|Spiral galaxy in Coma Cluster [Courtesy NASA]||Sistine Chapel #1 [courtesy Wikimedia]|
The Search for Harmony: A Summary Essay
11 March 2018 (c) 2018
IntroductionThe progress of modern science over the past few decades is nothing short of astounding. Just in the past 50 years, science has unlocked the code of life and read the complete DNA of many organisms (including humans), traced the history of the known universe back to nearly the big bang, and discovered a set of mathematical laws that explain, at a fundamental level, virtually all physical phenomena with remarkable precision. Intriguing new discoveries, such as the detection of the Higgs boson and extraterrestrial earth-like planets, are announced on almost a daily basis, as can be seen by scanning websites such as Scientific American and New Scientist.
From a completely practical point of view, science, and the rigorous application of the scientific method, lies at the foundation of our modern technological world. Science underlies automotive and airline travel, computers and smartphones, agricultural and food products, and, of course, modern medicine, which has extended life expectancy far beyond that of previous generations. The miracles of modern science are all around us, obvious for everyone to see. Thus any movement that attempts to oppose the progress of modern science is digging a pit for itself.
On the other hand, religion plays a similarly important foundation in the lives of the vast majority of people worldwide. According to a recent study, over 92% of Americans (including, amusingly enough, 21% of self-described atheists and 55% of self-described agnostics) affirm some belief in God. What's more, 39% of Americans (including 37% of atheists and 48% of agnostics -- more than the population at large) say that they experience a "deep sense of wonder about the universe" on at least a weekly basis [Pew2008]. One scientific colleague of the present author, which colleague personally hasn't practiced conventional religion for many years, nonetheless acknowledged that with regards to the magnificence of the universe and the elegance of natural laws, he is a "devoted worshipper."
Religion has indisputably inspired some of the world's greatest art and literature. Michelangelo's "The Creation" painting in the Vatican's Sistine Chapel is widely regarded as the world's greatest single work of art. The Book of Job's search for meaning in suffering is one of the greatest works of world literature [Norwegian2011]. Religious motifs pervade the works of Shakespeare. Johann Sebastian Bach's Mass in B-Minor is one of the greatest works of music [Tommasini2011]. Victor Hugo's intensely religious Les Miserables is one of the greatest novels, and is the basis for London's longest-running musical theater production [LesMiserables2011b]. Even more importantly, religion has played an enormous role worldwide as a governor of charity and moral conduct through the ages. As historians Will and Ariel Durant explained, "Even the skeptical historian develops a humble respect for religion, since he sees it functioning, and seemingly indispensable, in every land and age. ... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion." [Durant1968, pg. 43, 51]. Thus any movement that attempts to oppose modern humanistic religion is digging a pit for itself.
One would think that there is substantial basis for harmony science and religion. After all, science has in the past few decades uncovered a world that is far vaster and more awe-inspiring than ever imagined before, and has uncovered a set of elegant natural laws that govern creation, resonating with the notion of a cosmic lawgiver in Judeo-Christian religion. How could one ask for more? Also, from a fundamental point of view, science cannot possibly conflict with religion. As the U.S. National Academy of Science explains [NAS2008, pg. 12]:
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. ... Religious faith, in contrast, ... typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.
The "war" between science and religionNonetheless, a battle is being waged between certain groups loosely representing "science" and "religion." The "science" camp in this war (a relatively small group of highly vocal writers) attacks not just religious fundamentalists, but anyone who takes religion seriously, including, for example, numerous prominent scientists who argue for a harmonious middle ground. One of the "science" camp writers, in a single breathtaking sentence, decried religion as "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." (did he leave anything out?) [Hitchens2007, pg. 56]. In a similar vein, another writer recently asked us to imagine "a world with no religion ... no suicide bombers, no 9/11, ... no persecution of Jews as 'Christ killers,' ... no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money." [Dawkins2006, pg. 23-24].
Many in the "religion" camp in this war (also a relatively small group of highly vocal writers), in keeping with an inflexible belief that the Bible is complete and without error, insist that God created the earth (or even the entire universe), complete as it now stands, just a few thousand years ago. Others in this camp are somewhat more accepting of modern scientific findings, but still agree that science is the "enemy," utterly incompatible with religion, and therefore one must choose religion or science, but definitely not both. These writers often blame scientists for the moral decline of society and accuse scientists of deliberately hiding the "truth." One "religion" camp writer, in a single breathtaking sentence, blamed science for "racism, fascism, Marxism, imperialism, ... Freudianism, promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality [and] drug use" (did he leave anything out?) [Morris1997].
So what are we to make of this "war"? Are all scientists hell-bent on destroying religion? Are all religious believers ignorant of modern science? Is it necessary to "check [your] brains at the church-house door," as one writer claimed? [Provine1988].
