Religious Science or Scientific Religion?? – A New Quest

              Actually, I am fed up of people asking me whether am a theist?? Being a Brahmanan (Brahmin), they expect me to be one. But Nope, i am not!! Well, an atheist? Nope! Actually i don’t fit into anyone of the religious inclinations popularized by Dr.Richard Dawkins, and don’t want to fit into any.I don’t believe in the conventional definition of GOD nor Atheism. So what am i?? I just have some reasonable questions.


Religion and Science started when man wanted to understand nature in the first place, from then religion deviated into some balderdash and philosophy (all religions for that matter). Lets take the example of Christianity, when those ancients started writing the bible, They assumed that Ptolemy’s view of our solar system was true, which was done using scientific methods, though incorrect. I don’t want to go into further disputable arguments which may hurt other’s feelings, but when science keeps itself updating, why cant religion? The science my father studied is not the same which i study, nor will be the same which my son will study, But the religious preachings remain the same forever. Why is that?

 “Religion is flawed, only because men are flawed”. There is nothing wrong in being flawed, but it is felonious to remain flawed. As a supporter of science, i admit that in science, there were, and in some cases still contain flaws, but they immediately strived to solve it. Why can’t religion do that? Fine, we all respect our ancients and their views, (Even science does, taking the direction of current to be the direction of flow of positive charges in a conductor) but when they are wrong, they are wrong! “Kuttram kuttrame!!” I agree that there has been some paradigm shifting changes in our lives from those of our ancients, which has changed our way of life from theirs. But the scientific facts seem to remain the same. We are not yet that old for the universe to expand so much that it loses all the evidence of Big Bang and other things, Atleast till then, religious leaders could be broad-minded enough to realize and accept the flaws in their religion, and try to modify their views if possible. That kind of world would be amazing.

 But in a way i do support religion. Throughout history religion has been the vital reason for the creation and development of various arts. When there is no religion, then those would go meaningless. Maybe new styles of art may occur, but i have a crossed mind about those. They may not carry the “essence” that present arts have, And not to forget the “Tradition”.And here i do not mean the stupid “parigaram, and venduthal”( After all, no religion defines god as a business-man to do dealings) These traditions have created our identity, losing these causes a big damage. Yes, i do try to follow my tradition, just because its my identity and i love it, but i never do it because i want a supernatural power to bestow me with something.This is what our elders used to advice us as “Kadanai sei; Palanai Edhirparkade” [Do your duty, never expect the outcome] which describes that our world is completely uncertain, which are invariantly the results of Quantum Mechanics and Chaos Theory.

So were those the only reasons that i support religion? No! The notion of god may vary in different religions, which are just different interpretations, just like Quantum Mechanics having different interpretations. I have come across a very few people, who give an alternative explanation for the preachings in their religions analogous with scientific principles. The vacuous atheists, mock them. As for me, what on earth is wrong with such type of interpretations.

   Personally, i feel that religion cannot and should not be erased totally. Can science provide peace? or confidence? uplift our state of mind? Well, Religion atleast attempts to do that, and we must appreciate that. After all, what’s the point of just living in a mechanistic way? Lets assume you have understood the whole universe, and have realized Einstein’s dream of a single equation explaining the entire universe/Multiverse whatever it may be.

“Then what??”

The only logical answer, that my feeble mind could think of is that, the visionaries at that time, would use science to formulate ways to live our lives. Since they could understand everything, they could use science to their advantage to have a better life. So why cant Religions all over the world use the current science to formulate a better way??

Why cant they understand this?

Or atleast the scientists, the so called geniuses, instead of proving highly non-intuitive not very useful theorems like 1+2+3+4+… = -(1/12) !!!!, should foresee the future of humanity and not the human intelligence. I don’t know about the reader, but i really see a crisis here. Maybe we are using science to our advantage even now like weather satellites, seismographs etc., but i want science to have an impact on the virtues, that every human must posses. I don’t know if this could be done or not, but i really wish for it.

 I am not against religion nor science, i just have the view that when both were created for the same cause, why cant they just merge? Why cant we view science and religion as different manifestations of the same thing i.e., to realize the beauty of nature and the purpose of our lives in it.

 I haven’t done much research about this topic, but i just wrote what i feel. If this kind of ideas already prevail, i would love to read more on those. As for the Title, I am more inclined to Scientific Religion rather than Religious Science.

 Thank you for your time, Critical, non-critical comments and views invited.

8 thoughts on “Religious Science or Scientific Religion?? – A New Quest

  1. One may ask two related questions:

    (1) Why can’t science and mathematics merge? The answer seems to be that the one determines truth by experiment, and the other by mathematical proof. But although they haven’t merged, they have been good friends for centuries.

    (2) Why can’t mathematics and religion merge? The Neoplatonists like Proclus, Plotinus, and Porphyry attempted such a merger, but their attempt wasn’t really a great success.

    • As for the first question,
      In my view Science and maths have already merged in the name of physics! To explain the mechanisms of the universe, math has been the only tool. The experiments are just like cross checking the math. Math has always been there to explain the physical phenomena. Only in one case i could find a math tool had to be created for physics -Newton. (Even that wouldn’t have been needed if newton was a bit late and Leibniz would have given him calculus). Infact we wouldn’t consider anything to be science if it were not explained mathematically. After all No one is interested in just intuitive theories with just words.

      For the Second question: I have heard about some sacred mathematics and other stuff, like the five platonic solids , quintessence by Aristotle etc. which i didn’t find impressive either. But i will check out those Neoplatonists’ approach too

      • Physics certainly uses mathematics, and has done so at least since Galileo. But that doesn’t mean physics and mathematics have merged, nor that “experiments are just like cross checking the math.” If the results of a physics experiment disagree with a mathematical proof, we would say that that branch of mathematics was not a useful tool for that branch of physics. We would not conclude that the mathematics was wrong (although we might relabel it as “pure”). Indeed, the use of mathematical tools in physics assumes that the validity of the tools has already been established before the work of physics begins.

      • With all due respect, i strongly believe that Mathematical Beauty is of prime importance and a requirement for a successful theory (as opposed to Dr.Richard Feynman) and i do support Dr.Murray Gell Man. Experiments can be wrong. Even if the math is not suitable, for that particular area of physics, we can always look for others or invent it ourselves.
        And may i get a clear idea of your view of “Merging” please?

      • I was certainly not endorsing the Neoplatonists, who I think were interesting but misguided.

  2. I don’t disagree with you on beauty — beautiful theories are more likely to be true (at least in physics). What I meant was that physics and mathematics remain separate disciplines with different methods for determining truth. In physics, experiment has the final say on truth. In mathematics, proof has the final say on truth. Physics uses mathematical theorems as tools, but mathematics does not use physics experiments as tools. To take one example, Euclidean geometry turns out not to accurately describe space in the real world, but Euclidean geometry is still perfectly good mathematics in its own right. The more-than-2000-year-old proofs are still valid.

    • So, in your yours, Math theorems become the truth only if they describe the real world perfectly. That is Physics.
      And i dont support the view that math theorems are “Discovered” from a realm of “Absolute Truth”. Maths without physics is abstract.

      Yes, there are many entities that exists only in the world of mathematics- like modular forms etc. But they are yet to be discovered in the real world.
      Maths is has strived to answer the question “What if” for over thousands of years.
      And physics has implemented those to answer “How”

      • Actually, I would say that the truth or falsity of mathematics is completely independent of the real world. In other words, I am a mathematical Platonist. One of many reasons for this is that, when we talk about the infinitely many decimal digits of pi, we cannot relate this to any empirical fact about a finite universe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s