Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Mr. H.S.

Ahmad

RELIGION AND SCIENCE:


CONFLICTS
Mr. Halim Ahamad, HOD, Dept of Physics, SFS College, Nagpur

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."


—Albert Einstein

Religion is spiritual belief. It starts from general principles and


values, usually recorded in a book or books, which is then applied to
particular facts. In old times, people were taught to just accept the truth
of their professed beliefs without question, whether verifiable by science
or otherwise. If anyone asserted that the beliefs differed from scientific
principle or were illogical, the person was treated as atheist. In modern
times there is a much greater tendency to question certain spiritual
beliefs.
Science on the other hand is the systematic observation of natural
events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to
formulate laws and principles based on these facts. These facts are then
the backbone of the technological progress. In the recent time the
technology have become so advanced that you can see and talk with a
people thousands of kilometers away with the mobile and satellite
phone technology , diseases can be cured with full satisfaction due to
the advances in medical sciences and technology.
A question is often raised by some extroverts, is this technological
progress in tune with the religion or it is demoralizing it. Though many
scientists, Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg had a passionate
interest in religious questions, science itself has always kept at arm's
length from religion.
With different religion there are different views and different faiths
.However basic faiths are almost similar in all religions. A major source
of conflict and disunity in the world today is the widespread opinion that
there is some basic opposition between science and religion, that
scientific truth contradicts religion on some points or other and one must

1
choose between being a religious person, a believer in God, or a
scientist, a follower of reason.
More recently, a Nature survey of American scientists found about
40 percent of them to be religious. How do these scientists patch up their
understanding of the physical world -- of evolution, for example -- with
their religious beliefs?
It will be wise to say religion and science are, in fact,
complementary. Religion and science are the two wings upon which
man's intellect can soar into the heights, with which the human spirit can
progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try
to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the
dilemma of fallacy, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science
alone he would also make no steps forward, but fall into the miserable
quagmire of materialism.
The problem is that while science has always taken truth seriously,
it has traditionally left values of beauty and goodness pretty much
untouched.
The most controversial biologist Darwin, to whom this debate
about religion and science is credited, did not use the theory of evolution
to promote atheism and materialism. He recognized the responsibility
and permissible limits of science, including that it could not resolve, or
even specify, the existence or character of God, the ultimate meaning of
life, the proper fundamentals of morality, or any other spiritual question.
He never argued that the fact of fruition implied the non-existence of a
divinity or spiritual forces. Ask ourselves whether we have significantly
misconstrued his views in the run to adopt materialistic explanations for
all things. In the need to dispense with a literal view of certain old
religious teachings that are no longer logically supportable, such as an
anthropomorphic concept of the deity, have we “thrown the baby out
with the bath water”?
In more contemporary times, as the wonders of the universe
have been more and more uncovered by science, and the unbelievable
beauty, complication and interrelationship of all parts of the universe
realized, from the macro to the micro levels. Some prominent scientists
have begun to express their views in a manner of more and more
Mr. H.S. Ahmad
accommodating to the divine realm. The scientific evidence points
reasonably conclusively to a universe of grand integrated design, rather
than a disorganized universe without any meaning or direction other than
as provided by objective scientific laws. It is hard to simply describe it
as something that just is, without reflecting on its deeper significance.
The great man Einstein himself recognized that there must be
more to the universe than just objective scientific laws, and that physical
existence disclosed a mystery, indicating some greater devout power or
intelligence at work. He emphasized the dangers of allowing science to
run free without appropriate ethical restraints in the interests of all
civilization, stating: “Mystical knowledge can never be obtained just by
observation, but only by full participation with one’s own being”.
Many religious teaching which are at variance with science. The prime
reason is human imaginations and intervention undeserving of
acceptance. Born of the unawareness of man or the antithesis and
opposite of knowledge is superstition.
Many older beliefs have had to be discarded under the threat of
being relegated to mere superstition or mythology. Alternatively, the
literal approach to spiritual teachings has increasingly come under
attack by some moderate theologists, academics and others, sometimes
forcing a recognition by believers that the teachings may be intended to
be metaphoric in nature rather than literally true.
If we say that religion is opposed to science, we lack knowledge of
either true science or true religion; for both are founded upon the
premises and conclusions of reason, and both must bear its test. Much
of the difficulty in applying science to the development today has come
from the failure to link science to the basic spiritual and moral values
upon which each society is built.