Religion and Science: Are they at Crossroads?

Abstract:Science and Religion are often discussed as if they were non-compatible or contradictory. This paper looks at the problem as complementary: while science could answer the ‘how’ of the universe, religion might answer the ‘why’ of life – The former is based on rational thinking or on observations, the latter is based on acceptance in faith or revelation. Starting with a few day-to-day phenomena that may not be completely explained by scientific methods, this paper brings in other possibilities to understand such events by taking up examples such as Creation-Evolution, Concept of Time, and Life after Life to discuss the different perspectives of the same reality. Emergence of consciousness paves the way to interconnectedness of everything in reality.

Keywords: Religion and Science, Creation and Evolution, Concept of Time, Life after Death, Interconnectedness

1. Context:We, at times, encounter phenomena in life that cannot be explained by rational or scientific proof. Consider the ‘Near Death Experience’ (NDE) narratives. In his book ‘Proof of Heaven’1, Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon and professor of medicine, explains his passage to the otherworld, when he was in coma, infected by the monstrous E.coli bacteria. He, similar to others with NDE, was assured that his time was not up and he would eventually return to earth. When everyone was ready to give up on him, he came back to life and eventually recovered. In his book, ‘Life after Life’, Raymond Moody investigated more than one hundred people who were ‘clinically dead’ but who eventually revived.2 He has classified them into three categories:i. The experiences of persons who were resuscitated after having been thought,

adjudged, or pronounced clinically dead by their doctors;ii. The experience of persons who, in the course of accidents or severe injury or

illness, came very close to physical death; andiii. The experiences of persons at death shared with those who were present.

Later, these other people reported the comments of the death experience.3 During the NDE they had the experience of passing through a dark tunnel and eventually onto a bright space, which was filled with an air and aroma of unconditional love pervading all through. They felt the presence of some divine presence and were assured of their going back to the world.

Take the case of Tibetan Buddhist Monks who could sit in the cold climate and still sweat: A team of scientists from Harvard University studied these monks in 1980 and found out that these monks could raise their surface (skin) temperature by about 17 degrees Fahrenheit ( -8C) while keeping their core temperature normal. Again, some monks in Sikkim, India could comfortably sleep on the Himalayas at an altitude of 15,000 feet (4,600 m), with their simple wool robes with no extra insulation, even when the temperature reached zero degree Fahrenheit ( -18C).4 Is it mere physical ability or mystical/spiritual power? It is said that the Tibetan monks practice tummo,

1 E. Alexander, Proof of Heaven, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York, 2012.2 http://lifeafterlife.com/life-after-life-experience/books-by-raymond-moody/3 R.A. Moody, Life after Life, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg (Pa), 1976, p.16. (Another book: M. Rawlings, Beyond Death’s Door, Bantom, Nashville, 1979)4 http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/07/tibetan-monks-can-raise-the-temperature-of-their-skin-through-meditation/

an advanced form of yoga, related to chakras5 (centers of energy flow) in the body where there are clusters of arteries, veins and nerves.6

What about miracles? A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws – Nearly 99.9% are medical miracles. A miracle has to be spontaneous, instantaneous, and complete healing, while the medical doctors have no natural explanation of what happened.7 Alcides Moreno and Edgar, his brother, fell off 47 stories from their window-washing platform along a New York City skyscraper in Dec 2007.8 Edgar died on impact, while Alcides, then 37, survived. Evans Monsignac was trapped in the rubble amidst the Haiti’s massive earthquake in 2010. After 27 days, confounding doctors and defying medical logic, he was found alive. Perhaps he is the longest ever earthquake survivor.9 And so many bodies of saints are incorruptible, without any embalming, through many centuries such as St Francis Xavier (since 1552), St Bernadette of Lourdes (since 1879) etc.

Astrology is an area some people believe in. Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means for divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events, based on the 12 zodiac signs. Time of the day is earmarked auspicious and non-auspicious. Anything that begins in an auspicious moment, it is believed, would be successful. Mrs Nancy Reagan, wife of President Reagan, apparently believed in it (as confirmed by the White House on 03 rd May 1988); she sought the advice of an astrologer on President Reagan’s comings and goings, at times extending into matters of diplomacy.10 Many other world leaders were known for their interest in astrology including President Theodore Roosevelt and President Franklin Roosevelt.11 In India, astrology plays a major role in deciding the auspicious time for marriage ceremonies, entering a new house to live in etc. And politicians and even high ranking Government officials choose auspicious time to take charge of their offices.

Science finds it difficult to explain these events. Very often they are brought under the cover of religious experience or faith (or superstition). Extra Sensory Perception, telepathy, palmistry, etc are still to be scientifically understood and explained.