Prominent scientists and theologians on the "war"First of all, it is important to recognize that numerous leading scientists and theologians have publicly declared the pointlessness of a war between science and religion. Here are just a few examples:
- Francisco J. Ayala (American biologist, Dominican Priest and winner of the Templeton Prize) [Ayala2007, pg. 174]: "Scientific knowledge cannot contradict religious beliefs, because science has nothing definitive to say for or against religious inspiration, religious realities, or religious values."
- Francis Collins (Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, former Director of the Human Genome Project, and an evangelical Christian) [Collins2006, pg. 6]: "In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science's domain is to explore nature. God's domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science."
- Stephen Jay Gould (prominent paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, deceased 2002) [Gould1999, pg. 4-5]: "Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values -- subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."
- Kenneth Miller (prominent biologist, author and a Roman Catholic) [Miller2007]: "I think that faith and reason are both gifts from God. And if God is real, then faith and reason should complement each other rather than be in conflict. ... I think by revealing a world that is infinitely more complex and infinitely more varied and creative than we had ever believed before, in a way it deepens our faith and our appreciation for the author of that nature, the author of that physical universe. And to people of faith, that author is God."
- John Polkinghorne (British theologian, physicist and Anglican Priest) [Polkinghorne1998, pg. 99-100]: "Science and theology ... share one fundamental aim which will always make them worthy of the attention of those imbued with intellectual integrity and the desire to understand: in their different ways and in their different domains, each is concerned with the search for truth. In itself, that is sufficient to guarantee that there will continue to be a fruitful developing dialogue between them."
- Pope John Paul II [Pope1986]: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe."
The "new atheism"As mentioned above, in the past few years several prominent scholars, collectively known as the "new atheists," have attacked a broad range of religious beliefs as being incoherent and even harmful, using language that is significantly more outspoken and acerbic than in years past.
Many of their criticisms must be acknowledged. There are indeed many translation errors, internal discrepancies and historical difficulties in the Bible (see also Bible-literal). Numerous wars throughout history have been fought in the name of religion (although some of the worst wars, including WWI and WWII, were fought on entirely secular grounds). Many of the writings on scientific topics by fundamentalists are clearly mistaken (see also the next section and Creationism). And even on topics such as social morality, science can provide productive insights that should be considered. But the writings of the "new atheists" provide relatively few new insights on these topics. Instead, some of the best scholarship on the above topics comes from the religious studies field and from scientists who are sympathetic to, or at least noncombative towards, religious beliefs and values.
Scholars who have analyzed the writings of the "new atheists" have identified serious flaws in their work. For one thing, their "scientific" arguments against God do not have any credibility, since science, by its very definition as noted above, cannot say anything one way or the other about the existence or nature of a supreme being. Another weakness is that the "new atheist" scholars presume that the empirical world studied by modern science comprises all of truth and reality. It may be easy to dismiss religion from this worldview, but it is just as easy to dismiss art, literature, music, philosophy, ethics and many other fields (for that matter, these writers' own worldview would have to be questioned, since, strictly speaking, it cannot be derived from experimental science). If nothing else, the blustery style of these writers, painting a broad spectrum of opponents with the same black brush, is unbecoming of serious scholarship. If any of these writers were to use this sort of polemic rhetoric in a scientific paper, it would be immediately rejected for that reason alone.
Published reviews of the "new atheist" writings by prominent scholars in the religious studies field have been generally rather negative. Karen Armstrong, for instance, wrote [Armstrong2009, pg. 303-305]:
Like all religious fundamentalists, the new atheists believe that they alone are in possession of truth; like Christian fundamentalists, they read scripture in an entirely literal manner and seem never to have heard of the long tradition of allegoric or Talmudic interpretation or indeed of the Higher Criticism. ... This type of reductionism is characteristic of the fundamentalist mentality. ... [One of the atheist writers] is also wrong to claim that God is a scientific hypothesis, that is, a conceptual framework for bringing intelligibility to a series of experiments and observations. It was only in the modern period that theologians started to treat God as a scientific explanation and in the process produced an idolatrous God concept.
Even more importantly, the atheist literature typically ignores the hugely important charitable services of modern religion. As Nicholas Kristof writes [Kristof2006]:
Every time I travel in the poorest parts of Africa, I see missionary hospitals that are the only source of assistance to desperate people. God may not help amputees sprout new limbs, but churches do galvanize their members to support soup kitchens, homeless shelters and clinics that otherwise would not exist. Religious constituencies have pushed for more action on AIDS, malaria, sex trafficking and Darfur's genocide, and believers often give large proportions of their incomes to charities that are a lifeline to the neediest.
In any event, the writings of the "new atheists" are, for the most part, not published in peer-reviewed journals in the religious studies field, and so cannot be taken seriously by professional scholars. For further discussion, see Atheists and Peer review.
