SCIENCE-RELIGION: ISSUES IN
TRANS-DISCILIPNARY METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
Prof. Ghulam Qasim Marwat
Before turning to discussion on the
issues in trans-disciplinary methodological approach in
science and religion we need to review some basic
principles of the accumulation of human knowledge. Man
as cognitive animal is seeking to know and understand
the empirical world as it exists. Seeking knowledge is
in his nature. Knowledge refers to an acquaintance with
facts, observation, truth and ultimate reality, beauty,
results or conclusions and understanding. There are many
ways of categorizing human knowledge. From the stand
point of an inquiry the most relevant way is to the
method through which it is obtained. Helne (1969) has
identified five ways of knowing; the humanistic,
scientific, the philosophical, the mathematical and the
theological. He also says that, “the five ways of
knowing are irreducibly different, that they therefore
give rise to formally different groups of disciplines”.1
Boulding (1978) suggests there are three kinds of
knowledge; folk knowledge, literary knowledge and
scientific knowledge.2 As a method of
approach every category of human knowledge seeks to
understand and explain the world in its own peculiar
way.
Religion views the world through
the opaque prism of faith or belief and explains it in
the light of revealed Truth. Revelation, intuition,
dreams, rituals and holy rites are the central
instruments of religious method of approach which gives
meaning and explanation to what is observed in the
world.
Philosophy views the universe
through the angles of reason and explains it in the
light of arguments.
Literature views the phenomenal
world through the stretch of imagination and abstraction
which is not subject to normal checks and tests but
survives because of symbolic reality.
Folk knowledge is acquired from day
to day experience and tradition. It may or may not be
based on some kind of testing either in personal
experience or in the experience of others. Ancient world
presents us numerous such instances of inventions
fathered by necessity and mothered by experience.3
Science as a method of approach
views the world from a stand point of fact and seeks to
explain the phenomena through the instruments of
theorization, hypothesization, experimentation and
observation. It has achieved its extra-ordinary success
by combining ‘testing’ which is the characteristic of
folk knowledge with ‘theorizing’ which is the
characteristic of literary knowledge.4
RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS METHOD
Religion is perhaps the most early
and primitive source of knowledge. It is defined as
belief in, worship of or obedience to a supernatural
power or powers considered to be Divine or to have a
control over human destiny.5 The essence of
religion is belief and faith. Faith is a strong and
unshakable belief in something especially without proof
or evidence. Belief is the acceptance of something as
true or real without any proof. Faith means abandoning
all trust in one’s own resources, casting one’s self
unreservedly on the mercy of God. Faith implies complete
reliance on God and full obedience to God.6
Faith is the conviction of things not seen and the
assurance of things hoped for. A believer retains a firm
hold on the promises of God without any outward
evidence. In fact a believer walks by faith and not by
sight. So, the blind acceptance of things is the essence
of faith and belief. The more blind and darker it is,
the more reliable, valued and stronger it is. The
cardinal principles of religion as a method of approach
to the empirical world are:7
- Belief in Supreme Being
- Worship
- Pursuit of pious and virtuous
life
- Need of repentance of sin and
- The notion of reward and
punishment in the life hereafter.
Religion views and
understands the world through the spectrum of these
beliefs, principles and faith and explains the mysteries
of existence. The main instruments of acquiring
knowledge and explaining reality in religious method are
Divine revelation, intuition, dreams, vision of
supernatural evidences, inner light and other extra
sensory sources of information. The devotees of
religions believe that the knowledge of Ultimate Reality
or Truth can only be obtained through Divine revelations
and inner spiritual or mystical experience.
Preaching, persuasion
and conversion is the hallmark of religion as a method
of approach. Knowledge is sacrosanct and tends to get
monopolized by clergy or priesthood as private property.
The practitioners of religious method of approach keep
mysteries to themselves as repositories of sacred
knowledge in shape of rituals and never allow the common
man to enter the realm of ‘Truth’. The distinction
between the process of discovery and the demonstration
of discovery has been constantly missing in the
theological method of approach. They always thrive on
dumb founded, unquestioning and highly motivated captive
audience who is indoctrinated in blind submissions.