2. Understanding of Science:Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the world works, with observable or experimental physical observation or evidence as the basis of that understanding.12 Science is rational based on observed facts. It is a study of correlation based on rules

5 https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-91/The-7-Chakras-for-Beginners.html (Chakras are focal points of energy in the subtle body; Base of the spine, lower abdomen, upper abdomen, center of the chest, throat, forehead, top of the head)6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tummo7 https://www.livescience.com/38033-how-vatican-identifies-miracles.html8 http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20411885,00.html9 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7530686/Buried-for-27-days-Haiti-earthquake-survivors-amazing-story.html10 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-nancy-reagan-astrology-20160306-story.html11 http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/04/us/white-house-confirms-reagans-follow-astrology-up-to-a-point.html12 http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html

2

and principles, open to any one’s challenge or confirmation. The results of scientific studies are repetitive or replicable. As Einstein would say: All physical laws would hold good in all frames of references. Science is in public domain, open to investigation. And it is subject to change or modification in understanding, as in the case of Newtonian three-dimensional world giving way to Einsteinian four-dimensional world; or the deterministic world of classical physics accommodating the uncertainty world of quantum physics. Science is based on hypotheses and hence it has self-correcting nature, when observations go against the hypotheses. As Stephen Hawking put it in his book A Brief History of Time:

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.

In short, science has not said the final word about reality. The perception of the world, physically or conceptually, is a possibility of probability – a spectrum of possibilities.

The characteristics of sciences are consistency, observability, natural, predictability, verifiability, tentativeness.13 Further, science should be objective, reliable, and accurate.14 There is an element of non-permanence of understanding reality depending on the sophistication of scientific instrumentation, methodology of investigation, and understandable interpretation.

3. Convergence of different Faculties of Science:Physics is the study of the universe in general, starting from atomic (or subatomic) particles going up to planetary system, galaxy etc; Chemistry studies combination (or dissociation) of matter starting from molecules and the relationship between matter and energy. When both physics and chemistry are combined and ‘life’ is infused, there comes up biology. All other sciences could be derived from these fundamentals.

If one goes through the creation story as described in the beginning of the Bible, we could get an idea about the inter-relationship between physics, chemistry, and biology. First light is created (Gen 1:3) which is physics, though even today we are not able to decide whether light is particle or wave! Then comes the dome called the sky, which separates ‘the waters (above) from the waters (below)’ (Gen 1:6). Once water comes into the picture then life sets in, first vegetation (Gen 1:11); then living creatures (Gen 1:20); and finally human beings (Gen 1:27). We see the importance of water in connecting physics and chemistry with biology. Physically water can be a solid, a liquid, or a gas; chemically it is labeled H2O; and biologically water is the major component of every living being, not only to originate (along with light) but to sustain life. Water is the largest single constituent of all living plants, animals, and humans. 60% weight of a grown up adult or an animal is made up of water15, while it could go up to 95% for plants.16 Sunlight, air, and water are the basic ingredients of any living being. There is convergence of all faculties of science on life and evolution of life. ‘Convergence’ would be the next revolution in science.17

13https://www.cusd80.com/cms/lib6/AZ01001175/Centricity/Domain/4221/Science_Fair_Green_Packet_2011-2012.pdf14 http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/science/top-9-main-characteristics-of-science-explained/3506015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_water16 https://www.slideshare.net/syedtaimurrahim/water-in-animal-nutrition17 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-m-gentile/convergence-science-research_b_4078211.html

3

4. Understanding Religion(s):When we consider religion, it is not easy to talk about one religion. Religions could have monotheistic (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) or pantheistic (Hinduism) beliefs. There are other types of religions based on myths, animism, totemism etc.

There are numerous religions, at least 20, based on different religious beliefs18, in the world. The major ones, according to an estimate in 2005, are Christianity (2.1 billion believers – 33%), Islam (1.5 billion – 21%), Hinduism (900 million – 14%), Buddhism (376 million – 6%) etc.19 In general each religion is believed to be revealed and is based on dogmas and doctrines specific to each religion. Each one’s religion or religious beliefs are based on one’s conviction very often handed down by tradition and enriched by one’s culture. It is basically founded on individual or collective experience and acceptance.

All religions ultimately would boil down to the teaching of: ‘be good – do good’ and promote life in harmony. It is an integral part of one’s life and it is a study of meaningfulness. The result is how one should live in a community of fellow believers and how one could adapt oneself to the milieu of members in the community who might belong to or practice different belief system. Religion deals with the why of life. As religion belongs to private domain, it cannot be objectively investigated and it cannot be challenged especially by another system of belief. However, the understanding of beliefs or doctrines may undergo changes depending on the assent of religious authorities helped by experts in religious studies.

Religious conflicts at times become a major source of crisis in the world. One could see how many wars in the history have been fought in the name of religions. At the same time, efforts have been taken in time to dialogue with other religions and even attempts have been made to integrate religions: In 1582, the Mughal emperor Akbar founded the syncretic religion called Din-i Ilahi (Religion of God) in India. Din-i Ilahi is a merger of best elements of various religions (mostly from Islam and Hinduism and to some extent from Christianity, Jainism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism) thereby to reconcile the differences that divided people.20 But not many takers were there. In the 16th century in an environment heavily permeated with conflicts between the Hindu and Muslim religions, Guru Nanak Dev (born in 1469) founded Sikhism. He reflected: “There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim, so whose path shall I follow? I shall follow the path of God”. There are about 23 million Sikhs worldwide who practice Sikhism.21 The other syncretic religions are Candomble, Santeria, Bahai etc.22

In spite of so many ecumenical or inter-faith dialogues, very little has been achieved towards the common understanding of religions or unity in diversity of religions.