Creationism and intelligent design"Creationism," as the term is used here, refers to the movement whose writers who hold that the earth and all of its life (or even the entire universe) was created in essentially its present form just a few thousand years ago, in accordance with a highly literal reading of scripture, and rejecting a broad range of modern scientific thought (see Creationism). Creationism is quite popular: a 2014 Gallup poll found that 42% of Americans believe that "God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years." [Newport2014]. In recent years, a movement known as "intelligent design" (see Intelligent design) has arisen which generally accepts the old-earth worldview of modern science, but still rejects the notion that the creation could have proceeded via natural processes. Most creationists and intelligent design writers are not content to simply state their beliefs. Instead, they argue that there is solid evidence that proves that science is wrong and they are right. But as Carl Sagan once observed, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" [Sagan1998, pg. 60]. So to what extent have the creationist and intelligent design movements produced solid evidence to establish their claims?
With regards to traditional creationism, the answer is clear. Modern radiometric dating, which has produced very consistent and reliable dates for the various epochs of the earth's development, overwhelmingly contradicts the central creationist tenet that the earth was created a few thousand years ago. Indeed, the young-earth creationist worldview is no more tenable today than is the ancient notion that the sun, planets and stars are only a few miles (or a few thousand miles) above the earth -- both reckonings are off by factors of millions and billions. And evolution, at this point in time, is much more than a "theory" in the colloquial sense of the word, having been confirmed in hundreds of thousands of exacting studies and having long ago supplanted any competing paradigm in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Indeed, the latest DNA sequence data all but screams "common ancestry between species" -- there is no other reasonable way to interpret these data (see DNA). Research continues, and many new discoveries and adjustments will doubtless be made, but it is exceedingly unlikely that the basic notions of evolution and geology will ever be found to be enormously in error, as creationists insist. For additional details, see Creationism.
As mentioned above, intelligent design writers are relatively more accepting of modern science than creationists. Michael Behe, one leading figure in this movement, has declared that he has no problem with an evolutionary process over many millions of years and the common ancestry of related species, including between humans and chimps [Behe2007]. He and others mainly question whether natural selection and other natural processes could have been the solve driving forces behind evolutionary advance, arguing instead that nature must have been "designed" by some intelligent agent. But given Behe's approach, one might ask, "What is the point of intelligent design?" If essentially all of the principal assertions of evolutionary theory are granted from the start, and the only question is whether the creation exhibits "design" in some vague, unspecified sense, or whether mutation and natural selection are sufficient by themselves to explain evolution, then there seems little to be gained from intelligent design, scientifically or theologically.
Further, there are significant difficulties even with this more limited agenda. To begin with, the intelligent design writers' search for design in nature is not particularly novel. Similar arguments were advanced by Paley in the 19th century. In any event, their claimed examples of "irreducible complexity" and the like are countered by published research showing how these features could and likely did arise by natural processes. In general, attempting to exhibit "design" in nature as evidence for God is problematic in light of the many features of nature (including numerous features of the human body) that are clearly deficient. At the least, "design" must be thought of in a high-level sense, not in specific low-level mechanics as argued by most intelligent design writers. For additional details, see Intelligent design.
With regards to the technical arguments raised by creationist and intelligent design writers, the overwhelming consensus of scientists (even among those who are religious) is that these arguments are deeply flawed. They do not remotely rise to the level to pose a significant challenge to modern scientific theories. In any event, these writers have not published their material in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, so they cannot be taken seriously by leading scientists. For additional details, see Evolution and Peer review.
Philosophical and theological problems with creationism and intelligent designJust as importantly, there are significant philosophical and theological difficulties with creationism and intelligent design. To begin with, the creationist-intelligent design search for phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws, in an attempt to "prove" the hand of God, is almost a contradiction in terms, since science, as noted above, cannot comment one way or the other on the existence or nature of a supreme being. Also, attempting to "prove" the hand of God is tantamount to stating that faith is not an essential feature of religion, and ironically affirms the scientific materialist worldview of atheist critics. Furthermore, it is patently clear that the Bible is not a scientific document -- one can search in vain for even a single passage of scripture that contains quantitative data and analysis typical of a modern scientific journal article (see Bible-science). And defining religion in terms of what is currently unexplained in science is tantamount to "God of the gaps" theology, which has left a legacy of disappointment as science continues to advance (see God of the gaps). As famed biologist Kenneth Miller observed [NAS2008, pg. 15],
Creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained.
Some have acknowledged that the creationist-intelligent design literature is problematic, but still argue that it is worth highlighting as a means of securing the faith of religious believers. But this approach is both disingenuous and ineffective in our Information Age, when inquisitive minds can easily disconfirm a questionable claim via an Internet search. Young people as well as old deserve honest answers, and the fact remains that the evidence behind the basic notions of evolution is well beyond reasonable doubt at the present time. Thus, creationists and intelligent design writers who continue to question these notions are fighting a futile and increasingly pointless rear-guard battle against the modern scientific world.