The religious method of approach
seeks to take a holistic view of the universe. It is
always in search of key to universe, ignoring the bit of
it. The religious method of approach leaves no room for
doubts, suspicions, skepticism and questions seeking
answers. There is no room for principles of cause and
effect. Divine will is rather a moving spirit behind the
movement of universe.8
SCIENCE
AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Science is often
conceived as a body of knowledge. Reflection, however,
leads us to the conclusion that this cannot be its true
nature. It is in fact not a static body of knowledge but
rather an active process that can be followed through
the ages. By derivation ‘scientific’ implies knowledge
making, and no body of doctrines which is not ‘growing’,
which is not actually in the ‘making’ can long retain
the attributes of science. History has repeatedly shown
that a body of scientific knowledge that ceases to
develop soon ceases to be science at all. The science of
one age has often become the nonsense of the next.9
So science can be
defined as a systematic study of the nature and
behaviour of the material and physical universe based on
observation, experiment and measurement.
It is a method of
approach to the entire empirical world…. it is
furthermore an approach which does not aim at
‘persuasion’, ‘preaching’, ‘conversion’ or reaching at
‘Ultimate Reality’. It seeks to understand things in the
day light of reason and rationality. It believes in open
and free criticism. Without scrutiny and earnest
criticism the scientist cannot presume with authority.10
In other words scientific approach is the ultimate
democratic approach. It assumes that every one has right
to answers. The scientists are obligated to transmit
their knowledge clearly and often to spell out its
implications and method so that the doubter can follow
step by step and arrive at his own conclusion in the
search of reality.
Science is public in nature and avoids privacy
and secrecy. It is communistic in nature which in this
context refers to the obligation of scientist to
communicate their findings to each other and to
interested people generally, that knowledge is not the
property of the individual or nation. Its universalism
refers to the idea that scientific truths transcend the
person, time or location of their discovery. Its
attribute of organized skepticism is the requirement
that scientists do not accept other people’s finding on
faith, but rather check and recheck them before
certifying them as accurate statement of what seems to
be.
The universe presents
an infinite variety of phenomena to be studied, but
science restricts itself to particulars and attempts to
investigate specific section or aspect of reality. Its
approach is particularistic and inductive. Science does
not describe the world as a whole with holistic view,
but only a bit of it at a time, each branch of science
choosing its own bit. Scientific attitude is more than
dispassionate, objective and unbiased devotion to
collection of facts. Scientist avoids personal and
emotional interpretation. He is not debater taking
issues with a side. A scientist has a right to his
opinion but he has no right to be wrong in his facts.
Science itself rests upon a series
of postulates or assumptions which are fundamentally
unproved and un-provable. We can assert that these
postulates are true; we can believe them; but we cannot
prove them. These assumptions deal with the validity of
human knowledge. Here are some of these non-scientific
bases of science:11
- That the world does exist
- That we can know the world
- That we can know the world
through our senses
- That the principle of cause
and effect is working in the system of universe.
These statements are not provable
but they are ‘True’ because we wish them to be true. In
the backdrop of these assumptions science prosecutes its
enquiries and explorations through a well defined way
which is known as scientific method.
The unity of all sciences consists
in their method and not in material alone. A man who
classifies facts, who establishes relationship between
facts and derives meaning is applying scientific method
and is a man of science. The facts may belong to any
aspect of natural or social phenomena. It is not the
facts themselves that make a science, but the method by
which they are dealt with. Scientific method begins and
ends with observation which proceeds from facts and
ultimately ends on facts. The process of scientific
method involves the following steps which need separate
elaboration:
- Fact
- Theorization
- Hypothesization
- Experimentation
- Demonstration/observation.
1.
FACT
The cardinal essence of
science is fact and scientific method begins and ends
with fact. The fact is an empirically verifiable
observation which is thought to be definite, certain,
without question and its meaning to be self evident.12
Facts are seen within a framework rather than in
isolated fashion. They are dependent upon the
theoretical framework for their meaning. Facts or
empirically verifiable observations could never have
produced modern science if they had been gathered at
random. The systematization of facts always leads to
scientific exploration. Facts initiate new theories as
theories are not mere speculations but are assumptions
based on facts. Facts also lead to rejection and
reformulation of existing theories. Existing theories
are redefined or clarified in the light of facts.13
2. THEORY
Basic to modern science
is an intricate relationship between theory and fact.