5. The Challenge:

18 http://www.howmanyarethere.net/how-many-religions-are-there-in-the-world/19 http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din-i_Ilahi21 http://www.religionfacts.com/sikhism22 http://www.typesofreligion.com/

4

When it is difficult to find a common platform to understand religious diversities, is it possible to find an understanding between religion and science? Religion and science could be viewed as different phenomena:

Religion ScienceExperiential ExperimentalContextual UniversalPluriform UniformSubjective ObjectiveAbsolute RelativeMeaning: Revelation Facts: Empirical

An attempt is made in this paper to bridge the gap between religious concepts and scientific postulates. The assumption is, whether religion or science, the reality is one and the same and it depends on how one approaches the reality for an understanding.

Religion could be compared with a bunch of visibly challenged persons trying to comprehend an elephant based on physical perception. Feeling the tusk one said, an elephant is a fire-hose; touching the leg, the other said, the elephant is like a pillar; yet another one ran his hand over the flopping ear and said the elephant is like a winnowing-fan; one scanned the side of the elephant and explained the elephant is like a solid wall; and the last one held the tail of the elephant and explained the elephant is like a painting brush. Putting all these descriptions, detached from the context, could one get the picture of an elephant? Or it would be like deciding the nature of a mountain looking at it from different angles: From one side it might be rocky; from another perspective it might be filled with shrubs and trees; yet from another angle it might be filled with beautiful meadows – Deciding the nature of mountain from one angle is only partial understanding. Very often the comprehensive understanding of nature of any reality is eluding and we are often fighting with partial understanding of it, whether it be religion or of nature or of reality. The viewpoint might be different but the reality is the same.

The understanding of a religion differs between a critical outsider and a believing insider. In the novel Deep River by Shusaku Endo23, the youngster from France searching for peace reaches the banks of the river Ganges. He is wondering how people could take the holy dip and sip the water there, which carries remnants of dead bodies cremated on the banks, a lot of dirt floating around etc. One, already in the water, invites him to step into the water. Once the youth gets down into the water he also takes a holy sip of the water. For understanding a religion, it matters which side of the faith you stand. Immersion is the way to understand the religion.

Science would be ready to accept changes based on new discoveries and new understanding; but it might be difficult with religion, as normally one believes that the religion is a revelation of God and nothing could be wrong with it. One should appreciate, in this context, the Dalai Lama, when encountered by people what he would do if science proves contradictory to his religious beliefs, the Dalai Lama responded that he would change his belief system accordingly. For his dedication to

23 S. Endo, Deep River, New Directions Pub., New York, 1996.

5

science (especially to neuroscience) and its positive application in the world of spirituality, the Templeton Award was given to him (2012). He is of the opinion that religion by itself may no longer provide a satisfactory solution to the ills of the world.24 An integral approach is needed when going beyond the simple belief system of a religion; and one should make use of science for developing an ethical system for people to live in peace and harmony.

6. Consideration of a few Issues of Interest:Our understanding of creation and evolution, centered on our life and the future of the universe, moves on a time frame and time itself seems to be unending. This brings in the future of life with a possibility of its eternal aspect, namely consciousness (in a scientific sense) or soul (in a religious sense).

In the following sections, we could take up three examples and analyze how science interprets and religion understands them: 1. Creation and Evolution;2. Concept of Time; and3. Life after Life.An attempt is made how together they could offer an integrated view for the individual and for the society as a whole.

6.1. Creation vs Evolution:25

If we stand on the shore of the sea of wisdom we are approached by waves of reason originating from science as well as by waves of faith emanating from religion.

6.1.1. Creation: Creationism holds the view that the various forms of life, the planetary system, and the universe were created by God and usually in the way described in the book of Genesis (Gen Ch.1). ‘Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters’ (Gen 1:2). First light is created (Gen 1:3), then comes water (Gen 1:6). Once light and water are in place, we see signs of life in ascending order of complexity: vegetation (Gen 1:11), living creatures (Gen 1:20), finally human beings (Gen 1:27). Pope John Paul II, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican (23rd October 1996) said: “new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis.”26

Creation can be viewed in different ways:27

a. In a neutral sense it would mean the dependent formation of the universe from an Absolute Power.

b. A pantheistic view would be that the Absolute takes various forms (without, however, losing its basic identity). Here there could be the difference between the Creator and the created (creature).

24 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/dalai-lama-facebook-religion-is-no-longer-adequate-science_n_1880805.html - Cf Books by Dalai Lama: a. ‘Beyond Religion: Ethics for a whole World’; and b. The Universe in a single Atom: ‘The Convergence of Science and Spirituality’.25 F.P. Xavier, God of the Atoms, ISPCK, Delhi, 2006, pp. 65-87.26 http://www.biblelight.net/darwin.htm27F.P. Xavier, God of the Atoms, ISPCK, Delhi, 2006, p.67.