One fundamental difficulty with both creationism and intelligent design can be seen by considering the following "thought experiment." Suppose a major international society announced that it had received a communication from a super-intelligent Entity, and the authenticity of this communication could not be denied because it included, say, solutions to mathematical problems that are utterly beyond present human knowledge and computer technology. Suppose also that this communication disclosed that this Entity had initiated or created life on earth. The next day inquisitive humans would then ask questions such as "What time frame was required for this creation?," "What processes and steps were involved?," "Can we replicate these processes and steps in a laboratory?," "Why was the earth appropriate for life?," "Was life similarly initiated or created elsewhere?," "Who created this Entity?," "Who created the universe?," etc. In other words, virtually all of the fundamental questions of existence that have intrigued scientists and theologians alike for centuries would remain unanswered. In this light, the creationist-intelligent design approach of merely asserting "God did it," and resisting deeper investigation, is tantamount to a "thinking stopper," reveling in ignorance instead of thirsting for knowledge. Surely there is a more productive approach to harmonize science and religion.
The last straw for many observers is the notion, which is actually taught by some creationist writers, that the world may appear to be very old, governed by natural laws and the product of a long evolutionary development, but this is only because God deliberately created the world to look that way, perhaps as a test of faith. In other words, when we analyze a rock, it may appear to be millions of years old, based on careful scientific analysis, but in reality it was created just a few thousand years ago with a set of altered radioactive isotopes to make it look old. Or when we view a distant galaxy or supernova explosion in a telescope, those photons reaching our eyes may look exactly like they came from a galaxy or a supernova millions of light-years away, but in fact they were created by God in-flight headed to earth in suggestive patterns and with a suggestive spectral shift, all just a few thousand years ago. In short, these writers teach, in effect, that God is a Great Deceiver, which is an absurd and indeed blasphemous notion that goes against the entire tradition of Judeo-Christian thought. For additional details, see Deceiver, Theology and Philosophy.
Philosophy of science and postmodern science studiesCreationist and intelligent design writers are not the only ones who critically examine modern science. Some writers, in a genre commonly known as "postmodern science studies" or "sociology of scientific knowledge," examine the fundamental reliability of scientific findings, or critique the scientific enterprise from a perspective of group dynamics or sociology.
Some of this literature, such as the writings on the philosophy of science by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, has significant merit and relevance to modern science. Popper emphasized the importance of falsifiability in science, which remains an important consideration to this day, effectively distinguishing the scientific enterprise from numerous other forms of scholarship. Kuhn observed that science does not advance in a linear fashion, but more commonly from one "paradigm" to another. Issues such as ensuring that the legitimate scientific contributions of non-Western societies (such as the ancient mathematics of India and China), as well as chronic under-representation of women, are certainly important and worth discussing. Some related studies explore the boundary between science and other fields.
But other instances of this literature go much further, explicitly denying that science progresses towards truth of the natural world and, in general, expressing utter contempt for the scientific enterprise. Several of these writers go so far as to charge that the entire scientific world is merely a tool in the hands of oppressive white male regimes. This school of thought, which is overwhelmingly rejected by knowledgeable scientists as hopelessly misinformed, is nonetheless seriously entertained today by some in left-wing academic circles. For full details, see Postmodern.
Modern physics, astronomy and cosmologyIt is ironic that while scientists have been battling with fundamentalists over issues such as the age of the earth and evolution, some far more interesting developments have been emerging in the fields of physics and astronomy. In particular, scientific researchers have noted various "cosmic coincidences," suggesting that our earth and universe have been exceedingly and inexplicably finely tuned to permit the emergence of intelligent life. For full details, see Fine-tuned.
Some scientists have tried to explain these facts by proposing a huge set of outside universes, saying that the reason the earth and universe are so fine-tuned for life is because if they were not, we would not exist to be here to observe the universe and discuss the issue of its meaning (see Anthropic principle and Multiverse). But even these explanations, which many scientists regard as vacuous and highly speculative, still fall short of answering the fundamental question "Why does the universe harbor intelligent life?" As physicist Paul Davies observes [Davies2007, pg. 231]:
[H]uman minds, at least, are much more than mere observers. We do more than just watch the show that nature stages. Human beings have come to understand the world, at least in part, through the processes of reasoning and science. ... Nothing ... requires that level of involvement, that degree of connection. In order to explain a bio-friendly universe, [this theory] merely requires observers to observe. It is not necessary for observers to understand. Yet humans do. Why?
Closely related to the inexplicable fine-tuning of the laws and constants of the universe is Fermi's paradox: If life is, as many presume, abundant in the universe, why do we not see evidence of even a single extraterrestrial civilization? At the least, the latest evidence suggests that intelligent, technological life is exceedingly rare. If this is true, then this means that human life is far more singular and signifiant than anyone dreamed even a few years ago. See Fermi's paradox for additional details and discussion.
