Does science need spiritualism?

At the time of Independence, India saw 'big' science and technology as the only way ahead. Perhaps with good reason. Fifty-odd years later, though, there are many who wonder whether the opportunity cost of investment in science and technology is reflected in the dearth of even basic facilities like drinking water to a majority of Indians. Those disenchanted by science in the face of continued poverty and widening inequality, as well as those who recognise its limits, ask: Now what? What lies beyond science?

 
By Dhanu Nayak
Published: Friday 28 February 2003

Does science need spiritualism?

-- At the time of Independence, India saw 'big' science and technology as the only way ahead. Perhaps with good reason. Fifty-odd years later, though, there are many who wonder whether the opportunity cost of investment in science and technology is reflected in the dearth of even basic facilities like drinking water to a majority of Indians. Those disenchanted by science in the face of continued poverty and widening inequality, as well as those who recognise its limits, ask: "Now what?" What lies beyond science?

'Science and Beyond', an international symposium held at the National Institute of Advanced Science, Bangalore, by and large presumed that the answer would come from 'spirituality', a term suspiciously conflated with religion in many presentations. The emphasis was determined naturally enough by the charter of the Centre for Theology and Natural Sciences, Berkeley -- which initiated the Science and Spiritual Quest Project -- and the John Templeton Foundation, the two main sponsors of the symposium.

But symposia must do what they must. And this one set out to create a dialogue between science and spirituality by focussing on 'cosmology, consciousness and technology in the Indic traditions'. The question, though, is: Is it possible, or even desirable, to learn newer ways to reconcile modern science with spirituality from ancient Indian 'science' (where 'spirituality' and 'science' are supposedly comfortable partners)? Will this path not lead to the same quandary that forced the separation of science and theology?

Now consider this: Will spiritualism do to science what new age medicine did for medicine? What will be the mantra of a popular 'new age science'? And given the current socio-political scenario in India, will this quest pave the way for dyeing the last bastion of rationality with 'spiritual' hues? There are no definite answers. But in a state tinged as it is by religious 'explorations', one cannot help being sceptic about efforts that bring religion into every public domain in the country.

The necessity for a discourse that would "be rigorous yet able to cast into question hegemonic claims to knowledge -- be they religious or scientific" was emphasised early on. The assumption was that metaphysics would mediate the discourse between these two extremes. This is easier said than done. The eminent philosopher of science, Hilary Putnam, had remarked in a personal conversation that Indian scientists are not concerned with the importance of foundational queries into science. Given this, do we seriously expect scientists, ignorant about rigorous philosophy for large parts of their career, to start incorporating its insights into their own work? To be honest, scientists have enough of a job keeping pace with the developments in their own fields.

And then again: What would be the terms of discourse? Scientists understand science, believers experience religion, and philosophers try to figure out what it is they are all trying to do. 'Consensual understanding' between and among all these is not easy. This was amply illustrated in the panel on 'Indic ways of thinking and scientific traditions', where the two participants did not manage to reconcile their divergent positions, leading to continual mutual misunderstandings. There was one eminently successful attempt to bridge the gap within one self. Charles Townes (of Maser and Laser fame) in his lecture on 'A scientist's view of the parallelism and ultimate convergence of science and religion' drew parallels between his experiences in science and spirituality. One wonders how most scientists would receive this talk, if it were to come from a less imposing individual than Nobel laureate Townes.

This symposium provided a context for an array of distinguished speakers to share their thoughts. Some with remarkable success. Jane Goodall, for example, spoke movingly about her work with chimpanzees and succeeded in drawing us away from our emphasis on the human world by raising the possibility of 'spirituality in animals'. M S Swaminathan spoke eloquently on drawing the rural poor into the discussion.

In the end, though, the answer to reconciling science and spirituality might lie in an early beginning. If scientific institutions opened their teaching programmes to philosophy, there would be some early exposure to, and training in, philosophy for students of science. Compartmentalisation of knowledge is so high in India that the tenth grade is the last time we have access to any kind of 'holistic' education. From then on we are doomed to one dimensionality. Also, if religion must be dragged into the discussion, we must have the academic study of religions rather than the imposition of one religious tradition into the secular domain of science. If this is not done, all attempts at genuine discourse across these two domains will remain the subject of international symposia, which, interesting though they are, have a limited effect on actually changing the situation on the ground.

Dhanu Nayak is a Bangalore-based writer

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.