6

c. The third view is called emanation: All beings flow out of the Absolute and exist formally with God’s power. God exists as the powerhouse for the flow of life but the emanated being never becomes God.28

A parallel could be seen in Indian philosophical schools: Adi Shankara (also known as Shankaracharya, c. 6th Cent CE) is the exponent of Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism): There is one eternal unchanging reality (Brahman) and the plurality and differentiation, which we observe in the world, are illusion (maya).29 Brahman alone is real, this world is unreal (Monism).30 Shankara’s monism ran counter to Madhva’s Dvaita Vedanta (Dualism). Madhva (1238-1327 CE) has problem accepting that God is the material cause of the universe, for God would not have created the world by splitting himself nor in any other way, since that militates against the doctrine that God is unalterable.31 A compromise in understanding is brought in by Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism) by Ramanuja (1012-1137 CE). Ramanuja asserts that there exists a plurality and distinction between Atman (souls) and Brahman (the ultimate reality). There is, according to Ramanuja’s Sri Vaishavism, a possibility of individual soul (Atman) merging with the ultimate Reality (Brahman).32

Again it could be discussed whether God created the world once for all or whether God is still active in creation. If ‘creation out of nothing’ implies transcendence of God, the ‘continuing creation’ brings in the immanence of God. But we do not consider transcendence and immanence mutually exclusive. Christian theology has traditionally held the doctrines of creation out of nothing and continuing creation to be interrelated, of the view that they are complementary aspects of God's creative involvement with the physical universe. The creatio ex nihilo concept was formulated and defined at a time when the universe was believed to be static (till about 1920). But today we believe in a dynamic universe, thanks to Edwin Hubble, who, studying exploding stars known as supernovae (1929), found that nearly all galaxies were moving away from us, and the farther away they were, the faster they were moving.33 Hence there is the concept of continuing creation (creation continua). Barbour, clarifies this view as:

Today the world as known to science is dynamic and incomplete. Ours is an unfinished universe that is still in the process of appearing. Surely the coming-to-be of life from matter can represent divine creativity as suitably as any postulated primeval production of matter ‘out of nothing’. Creation occurs throughout time.34

6.1.2. Evolution: According to evolution various types of plants and animals derive or inherit their origin from preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications (by means of natural selection) in successive generations.35

28 R. Kolterman, Grundzeuge der modernen Natur-Philosphie, Knecht, Frankfurt/M, 1994, p.79.29 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Shankara30 https://advaitaphilosophy.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/adi-sankaras-philosophy-of-advaita-vedanta/31 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dvaita32 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta33 https://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html34 M.W. Worthing, God, Creation and contemporary Physics, Fortress, Minneapolis, 1996, p.112.35 http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution (Cf Origin of Species by Charles Darwin)

7

Evolution, from the Latin word evolvere, means ‘to develop into something’. It is not simply just a change but development into an ever complex substance leading to formation of life. In biology evolution implies the development of plants and animals from lower basic life forms or elements. In our context it is the development of life that has the ability to become a human life. It is understood that there was some original substance to develop into complex being. Here, time is very important for the development of material substance into being (and further into life).36

Many scientists believe that in the giant laboratory of the earth (over 4 billion years ago) elements of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen have combined to form complex molecules. In the process perhaps a particular combination might have triggered off the most intriguing and fascinating process called ‘life’. The material basis could be a polymer, called protein, which got synthesized from simple chemical compounds like methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide. The life thus began, got further evolved through the ages till it became ‘human’. The polymer could be a few billion years old but human beings are the new comers in the universe (about 100, 000 years).37

The process could be sketched as:38

Bacteria ® simple cell ® (photo synthesis) plants ® animals ® humans (increasing order of complexity of nerves system) ® consciousness.

Creation and evolution could be compared in a schematic way as shown below:Creation (Gen Ch: 1) Evolution

Light Inanimate matter: Earth, LightDome: SkyEarth: Water, Plants Medium essential for life: WaterPlanetary SystemLiving beings: Sea-animals, Birds Appearance of life: Plants and animalsAnimals: Small and LargeHumans: Male and Female – In the image and likeness of God

Intelligent being: Humans

Evolution, as generally understood, is about the biological system and does not include the planetary system, the universe etc. The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and it is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution. According to a study by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research, conducted in 2005, about one-third of medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution.39 According to the Grand Design theory, the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics and of nature.40 Evolution may

36 F.P. Xavier, God of the Atoms, ISPCK, Delhi, 2006, p.66.37 V.R. Gowariker, N.V. Viswanathan and J. Sreedhar, Polymer Science, New Age International, New Delhi, 1986, p.1.38 F.P. Xavier, God of the Atoms, ISPCK, Delhi, 2006, p.85.39 http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution40 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_%28book%29

8

understand and explain the universe as a Grand Design41 but it may not indicate who the Grand Designer is. Further, the Grand Design does not present any model and hence no predictions from the theory.42