As intriguing as these ideas are, however, they still leave many religious-minded persons with a certain emptiness. Does the "God of the big bang" truly coincide with the compassionate, weeping God described in Psalms, the Gospel of John, and in other religious works (e.g., the LDS Book of Moses)? Did Johann Sebastian Bach have the "God of the big bang" in mind when he composed the Mass in B Minor and over 1,000 other sacred works? Is this the same being that inspired Albert Schweitzer, Mohandas Ghandi and Mother Teresa to surrender their careers and fortunes, and instead devote their lives to the poor and downtrodden? Is this the same being that even now inspires countless millions to lead moral, charitable, purposeful lives? Should one base one's personal sense of values and spirituality on the outcome of some extremely esoteric investigations into cosmology and the fundamental particles and forces of the universe? Probably not.
In this regard, the lessons from the creationism-intelligent design controversy are clear: claims that one can "prove" God via arguments based on apparent design or seemingly inexplicable phenomena in the natural world are likely to disappoint in the long run. And invoking a Creator or Designer every time unexplained phenomena arise is a "thinking stopper," burying the grand questions of science and religion in the inaccessible, inscrutable mind of some transcendent Being. At the least, considerable caution is in order. For additional details, see Big bang theology.
The idea of progressWe have discussed several approaches that are not recommended as a basis for finding an intellectually honest basis for harmony between science and religion. Can anything positive be said in this regard?
There is one fundamental sense in which science can be seen to be partners with religion: the "idea of progress." Robert Nisbet defines the idea of progress as the notion that mankind has advanced in the past, from barbarism and ignorance, is now advancing, and will continue to advance through the foreseeable future [Nisbet1980, pg. 4-5]. The idea of progress stands in sharp contrast to the widely held view that modern society is in decline, a view that upon closer inspection proves to be highly questionable (see Decline). Closely connected with this concept of linear, progressive history is the Judeo-Christian belief that God governs the world based on a system of rational laws. British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead noted that modern science, as it developed in the West, was based on this faith in rationality [Whitehead1967, pg. 17-19, 27]. Similarly, British-American physicist Paul Davies wonders whether modern science would ever have evolved in the absence of Judeo-Christian theism: "Without minds prepared by the cultural antecedents of Greek philosophy and monotheism (or something similar) -- and in particular the abstract notion of a system of hidden mathematical laws -- science as we know it may never have emerged." [Davies2010, pg. 74-75].
In the early twentieth century, French theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin argued that human progress was inexorable, virtually mandated by the natural laws of the universe. He further saw the idea of progress as the one theme that could re-unify science and religion: "To incorporate the progress of the world in our picture of the kingdom of God ... would immediately and radically put an end to the internal conflict from which we are suffering." [Teilhard1975, pg. 96]. Similarly, scholar Robert Wright describes a vector of progress, consisting of ever-widening extensions of human cooperation, extending over several millennia, and encompassing both religion and modern science [Wright2001, pg. 17, 332]:
[I]f ... we talk about the objectively observable features of social reality, the direction of history is unmistakable. When you look beneath the roiled surface of human events, beyond the comings and goings of particular regimes, beyond the lives and deaths of the "great men" who have strutted on the stage of history, you see an arrow beginning tens of thousands of years ago and continuing to the present. And, looking ahead, you see where it is pointing. ... Maybe history is ... not so much the product of divinity as the realization of divinity.
The idea of progress certainly resonates with many contemporary scientists, such as Harvard social scientist Steven Pinker [Pinker2018] and Oxford physicist David Deutsch, who writes [Deutsch2011, pg. 221-222]:
Optimism ... is the theory that all failures -- all evils -- are due to insufficient knowledge. ... Problems are inevitable, because our knowledge will always be infinitely far from complete. Some problems are hard, but it is a mistake to confuse hard problems with problems unlikely to be solved. Problems are soluble, and each particular evil is a problem that can be solved. An optimistic civilization is open and not afraid to innovate, and is based on traditions of criticism. Its institutions keep improving, and the most important knowledge that they embody is knowledge of how to detect and eliminate errors. There may have been many short-lived enlightenments in history. Ours has been uniquely long-lived.
For additional details, see Progress.
Ending the warSo is there any prospect for peace in this "war"? Can this marriage be saved?
The main solution here is simply to recognize that while both science and religion are committed to an eternal quest for truth, nonetheless at the present state of human ignorance they are better treated as two distinct worlds, since they address mostly different questions and employ mostly different methods [Gould1999, pg. 4-5]. Recall in the Christian New Testament when Jesus was asked whether Jews should pay taxes to Rome. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus replied, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" [Matt. 22:21]. Similar advice could be offered here: "Render unto science the things which are scientific; and unto religion the things that are religious." In other words, those of religious backgrounds need to grant technical questions of the natural world, such as exactly when and how the earth was created, to the field of scientific research, and stop insisting that the scriptures are scientific textbooks (they aren't). And those of scientific backgrounds need to grant questions of the ultimate meaning of life and moral conduct to enlightened religion, and stop insisting that science can displace religion, art, music, literature, philosophy and morality (it can't).
