Fighter488
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,050
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting peice of an article, editorial page ToI dated 08 Nov, 2010.
Fighter
Unlike creation-centric Christianity, the Hindu faith remains unchallenged by reason
Dipankar Gupta
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 idolcentric 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 16 th 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 sciences onslaught, Christianity was in a doctrinal mess. It had invested a lot in Aristotleproofing the Bible, but that was beginning to fall apart. Adam and Eve and Noahs 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 16 th 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 idolcentric 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 17 th and 18 th 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.
Indian Renaissance not only came 300 years later, but instead of questioning tradition it went about perfecting the Vedas. Thus, while the European Renaissance set the stage for the conflict between science and religion, no such thing happened here. Neither Swami Dayanand, nor Swami Vivekanand, nor the Brahmo Samajis are remembered for emphasising the scientific traditions of Indias past. Their most durable contribution is their skilful copy editing of Vedic texts.
This is why Hindus are not worried if their religion is laughed at by secularists. Ram Lalla can be a litigant as Hinduisms idol-centric nature protects it against physical and exact sciences. For this very reason though, Hinduism often runs afoul of history and the social sciences as these disciplines take issue with the idolised lifestyles of Hindu gods and goddesses, and with the veracity of their corporal presence on earth.
Interestingly, while Christianity clashed with the physical and exact sciences in the West, in India, Hinduism has been threatened only by history and the social sciences. This conflict quickly takes on a political dimension as every layperson has a view on what is a good life. Social sciences, history included, thus lack the persuasive capacities of the natural sciences. If certain political compulsions arise, sociologists and historians can also be cast as subversive anti-nationals.
The writer is former professor, JNU.
Fighter
Why Hinduism Is Science-proof
Unlike creation-centric Christianity, the Hindu faith remains unchallenged by reason
Dipankar Gupta
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 idolcentric 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 16 th 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 sciences onslaught, Christianity was in a doctrinal mess. It had invested a lot in Aristotleproofing the Bible, but that was beginning to fall apart. Adam and Eve and Noahs 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 16 th 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 idolcentric 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 17 th and 18 th 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.
Indian Renaissance not only came 300 years later, but instead of questioning tradition it went about perfecting the Vedas. Thus, while the European Renaissance set the stage for the conflict between science and religion, no such thing happened here. Neither Swami Dayanand, nor Swami Vivekanand, nor the Brahmo Samajis are remembered for emphasising the scientific traditions of Indias past. Their most durable contribution is their skilful copy editing of Vedic texts.
This is why Hindus are not worried if their religion is laughed at by secularists. Ram Lalla can be a litigant as Hinduisms idol-centric nature protects it against physical and exact sciences. For this very reason though, Hinduism often runs afoul of history and the social sciences as these disciplines take issue with the idolised lifestyles of Hindu gods and goddesses, and with the veracity of their corporal presence on earth.
Interestingly, while Christianity clashed with the physical and exact sciences in the West, in India, Hinduism has been threatened only by history and the social sciences. This conflict quickly takes on a political dimension as every layperson has a view on what is a good life. Social sciences, history included, thus lack the persuasive capacities of the natural sciences. If certain political compulsions arise, sociologists and historians can also be cast as subversive anti-nationals.
Consequently, the Hindu faith remains unchallenged by reason and Ram Lalla might even win his case someday.
The writer is former professor, JNU.