Cosmological evolution of galaxies such as the Milky Way43, though implies non-existence of life, brings in the concept of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. In 1933, Fritz Zwicky, a Swiss astrophysicist, inferred (using virial theorem) the existence of the unseen matter, which he referred to as dunkle Materie (‘dark matter’). This was the first proposition for the presence of ‘dark matter’. He indicated that there was much more estimated mass than was visually observable.44 Dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force – That is, it does not absorb, reflect, or emit light. Hence, it is extremely difficult to spot it. But researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter. Dark matter seems to outweigh visible matter roughly six to one. Dark energy appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is assumed that it is evenly distributed throughout the universe, not only in space but also in time – That is, its effect is not diluted as the universe expands.45 It is believed that the visible matter in the universe accounts for only 4.6% of the total matter (ie. mass and energy) – This is called ‘well behaved ordinary matter’; while 24% of the universe is invisible matter (known as ‘dark-matter’). And the rest, ie. 71.4%, would be of dark-energy.46

6.2. Evolutionary Creation: Creationism covers a spectrum of views including evolutionary creationism, which asserts that both evolutionary science and a belief in creation are true.47 And this evolutionary creation transcends even human life, namely physical evolution, intellectual evolution, and spiritual evolution.48

The origin of human beings is the product of two different processes, which were taking place simultaneously: On the one hand it was the bio-evolution and on the other it was the psycho-evolution. Under bio-evolution, due to hybridization of protein resulting in the complex nature of DNAs, human beings, as believed by many of the scientists, evolved physically in stages from Australopithecus africanus ® Homo habilis ® Homo erectus ® Homo sapiens. But at the same time concurrently the psycho-evolution was also taking place. For example, Homo habilis possessed the ability to build up a language (mostly in the form of sounds); Homo erectus was able to discover fire and make use of it; and Homo sapiens were able to develop the language in the form of writing (symbols in the beginning) as well.49 And today mankind is able to develop computer languages and is capable of performing organ-transplant as well as making use of artificial organs!

41 S. Hawking and L. Mlodinow, The Grand Design, Bantom Books, London, 201 p.209.42 http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html43 Milky Way Galaxy has about 200 billion stars (Sun is one of them); and there are about 124 billion galaxies in our universe (only 3000 are visible).44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Zwicky45 https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter46 https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html47 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism48 U. Kull, Evoution, Metzler, Stuttgart, 1987, p.1.49 H.K. Erbeb, Evolution, Enke, Stuttgart, 1990, pp.145-150.

9

The apex of the evolution is the beginning of consciousness in human being. This comes about through the formation of central nervous system consisting of various nerve cells. The communication among the nerve cells is through chemical and electrical energy transfer (neurons) but the activities are coordinated from the brain. As the process becomes more and more active the experiences are stored up and thought-patterns are formed within oneself. This is called the consciousness.50

For Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a Jesuit paleontologist and geologist, evolution is a reality and God is the driving force in the material level potentially converting it into ever more complex being. Teilhard tried to combine the evolutionary theory with belief in God’s creation. Of course, it implies that one cannot take literally the Genesis account of creation. According to Teilhard the proteins, which originated from the inorganic materials should have the ability, due to the geo-chemical processes, to become the phenomenon for formation of life to emerge. The biological diversity in the universe has now ushered in the so called ‘noosphere’, that is, evolution of thoughts. For Teilhard, scientific and technological advancements are part of ongoing evolution, which in effect is trying to bring forth a convergence. Convergence, for Teilhard, means unification of mankind to a universal personality in whom everything (though diverse and complex) in the universe meets and melts, so to say, and fuses into one reality. The individual consciousness evolves into an universal consciousness. This is the Omega Point (a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which the universe is evolving)51, which exists by itself as consummation of irreversible Principle. In this Omega Point, God is revealed as the driving force as well as the point of unification in the biological diversity – A realization of God’s creation of human being in His image and likeness (Gen 1:26). Thus, God is the prime force of evolution and evolution is the way that God does things in the universe.52

In the process of understanding evolution and creation we should not try to identify one with the other since they are complementary to each other. Evolution is a theory, a model to explain how beings (plants, animals, human) originate from lower form of beings. Whereas creation is a belief how human beings have been called for higher form of life – not only materialistic and physical but more than that, namely, intellectual and conscious level till reaching the Omega Point. Perhaps we can understand, based on biblical theology, that God created a ‘becoming-world’ with open-space and possibility to develop itself. And this is called, by the natural scientists evolution. Both evolution and creation are processes, one (evolution) on the physical level explaining how one ‘being’ becomes a higher being, whereas the other (creation) leads to the dynamic force for ‘becoming’. God is the initial dynamic force that sets the evolutionary process in motion, as He created time, and He still continues the work in the universe – And this process we understand as creative evolution.53

7. Concept of Time:54

50 S.N. Bosshard, Evolution and Shoepfung, In: Christlicher Glaube in moderner Gesellschaft (Vol.3), Herder, Freiburg i. B, 1981, pp.98-104.51 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin (Temporal spiraling towards the eternal, a divine unification)52 H.K. Erben, Evolution, Enke, Stuttgart, 1990, pp.110ff.53 F.P. Xavier, God of the Atoms, ISPCK, Delhi, 2006, p.87.54 Ibid., p.90-113.