Along this line, it is worth recalling a lesson from the great ancient mathematician Euclid. According to an ancient account, when Pharaoh Ptolemy I of Egypt grew frustrated at the degree of effort required to master geometry, he asked Euclid whether there was some easier path. Euclid is said to have replied, "There is no royal road to geometry." [Durant1975, vol. 2, pg. 501]. Today we see new attempts to find "royal roads" -- quick, easy paths that short-circuit the long, difficult process necessary to master a field. Some criticize and dismiss religion, even though they have never practiced religion and have never made any in-depth study of theology or religious history. Others criticize and dismiss prevailing theories of biology, geology or physics, even though they utterly lack the specialized expertise required to make such sweeping judgments. Both groups are equally guilty of stepping beyond their expertise, and often only make fools of themselves when attempting to criticize the other party.
Modern science is the most powerful tool known to explore the physical laws and processes that govern the universe. Yet it can say next to nothing about fundamental moral values and the ultimate meaning of existence, nor were its methods ever designed to probe such fundamental questions [Boudry2018]. Similarly, religion through the ages has addressed morality and the meaning of existence, and is a powerful force for charity worldwide, but scriptures and theology alone provide no clues as to the mass of the electron, the equations of general relativity, or the date of the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, nor were they ever intended to be read in such a technical sense. In general, there is nothing in modern science that is fundamentally anti-religious or in any way negates the many positive aspects of living a moral, charitable, purposeful life; and there is nothing in modern enlightened religion that is fundamentally anti-science or should by any means stand in the way of scientific progress.
One final note: Just as it is important for science to stay scientific, focused on studying natural laws, processes and empirical data, so it is important for religious movements to stay focused on religion and not embrace, as its central belief system, some particular scientific theory or worldview. As Holmes Rolston observed, "The religion that is married to science today will be a widow tomorrow. ... Religion that has too thoroughly accommodated to any science will soon be obsolete." [Rolston2006, pg. ix].
ConclusionsIn short, the consensus of the majority of respected writers from both the science and religious worlds is that not only is it counter-productive for religion and science to battle each other, it is also quite pointless. Most major religious denominations have made peace with the scientific world, or, at the least, have recognized that it is futile to attack the world of science, since this will only cast disrepute on religion. Similarly, most scientists either affirm a religious faith in some general sense, or, at the least, recognize that it is counter-productive to attack the world of religion, since this will only result in a backlash against science.
More importantly, both scientists and religious believers can stand in awe at the majesty of the universe, which is now known to be much vaster, more intricate and more magnificent than ever before realized in human history. Further, as mentioned above, it is now becoming clear that human life and our technological civilization are far more singular and significant than anyone dreamed even a few years ago. These developments should be cause for great reverence, even celebration, among people of all walks of life.
Some readers may recall the movie "Contact." When Eleanor Arroway (the lead character played by Jodi Foster) saw a spiral galaxy from her spacecraft, she exclaimed, "They should have sent a poet. [It's] so beautiful!" In a similar way, one reads in Psalms, "The heavens declare the glory of God." [Psalms 19:1].
Albert Einstein understood this principle well, even though he personally rejected the traditional Judeo-Christian notion of God. He once wrote [Einstein1930]:
On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. ... Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength.
The astronomer Carl Sagan expressed this same idea in the following terms [Sagan1994, pg. 52]:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
India is a land of diverse religions. It has set an example of unity in diversity as people of different castes and religions live in harmony in the country. However, this harmony is disturbed many a times by different religious groups and communities.
India is a multi-religious and multi-lingual land. People belonging to different religions live here in harmony. Different festivals, be it Holi, Diwali, Eid or Christmas, are celebrated with equal zeal. However, communal harmony is disrupted at times due to differences between certain religious groups. Here are essays of varying lengths on communal harmony to help you with the topic.
Essay on Communal Harmony
Communal Harmony Essay 1 (200 words)
India is a secular state. The Constitution of our country gives its citizens the freedom to practise any religion of their choice. They also have the liberty to change their religion, if they wish. The state does not have any official religion. Every religion is treated and respected equally in India and this goes a long way in maintaining the communal harmony in the country.
However, even as the Constitution of India enforces laws to maintain communal harmony and the government of the country takes strong measures to ensure the same. There have been several instances in the past that have disrupted the peace in the name of religion.
Parsee-Muslim riots 1851, Bharuch riots 1857, Parsee-Muslim riots 1874, Salem riots of 1882, Mappila riots 1921, Nagpur riots 1927, Ranchi-Hatia riots 1967, Gujarat riots 1969, Moradabad riots 1980, Bhiwandi riots 1984, anti-Sikh riots 1984, Bhagalpur riots 1989, Hyderabad riots 1990, Anti-Tamil violence of Karnataka 1991, Bombay riots 1992-93, Anti-Urdu riots 1994, Gujarat riots 2002, Vadodara riots 2006, Canning riots 2013 and Muzaffarnagar riots 2013 are some of the instances of communal riots that caused mass destruction in the country and created major panic among the citizens.
