Monday, May 24, 2010

Science and Religion

-Mahavir Sanglikar

It is a natural tendency in common men to love their country, state, district, city/town and the street where they live. Same thing happens in the case of their religion.

They love their religion because they were born into the religion that belongs to them. If a Hindu who loves his religion had born in Muslim family instead of a Hindu family, he would have loved Islam, and not Hinduism.

Hate is a companion of love. So most of the people who love their own religion, like to hate other religions.

Staunch believers think that their religion is the oldest one and superior to all other religions. They also think that their religion is the most scientific. They don’t know ABC of science, but think that today’s science already existed at the time of their Prophets and Avatars.

In India, the Vedic fanatics always like to tell that there were airplanes, radio, computers, internet and many other machineries & technologies in the Vedic era. They say that the Europeans discovered these things by reading the stolen ancient books of Vedics from India. I am afraid, why then the Vedics themselves not discovered these things in spite of having these books with them for last many centuries?

Such type of people belonging to any religion cannot differentiate between science and technology. For them both the things are one and the same. In fact, fundamental science is an area of genius people and technology is applied science, which does not require much intelligence when compared to prior one.

No doubt ancient Indians, whether Jains or Vedics have done a lot of work in the fields of cosmology, medicine, biology, advanced mathematics and psychology. But these subjects go from over the heads of common believers of Jainism and Vedic religion. So while speaking about their religion being scientific, the Vedics talk about airplanes and Jains talk about health science behind not eating at night.

Modern science has proved many concepts in the religions as just a stupidity; but the staunch believers of religion like to take support of science to ‘prove’ some of the concepts in their religion. On other places, they like to criticize the science. They believe that the science is destructor of mankind, but the fact is that religions are the biggest enemies of humanity. Remember Crusades and Jihads, Hitler and Laden. Although all terrorisms are not based on religion, the religious terrorism is more dangerous when compared.

Science does not belong to any specific ethnic group. It does not teach to hate people. It does not claim that it knows the ultimate truth, but it is always nearer the truth than the so-called truth told by religions. Religions have helped to spread blind beliefs, while science always destroyed them.

Believers of religions take advantage of all the technologies based on science. They use television, computers, internet, mobile phones etc. for promoting their religions, but at the same time they criticize science. So the believers are the most ungrateful people in the world.

Science has already overtaken all the religions, and the religions have to change according to science. You might have read that the Pope had to apologize for opposing and punishing scientists by clergies of the past, and also for opposing Darwin’s theory of evolution.

If a religion does not change it will be automatically become an out of dated faith.


  1. Dear Sanglikar,

    I do agree when you 'Although all terrorisms are not based on religion, the religious terrorism is more dangerous when compared". However, ath same time I would also emphasized that it is not religion which support for such activity. This is egoist human who want to prove that his religion is superior then other.
    I think it is good to love and spread our religion, but it is totally wrong when to show your love towards your religion you shows hate towards other's religion. Better approch is that "you follow your religion/belife at the same time allow others to follow their belief. Repect other and you will get your respect.
    After all it is told by someone " Khudi to kar buland itna, ki Khuda bando che puche Aakhir teri Raza Kaya hai" To shows your line is bigger than other we should draw bigger line and not by shorting their line.

    I hope you can understand what I meant by.

    If I hurt anybody's feeling,then I feel very sorry from deep of my heart."Michammi dukadum"

    Rajesh Shah

  2. dear sanglikar ji I am fully agree with your thought which is shown in your artical

  3. You have good analogy over the various points of life, but you can improve on drawing their conclusions that gives better understanding to anyone.

    It seems that you pride yourself in showing the understanding of literature, but my friend pride doesn't always helps to draw clear conclusion.

    Saying on my understanding of your many previous blogs.

  4. It is interesting your point of view. I have noticed also that kind of behaviour with ideologies followers, for example, there are leftist that think that comunism or socialism are giving to the world more philosophers and that this is a probe that their ideology is better. These ideologies followers as do religions try to show that their way of thinking is better because they favour science. Nevertheless, we know that in countries like Russia or China were comunism was ruling the state in these the science is accepted as long it agrees with the party's tenents. Philosophy is the love for wisdom, but when it is dependent upon a religion or an ideology, may it be call Philosophy?


  5. It is an article, well articulated but it is biased.
    Neither science nor religion is bad in itself. Those who propagate this are 'wrong', be it the religious leader or the supporters of science[read between these lines]. You mention about the jihad and Hitler, but if we want to get a complete picture from the point of evaluating religion and science, why not also speak about all the philanthropic work that is inspired about by religion among the scores people.When you speak about Hitler[though I have point of disagreement if he actually can be used as a representative of a religious leader itself], why not talk about Swami Vivekanada and Mother Teresa who have inspired the whole generation of their time.
    An article, which shows only one of the picture is neither "scientifically" correct nor "religiously" proven.

    Also, religion is by definition, an entity which does not change, and science has to change by its definition.

    Hope these points will be acceptable to you and help you bring forth a more complete account of your weighing different aspects of science and religion.

    Hope to see good articles from you, but in more refined and unbiased manner.
    Best of luck.

  6. Mr Sanglikar,

    Very Nice and true thought.

    I am agreed.

  7. Comment of "bhavik" is highly precise in making the necessary differences. Religion is religio (lat.) awareness of the everpresent origin. If we don't know where we come from - we never can find the right direction now-a-days. The change happens individually by making the right decisions based on the right knowledge - and deeper knowledge of what is beyond time can be achieved everyday.

  8. Although you write well, I have noted a bias against the Vedic religion from your side.

    I have come across Jains who too have spoken of airplane designs in their granths. Perhaps through selective hearing you might have filtered that out, unintentionally perchance.

  9. I feel one should look at a Religion as a way of life and that religion which strives for universal brotherhood, love and peace to all living and non-living beings is worth following. Science is something which our human mind explores and comes to some conclusions, which are not eternal. Even today NEWTON's theory of Relativity is being questioned, as new visions emerge. On the other hand what a good religion imbibes is unchanging and unquestionable way of life