10

‘Time’ is always fascinating – The concept of time, in a fast moving world, is ever changing. The consideration here is mainly on whether time is linear or cyclic or a combination of both. It is a reflection on whether ‘time’ is ‘being’ or ‘becoming’. Fagg would put it, “We tend to objectify the outer world and tend to intuit and feel our inner world”.55 This implies that understanding time would bring in both objective as well as subjective views.

7.1. Characteristics of Time: Can we absolutely define time? Time is multifaceted. ‘Time’ is commonly measured by an instrument known as the ‘clock’. Proper time is the ideal time. This is supposed to be measured by an ideal clock at rest (with respect to the observer) without being affected by gravity. But scientists employ another term for time, known as physical time, when referring to events undergoing changes. This is the time that normally we are familiar with. Proper time, according to cosmologists, began about fifteen thousand million years ago, but time, in physical sense, might have been an infinitely long time ago. For example, according to proper time, the universe has a finite past but an infinite future.56 This brings in the notion of psychological time. Newton defined absolute time that is independent of the motions of celestial bodies (According to Newton: Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself and from its own nature, flows equably without regard to anything external). It could be called ‘intelligible’ time and space in contradistinction to be ‘sensible’.57 That is, absolute time is a fixed standard by which all activities in the universe can be measured. But Einstein brought in the concept of relative time, according to which an observer travelling in a moving frame would perceive (measure) time to flow at a different rate from that of one in a static frame with respect to the earth.58 Thus time can be broadly categorized as absolute time and subjective time. Actually, it depends on one’s frame of reference, that is, time is relative depending on one’s state of motion. A clock that is moving relative to an observer will be observed to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference. For example, a clock on the Space Shuttle would run slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth. [A clock that is under the influence of a stronger gravitational field than an observer's will also be measured to tick slower than the observer's own clock.]59

‘Time’ may not be defined but described. In science we understand time as a succession of events. It is understood as an overall structure of events that has an arrow or directionality due to later states of the universe being produced from the earlier states. One could think of five important characteristics of time:1. Time specifies when an event occurs;2. Time determines the duration of an event;3. Time relates whether other events occur simultaneously with it;4. For non-simultaneous events, time indicates which one occurs first; and5. Time has an arrow pointing from past events towards future events.Einstein’s theory of relativity indicates that physical time depends upon the observer's reference frame. The implication of the special theory of relativity is that the first four 55 L.W. Fagg, The Becoming of Time, Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1995, p.1.56 M. Shallis, On Time, Schoken Books, New York, 1983, p.105f.57 A. Koyre, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, Johns Hopkins Uni Press, Baltimore, 1957, p.161.58 P. Halprn, Time Journeys, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990, p. 12 and 92.59 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

11

of these five characteristics are all relative; they can be different in different reference frames.60 The concept of scientific time is with reference to observable events.

All major religions refer to time as well. Time is often depicted as that which effects motion and change but which might transcend and survive all events in the universe (a notion and implication of divinity/eternity). It is like the flow of a river (with respect to its banks) without requiring the flow of the banks themselves! The religious concept is that time is transcendent. Transcendence is a concept, which ushers in the notion that there is reality even beyond this world. The result is the notion of two worlds. However, the concept of time in this world may not apply in the world beyond. That is time-now and time-beyond may be applicable in their respective worlds (namely, world-here-and-now and world-beyond-present-time). Time is multidimensional.61

7.2. Duality of Time: Time flows in and through space but we perceive time and space differently. Only the present moment seems immediately real to us (We have memories of the past but not of the future. On the other hand our present decisions and actions affect only the future but not the past!). We feel the sense of flow in the universe – But we cannot stop it or make it go backward! Things and events seem to change in time. But does time itself change? There is duality regarding the concept of time, namely, time-as-is and time-as-experienced. Time-as-is, mainly contemplated in science, has no intrinsic direction, that is, there is no distinction between ‘forward’ and ‘reverse’ (or backward) time. Time-as-experienced involves one’s consciousness. But we are always in the ‘present’ and our ‘time’, in this context, is a moment separating the past and the future, which are non-existent ‘here and now’ (though the past and the future are the constituent elements of the present). But our conscious awareness of time indicates that time is that entity in which the sequence of events are irreversible.62 Thus there is, in general, the subjective-objective duality. Thus the two kinds of time, one of physical theory represented with mathematical equation and experimental measurements and the other of human consciousness with access to the living present, are complementary to each other.63

7.3. Religious Views of Time: For science, time is ‘being’ and for religion time is ‘becoming’. Science usually tends to ignore the ‘passage’ of events from past, to the present, to future.64 Ancient cultures, for example Incan, Mayan, Hopi etc as well as Babylonian and Greek, and the major religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism have the concept of wheel of time, that is, time is cyclic between birth and extinction. On the contrary Judaism, Christianity, and Islam regard time as linear and unidirectional beginning with the act of creation of God till the teleological (finality) or eschatological end of the present order of things.65 Time, for these latter religions, is a passage from this temporal world into eternal world.