It is essential for every individual to understand the importance of communal harmony and contribute towards maintaining the same so that such instances are not repeated in future.
Communal Harmony Essay 2 (300 words)
Communal Harmony is necessary for every nation. Only if there is peace and harmony in the country can it grow. India is known to maintain communal harmony even as people of different religions and castes reside here. It is known for its secular ways. The state does not follow any official religion. It gives its citizens the freedom to choose their religion and change it at any time. Strict action is taken against individuals or groups who try to tamper with the communal harmony of the country.
Disruption of Communal Harmony
Communal Harmony has been disrupted several times in our country. Riots between different religious groups have been common. Mentioned below are some of the instances of communal harmony:
These protests were done against by Muslims against a Parsee-owned publication Chitra Dynan Darpan.
These riots broke out because of the publishing of Prophet Mohammed in Famous Prophets and Communities by Rustomji Hormusji Jalbhoy.
These riots supposedly occurred as the Hindus showed resentment against the construction of a mosque on the path of a Hindu religious procession.
- 1989 Meerut Communal Riots
These Hindu-Muslim riots continued for 3 months and approximately 350 people were killed during these.
These riots took place between the Bengali Muslims and Bengali Hindus in West Bengal in February 2013.
Apart from these, the 1927 Nagpur Riots, 1967 Ranchi-Hatia Riots, 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, 1989 Meerut Communal Riots, 1990 Hyderabad Riots, 1992 Bombay Riots, 2002 Gujarat Riots and 2013 Muzaffarnagar Riots also disrupted communal harmony majorly.
The Constitution of the country has enforced laws to ensure communal harmony in the country and the government is taking all the necessary measures to ensure the same. Unfortunately, there have still been several instances that have hampered the communal harmony in the country.
Communal Harmony Essay 3 (400 words)
India is one of the biggest examples of unity in diversity. People belonging to different religions do not only live here in complete harmony but also rejoice each other’s company. Different festivals are celebrated here with equal enthusiasm and people from different castes, backgrounds and religions work in perfect harmony with each other in offices and elsewhere.
Laws to Maintain Communal Harmony
India is a secular state. The Constitution of the country gives each of its citizens the right to choose his/ her religion and change it at any time. Strict action is taken against any individual, group or community who tries to tamper with this constitutional law.
Communal Harmony Disrupted by Groups
Even though there are laws to protect the peace of the nation, however, communal harmony has still been disrupted many times in the country. Here are some such instances:
- Mappila Riots
These were a series of riots carried out by the Mappila Muslims of Malabar, South India between 1836 and 1921 against the native Hindus in the state.
- Salem Riots 1882
This caused serious Hindu-Muslim disturbances in Salem, Tamil Nadu. It is believed that these riots occurred as the Hindus objected to the construction of a mosque on the path of a Hindu religious procession.
- 1927 Nagpur Riots
These were a series of riots that took place in different cities during 1920s between the Hindu and Muslim groups.
- 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots
It is said that these riots were carried out to avenge the death of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who was shot at by her Sikh bodyguards.
- 1989 Meerut Communal Riots
These were a series of violent riots between Hindus and Muslims. The riots that took place in Uttar Pradesh’s Meerut continued for around 3 months from March to June 1987. Around 350 people were killed during these riots.
- 1990 Hyderabad Riots
These riots occurred in Hyderabad in the year 1990 and resulted in the killing of around 200-300 innocent people. It also left thousands of people injured.
- 2013 Muzaffarnagar Riots
The riots took place between Hindus and Muslims in Uttar Pradesh’s Muzaffarnagar district. The clashes continued for almost 2 months and resulted in taking lives of around 60 people.
It is essential to ensure communal harmony among people. Communal violence disturbs the normal life of the people of the affected city/state and also creates panic in the rest of the country.
Communal Harmony Essay 4 (500 words)
India is a peace loving country. No wonder people from diverse backgrounds live here in harmony with each other. While the people of the country largely help in maintaining communal harmony in the country. However, the same has been disturbed several times. Here is how communal harmony is maintained and the instances when it has been disrupted in the country.
Maintaining Communal Harmony
India is a secular nation. The country does not have any particular official religion. It gives its citizens the freedom to choose and change their religion as per their will. The state treats all the religions equally. This is a way to promote communal harmony in the country. Strict action is taken against any person or group trying to disturb communal peace in the country.
Disruption of Communal Harmony
While the government takes stern measures to ensure communal harmony in the country, the same has been disturbed several times. Some of these instances are as follows:
- 1980 Moradabad Riots
These riots occurred in the Indian city of Moradabad during August-November 1980. It all began when a group of Muslims threw stones at the police as they refused to remove a pig from the Idgah. The police fired back and it resulted in the killing of several people.