Theory refers to the relationship between facts, or to
the ordering of them in some systematic and meaningful
way. It is a proposition which is based on facts but not
yet proved. Scientific theory is thought to be merely
the summation of facts which have been accumulated upon
a given subject. The development of science can be
considered as a constant interplay between theory and
fact. It depends upon continuous stimulation of fact by
theory and theory by fact. Theory gives order, meaning
and systematic organization to facts.14 A
major function of theoretical system is that it narrows
the range of facts to be studied. Without proper
theoretical framework facts cannot be explained and
understood. Theory gives orientation to facts. It helps
in conceptualization, classification and summarization
of facts. Theory predicts new facts and points to gaps
in our knowledge. Scientific facts and theories are
always put to a test to determine their validity.
Science does not accept any statement without empirical
verification due to its organized skepticism.
3. HYPOTHESIZATION
Every theoretical framework further
needs systematic and objective analysis as facts are
dependent upon theoretical framework for their meaning.
For this purpose we need to ask questions within the
parameters of theory. When facts are assembled,
systematically ordered and seen in a meaningful
relationship, they constitute theory. The theory is not
speculation but is built upon facts. Now the various
facts in theory may be logically analysed and
relationships other than those stated in theory can be
deduced. The formulation of deduction in form of
questions within theoretical framework constitutes a
hypothesis; if verified it becomes a part of future
theoretical construction. It is thus clear that the
relation between theory and hypothesis is very close
indeed. In practice theory is an elaborate hypothesis
which deals with more types of facts than does the
simple hypothesis. The distinction between them cannot
be clearly defined.15 While it is true that
the two cannot be satisfactorily separated, it is useful
to think of them as two aspects of the way through which
science adds to knowledge. Thus a theory states a
logical relationship between facts. From this theory
other propositions can be deduced that should be true,
if first relationship holds. These deduced propositions
are hypotheses. Hypothesis looks forward. It is a
proposition which can be put to a test to determine its
validity. It may seem contrary to, or in accord with
common sense. It may prove to be correct or incorrect.
In any event, however, it leads to empirical test.
Whatever the out come, the hypothesis is a question put
in such a way that an answer of some kind can be
forthcoming. It is an example of the organized
skepticism of science, the refusal to accept any
statement without empirical verification.
Hypothesis is the necessary link
between theory and investigation which leads to the
discovery and addition to knowledge.16 Every
worthwhile theory, then, permits the formulation of
additional hypothesis. These, when tested, are either
proved or disproved and in turn constitute further tests
of the original theory. In either case hypothesis may be
of use to existing theory and may make possible the
formulation of still other hypotheses. The formulation
of useful hypothesis is one of the most difficult steps
in scientific method.
Hypothesis must be conceptually
clear and should have empirical referent. It must be
specific and should be relevant to available techniques.
The hypothesis must stay in and related to the body of
theory.17
5. EXPERIMENTAION AND OBSERVATION
Every testable and usable
hypothesis must ultimately lead to the subsequent step
in the prosecution of scientific method. Science
believes in demonstration and is emphasizing on
empirical observation. Science assumes that through our
various sense organs aided by extension through such
devices like telescope, microscope etc. we can know the
world. It depends upon the agreement of sense perception
for verification of its observation. Objectivity is the
hallmark of scientific endeavours. Experimentation,
demonstration and observation involve accuracy,
precision, reliability and measurement of the variables
in a thorough and perfect manner without which
objectivity cannot be ensured.
CONVERGENT AND
DIVERGENT ASPECTS OF TRANS-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH IN
SCIENCE-RELIGION RELATIONSHIP
After discussing the scientific and
religious methods with their respective features and
characteristics, we need to identify the convergent and
divergent aspects of methodologies through which science
and religion seek to explain and understand their
respective issues. Though science and religion stand
poles apart from each other with all contradictions and
antagonism in their relationship, yet common areas of
harmony and understanding can be explored to bring about
meaningful dialogue and discourse between the two to
facilitate fruitful interaction in these two important
domains of human intellect. It is, therefore, not out of
place to identify convergence and divergence in the
aspects of religious and scientific methods.