60 http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/61 F.P. Xavier, God of the Atoms, ISPCK, Delhi, 2006, p.92.62 K.G. Denbigh, Three Concepts of Time, Springer, Berlin, 1981, pp.3-6.63 L.W. Fagg, The Becoming of Time, Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1995, pp.237-246.64 A.G. Padgett, God, Eternity and the Nature of Time, St Martine’s Press, New York, 1992, pp.82-85.65 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

12

The Greek believed in cyclic time, since for the Greeks the divine presence is eternal and the universe is unchanging. For Aristotle, for instance, the world had existed for eternity, and the circularity of time was a central and powerful image.66

According to early Vedic religious thought, sacred time is cyclical and therefore lacks any temporal direction, unlike the one-way time corresponding to ordinary mortal existence. Thus, the sacred reversible circular time could replace profane irreversible linear time. In Hinduism daily and seasonal rhythms become incorporated into the notion of the wheel of samsara, that is, periodicity of natural being. Everything exhibits birth, life, death, and rebirth. Hence a human lifetime is considered to be an immeasurably small part of an endless chain of reincarnation. Human history and the changing of patterns of the cosmos were also seen as circular. In Jainism the world cycle is pictured as a serpent (sarpin) devouring its own tail. For the Jains, as well as for the Hindus, this ceaseless circular flow of the cosmos goes on forever. But in contrast, the view of the Buddhists is that the cycle of creation and destruction is seen as continuous but through meditation, one realizes the ever-changing nature of one’s thoughts, which in turn leads one to contemplate the impermanence of all things.67 One gets released from this cycle of rebirths through Nirvana (‘blowing out’ as in an oil lamp).68

It is interesting to note that Biblical Hebrew contains only two tenses, namely, the perfect tense to denote completed action and the imperfect tense to describe the incomplete action. And in general there is no Hebrew word for time. The word used for time (‘et) means the moment or period during which something happens. Human life is a series of many times, for example, ‘there is time to be born and a time to die’, etc (Eccl 3:1-8). Neither does the New Testament contain any treatise or speculative analysis of time. The words used in the New Testament to denote time are three, namely, aion (wider sweep of time), chronos (quantitative calendar time), and kairos (qualitative psychological moment or opportunity). The New Testament view of time, however, is centered on Christ. The era of the Old Testament waited in expectation for the coming of the Messiah but the Christians at present, in contrast, look forward to the parousia, the second coming of Christ.69

Thus the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions bring out, in contrast to the cyclic concept of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, the aspects of linear time. It can be very well characterized by an arrow (of time) pointing from the past to the future. Time needs to be rationally and sensibly understood as a unified becoming. So in time we change over from mere ‘being’ to ‘becoming’ as the time flows into eternity. As times tends to flow into eternity, it becomes liberated to take on the position of timelessness. This implies that time gets transformed from temporal into transcendental.70 As the present time flows into the future transcending the temporality and further merges with eternity the universe gets merged/convoluted into the Omega Point, the origin (first born of all creation – Col 1:15) and the ultimate finality of creative dynamic force.

66 P.J. Nahin, Time Machine, Springer, New York, 1999, p.104.67 F.P. Xavier, God of the Atoms, ISPCK, Delhi, 2006, p.105.68 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana69 C. Stuhlmueller (Ed), The Collegeville Pastoral Dictionary of Bibilical Theology, Liturgial Press, Collegeville, 1996, pp.997-1002.70 G. Motzkin, Time and Transcendence, Kulwer, Dordrecht, 1992, p.62.

13

According to Thomas Aquinas, all things come from God (the Creator) and return to God as their end (scheme of exitus and reditus).71

Time is viewed differently in science (event-based) and in religions (experience-based). Between the physically objective time (defined as seconds, minutes etc) and the psychologically experienced subjective time, time has come to be perceived as relative depending on the speed with which the observer moves with respect to what he/she observes. In this process ‘space’ and ‘time’ are seen as a unity and time becomes the fourth dimension of space-time. Further, we have been created as human ‘beings’ in time but as time flows progressively forward we ‘become’ unto God, our beginning and end of life and meaning.72

According to Stephen Hawking at least three different arrows of time are possible:73

1. Thermodynamic arrow of time: Entropy increases.2. Psychological arrow of time: Direction of passage of time - Past is remembered but

not the future.3. Cosmological arrow of time: Expansion of the universe.All arrows of time flow forward and into future. There cannot be time reversal – If there is time reversal, one would die before birth!

A combined view could be a forward moving helical of creative evolution, progressing from the past, through the present, into the future of temporal time and space; and eventually transforms, at the end of temporal time, into eternal/timeless entity.

