By Ramendra Nath
Originally published by
Bihar Rationalist Society (Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj) 1993.
Electronically reprinted
with permission. I have read and admired Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a
Christian. On the other hand, I have also read and disagreed with M.K.Gandhi's
Why I Am a Hindu. My acquaintance with these writings has inspired me to write this
essay explaining why I am not a Hindu, though I was born in a Hindu family... http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/
ramendra_nath/hindu.html
And this one appeared
intriguing discussing science vis-avis
Hinduism and Christianity:
Why Hinduism Is
Science-proof
DIPANKAR GUPTA, Nov 8,
2010
[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-11-08/editpage/
28238436_1_science-and-religion-hinduismchristianity]
God is often a witness in
court proceedings the world over. This is especially so when statements are
made under oath with a hand on a holy book. But only in India, God can be both
witness and litigant. That Ram Lalla filed a case claiming property in Ayodhya
would have surprised secular societies elsewhere, but in India it is routine
and unremarkable. From this it might be tempting to argue that Christianity is intrinsically
rational while Hinduism is not. That is not strictly true. Both depend
ultimately on faith and, indeed, this is true of all religions. If Christianity
looks different today it is not because it is inherently more reasonable, but
that science forced it to become so.
As Hinduism is an
idol-centric religion, its core principles are of no consequence to science.
Christianity is a creation-centric religion. This is why it had to oppose modern
science which, too, is creation-centric. The latter has taken strong positions
on how life began, how day became night, and how our beings are energised. This
is what compelled science and religion to go on a collision course in the
western world. From the 16th century onwards, they were like two monster trucks
driving in opposite directions on a one-way street.
Hinduism was spared all this. It worships
divine heroes who step in and out of this world. They marry, procreate, win wars,
and also have their share of losing. But at the end of the day they have the
last word which is why their lives should be emulated. Hinduism makes no
dogmatic declaration on how humans appeared on earth or on whether the sun is
stationary or not. In India, our gods have never been challenged by science as
they are not concerned about matters of creation.
This
is why Hinduism has never felt the need to take on Newton, Galileo, Humphry
Davy or Darwin, nor even Aryabhat or the Charvakyas. On the other hand, under science's
onslaught, Christianity was in a doctrinal mess. It had invested a lot in
Aristotle-proofing the Bible, but that was beginning to fall apart. Adam and
Eve and Noah's Ark soon began to appear as fables for the credible. Even our positioning
on earth was now more about gravity than God.
Over
time there were just too many bullets for Christianity to dodge. The
Lutheran-inspired Reformation of the 16th century helped religion to make peace
with science, but only after the Bible retreated on some of its principles. From
then on Christianity had to accommodate reason in order to survive, but
Hinduism never faced such compulsions. As it was idol-centric in character,
faith in India could proceed unchecked by science; in fact, the twain need
never meet. Creation-centric Christianity could not ignore science. This is
probably why, in retrospect, it was possible in Europe for the Renaissance to
grow into the Reformation and finally into the Enlightenment. Protestant
clerics soon became quite enthusiastic about science and believed with Michael Faraday
that the work of God was just like science: neither irrational nor petulant,
but orderly and dependable. Pascal from the Catholic side echoed a similar
sentiment when he said that the Christian religion is not contrary to reason
and, if it were, "our religion would be absurd, laughed at".
Many of the most remarkable western figures of
science in the 17th and 18th centuries were trained by men of religion in their
initial years. Humphry Davy was taught science in school by a Reverend J C
Coryton; Robert Boyle by his village parson; Francis Bacon by John Whitgift,
later to become Archbishop of Canterbury; Newton lucked in getting his lessons
at home from his stepfather who was a minister and so did Robert Hooke from his
father who was a curate. These scientists could now go to church and laboratory
without a schism in their souls.
No comments:
Post a Comment