aluva - 683 101, Kerala, India. (Principal, St. Thomas College, Pala) E-mail: [email protected]  Dr. John Britto (Recipient, Young Scientist Award, Tamil Nadu State) Typeset and Printed at : Space Channel, Aluva. —— Contact Address —— Director, Institute of Science & Religion, Published by : Little Flower Seminary, Aluva - 683 101, Kerala, India. Augustine Pamplany, Ph: 0484 - 2623437, 2626204. E-mail: [email protected] for the Institute of Science and Religion, Little Flower Seminary, Aluva. N.B.: Interested persons preferably with background in science are welcome to participate on free registration.