CONVERGENCE
-
Both are based on unproved
assumptions and non-scientific foundations.
-
Both speculate and take to
abstraction. When a religious man speculates he
produces theology, when a man of science speculates
he produces theory.
-
Both agree that knowledge is
superior to ignorance. Religion takes it as a virtue
and science considers it a source of power.
-
Both seek to explain the nature
of man, but one in terms of matter, the other in
terms of soul and spirit.
-
Both profess honesty and
willingness to admit being wrong. Honesty is a deed
of science and a creed of religion.
-
Both are seeking to solve human
problems. Science is seeking to ensure freedom from
wants; religion is seeking to ensure freedom from
fear.
-
Both have process of
experimentation. Religion seeks to experience
Reality through Inner experience while science seeks
to understand fact through laboratory
experimentation and demonstration.
-
Science and religion are
complementary and reinforcing each other at the
level of results but differ at the level of methods.
-
Both science and religion are
strangers and unable to talk and interact with each
other. Both, however, can talk to and through
philosophy.
DIVERGENCE
1.
Religion is based on the foundation of
faith. Science is based on the foundation of fact.
2.
Religion walks with faith; science walks
with fact.
3.
Religion is deductive while science is
inductive in approach.
4.
Religion is holistic while science is
particularistic.
5.
Religion is an end in itself; science is
mean to an end.
6.
Religion is focused on what goals should
be achieved; science is focused on how to achieve goals.
7.
Religion gives theo-centric view of the
universe; science gives anthropo-centric view of the
universe.
8.
Religious/spiritual experience cannot be
demonstrated, controlled and repeated; scientific
experience is demonstrable, controlled and can be
repeated any time.
9.
Religious values are qualified and can be
measured in terms of divine time and celestial space;
scientific values are quantified and can be measured in
terms of serial time and terrestrial space.
10.
Religion is dogmatic in practice; science
never develops dogma.
11.
Religion is seeking to reach at ultimate
Reality; science is seeking to collect fact.
12.
Religion is seeking Reality through
extra-sensory perception and sources like revelation,
intuition, dreams, visions and inner light; science is
seeking facts only and only through the agreement of
sense perception.
CONCLUSION
A detailed discussion on
trans-disciplinary methodological issues in
science-religion relationship reveals that science and
religion emanate from two different intellectual and
cognitive domains governing human life and conduct.
Their approaches to information and knowledge are
different. Religion and science give different world
views and establish diametrically different thought
systems which give totally different meaning to human
life and natural phenomenon. But it is also fact that
both have to focus on the affairs of human life and
natural phenomenon and to that extent both have to
converge their areas of interest. So, the relationship
between science and religion has to seek unity in
diversity, harmony in contradictions and convergence in
divergence. The methodological diversity, of course, is
very sharp in science-religion relationship but there
can be a lot of space for coexistence and harmony
between the two which can be positively harnessed in the
service of universal good of humanity and nature.
REFERENCES AND END NOTES
1.
Robert J.
Henle, “Science and the Humanities” in Alden L. Fisher
and George B. Murray (eds),
Philosophy and
Science as a Mode of Knowing (New York: n.p., 1969),
p. 11.
2.
Kenneth E.
Boulding, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1956), p. 171.
3.
History of Scientific Ideas,
p.4.
4.
Boulding,
p. 172.
5.
Collins English Dictionary.
6.
New Bible Dictionary.
7.
New Encyclopedia Britannica,
vol. 26, p. 568.
a.
B. Wolf,
Conservatism,
Radicalism and Scientific Method (New York:
Macmillan Co., 1923), p. 203.
8.
History of Scientific Ideas,
p. 1.
9.
Pauline V.
Young, Scientific
Social Survey and Research (Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle
Co., 1960), p. 110.
10.
William J.
Good and P.K Hatt,
Methods in Social Research (Singapore: McGraw Hill,
1952), p. 7.
11.
Ibid., p.
20.
12.
Ibid., p.
2.
13.
Ibid., p.
9.
14.
Ibid., p.
26.
15.
Ibid., p.
57.
16.
Ibid., p.
68.