- 1989 Bhagalpur Violence
The 1989 Bhagalpur riots occurred between Hindus and Muslims in Bihar’s Bhagalpur district. These began in October 1989 and continued for two months. Not only Bhagalpur, around 250 nearby villages got affected by the violence caused due to these riots. More than 1,000 people were killed and as many as 50,000 were displaced during these two months.
- 1992-93 Bombay Riots
The riots that took place in December 1992 and January 1993 took the lives of around 900 people. These were said to be a reaction to the 1992 Babri Masjid Demolition in Ayodhya.
- 2002 Gujarat Riots
The burning of train that led to the death of 58 Hindu pilgrims caused these riots. The train returning from Ayodhya that carried karsevaks was burned at Godhra station. These riots led to the deaths of around 254 Hindus and as many as 790 Muslims. Near about 2,500 people were injured and 223 were reported missing.
- 2013 Canning riots
These riots took place between the Bengali Muslims and Bengali Hindus in West Bengal in February 2013. The outbreak happened after the murder of a Muslim clerk by unidentified attackers. Muslims burned down Hindu homes in Goladogra, Gopalpur, Herobhanga and Naliakhali villages in the Canning police station area.
Apart from these, 1857 Bharuch Riots, 1927 Nagpur Riots, 1969 Gujarat Riots, 1984 Sikh Riots, 1984 Bhiwandi Riots, 1985 Gujarat Riots, 1989 Meerut Communal Riots, 1990 Hyderabad Riots, 2002 Gujarat Riots, 2006 Vadodra Riots and 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots also caused mass destruction and disturbed the communal harmony of the country.
India has been appreciated worldwide for its secular ways. People from different religions live here in harmony. However, the peace of the country has been disrupted several times by different religious groups and communities. The need for communal harmony needs to be sensitized among the citizens as maintaining peace and harmony is the first step toward building a nation.
Communal Harmony Essay 5 (600 words)
India is home to people from different religions and castes. People belonging to different ethnic groups and religions live here in harmony with each other. At workplaces, in schools, while doing business dealings people from different backgrounds come together and work/study together. A harmonious atmosphere is maintained at such places. However, there have been times when there have been problems due to religious differences among citizens of our country. Here is how our government binds the citizens in unity and how they have fallen apart at various points.
Secularism Binds People
With the 42nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution enacted back in 1976, the Preamble to the Constitution stated that India is a secular nation. The country does not follow any official state religion. The laws require the state and its institutions to accept and respect all the religions. Each individual in the country is free to choose his religion and change it at any time. Treating all the religions equally and giving freedom to choose one’s religion is a way to ensure communal harmony in the country.
Instances of Communal Riots
While the Constitution of the country is imbued with the spirit to maintain communal harmony, the same has been disrupted many a times. Here are some instances of communal riots in India:
- 1857 Bharuch Riots
These riots occurred between the Bohra Muslims and Parsis in May 1857. The riots broke out as some Muslims accused Bejonji Sheriaiji Bharucha, a Parsi of desecrating a mosque. Five days later as many as 200 Muslims gathered together and attacked Dastur Kamdin Dar-e Mihr, a fire temple and brutally murdered its High Priest.
- 1969 Gujarat Riots
This refers to the riots between Hindus and Muslims during September-October 1969 in Gujarat. This was the first major communal violence in Gujarat that involved looting and massacre on a wide scale. Near about 660 people were killed and 1074 were injured during these riots.
- 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots
Also known as the 1984 Sikh Massacre, these were a series of attacks against the Sikhs in India. These riots were said to be carried out by agitated mobs in reaction to former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s murder by her Sikh bodyguards. Around 2800 people across the country were killed during these riots of which approximately 2100 were from Delhi.
- 1984 Bhiwandi Riots
These riots took place in and around Maharashtra’s Bhiwandi town in the year 1984. As many as 278 people were killed and more than 1000 injured during the Bhiwandi riots. The outbreak occurred when a saffron flag was placed on the top of a mosque.
- 1985 Gujarat Riots
These riots started in February 1985 and continued for almost 9 months that is until October. It is believed that this violence was invoked by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in an attempt to defame the ruling government. This was initially an intra Hindu caste issue owing to the reservation policy. However, gradually it turned into Hindu-Muslim communal riots.
- 2006 Vadodara Riots
Also referred to as the 2006 Dargah Riots, these occurred in May 2006 in Vadodara, Gujarat. The riots were a result of the municipal council’s decision to remove the Sufi saint Syed Chishti Rashiduddin’s dargah. It is said that the police targeted Muslims during this incident. Incidents of Hindu-Muslim clashes were reported in several areas during these riots.
Religion is a very sensitive issue. India has always followed a policy of secularism. The Constitution of our country gives absolute freedom to every individual to choose his/her religion. However, there are certain groups and individuals that disrupt the peace and harmony in the country by spreading communal violence. But ultimately peace has always triumphed over communal violence.