8. Life after Life:Time has had a beginning (at the creation), but it is progressing forward and it might flow into the future transcending the temporality and probably would merge with eternity. Living organisms follow ever complex nature due to upward sweep of evolution, as the time arrow progresses in space. This could imply that life could cross over the bridge of mortality, that is the ability to go along the cosmic timescale, which is a pragmatic possibility without violating any known law of physics.74 Progressive evolution implies ever advancing level of consciousness even to the level of being freed of time, for when the consciousness is highly evolved the reality appears as a timeless continuum. And thus one could say that to be free of time is to be free of death.75

8.1. Understanding Death: We have seen and observed people ‘dying’. Very often we raise the question: What is death? And what happens at and beyond death? Biblically speaking life beyond death is very strongly indicated:

Your dead shall live… Awake and sing, you that dwell in dust for… the earth shall cast out the death (Is 26:19); andmany of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake (Dan 12:2).

We can notice that both these passages strongly imply the resurrection of the physical body.

71 http://www.totus2us.com/podcasts/philosophy-and-faith/st-thomas-aquinas/72 F.P. Xavier, God of the Atoms, ISPCK, Delhi, 2006, p.112f.73 S.W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantom, Toronto, 1988, p.145.74 D. Reanney, After Death, William Morrow & Co., New York, 1991, pp.19-48.75 Ibid, pp.215-219.

14

Death could be described in various ways: 8.1.1. Clinical Death: Within medical society certain authorities would argue in favour of multiple kinds of death occurring at different times (These include organismal death, psychic death, and vegetative death). Thus, death cannot be instantaneously determined under present medical criteria, though legally ‘death’ occurs precisely when life ceases and it does not occur until the heartbeat stops and respiration ends. It is a process in stages, which a person goes through.76

8.1.2. Near-Death Experience: Taking death beyond the physical world, Moody attempts two contrasting definition of death, namely, i. annihilation of consciousness; and ii. passage of the soul or mind into another dimension of reality.77 Near-death experience, which is also known as out-of-body experience, is due to personal consciousness and it is an activity accomplished without the body, since in the near-death state sensory capability has ceased. One cannot be conscious externally, because sense transmission has stopped.

8.1.3. Separation of Body and Soul: According to Pieper, at death the soul, although profoundly affected by death, connected with the body by its innermost nature and remaining related to it, nevertheless persists indestructibly; maintains itself; and remains in being.78

Now, the sign of active life is growth. Both, movement and growth need energy. When this ability decreases, the potentiality to live is reduced; when temporarily absent one is not vibrant with signs of life; and when energy is permanently gone, then one is declared dead. But whatever happens to the energy, that we label ‘life’, at death? Does the energy just vanish like the flame from the extinguished candle? Does the energy get instantaneously destroyed? Physics states: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed – But it could be transformed. If death is the cessation of energy, does everything fall apart or does it emerge into another phase of reality? It is a fusion of mortal and immortal, so to say, into one and the same personality. That fusion is an encounter/confrontation of temporal and material breakdown (of energy) with revitalization on a higher plane of newer (and ever lasting) energy.79

This phase of immortality of human life, according to Geis, could be viewed on three levels as:

i. a possibility; ii. a probability; and iii. a certainty.80

The physical aspects of human being, namely body, might suffer decomposition and disintegration at death but the consciousness (and its culmination: soul)81 continues to be, as consciousness in its structure presents itself as being of things, whereas nothing

76 D.J. Horan and D. Mall, Death, Dying, and Euthanasia, Aletheia Books, Frederick (Md), 1980, pp.27-35.77 R.A. Moody, Life after Life, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg (PA), 1976, p.13.78 J. Pieper, Death and Immortality (Tr. Richard and Clara Winston),St Augustine’s Press, South Bend (Ind), 1969, p. 27f.79 R.J. Lifton, The Broken Connection, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979, p.394.80 R.J. Geis, Personal Existence after Death, Sherwood Sugden & Co., Peru (Ill), 1995, p.10.

15

physical so presents itself. The premise here is that consciousness is immaterial and immaterial is indestructible and hence consciousness is atemporal.82

8.1.4. Progress of Evolution: Though life begins as single cell, due to evolution, awareness emerges through complexity in higher forms of life. This emerges without losing identity with the origin of matter and at the same time establishing a contact with the higher form of life. Thus, evolution could be considered as the trajectory of continuation of life, namely, mortal life till all converge into the ONE, immortal and supreme.83 In the concept of Teilhard de Chardin evolution is convergence towards the Omega Point, which is, in other words, merging with the eternal.

8.2. Life after Death: Death is not gloomy depicting the end of everything. It is still more positive – It opens up the window to a newer reality on a higher plane of continuum of time. As life emerges from matter and as awareness (consciousness) appears along the corridor of time and as soul, as the higher form of consciousness, makes its way on the line of life the time-continuum keeps flowing along. And all that is created in time tries to keep up with the dynamic force of evolution.84 Thus death is basically a mere transition, which scarcely affects the core of our being and what lies on the other side of death is a ‘continuance’ of life. The indestructibility of the inner-self of human being is immortal which leads to life beyond death.85

From considerations of different angles and phases, death is the demarcation point in the ‘continuous’ life process. Before death, life has the distinction of past, present and future time but after death it is one eternal flow of time. Thus there emerges a new reality at death – A passage is made from temporal to atemporal in order to merge with the origin of matter itself. So human being is an unfinished system at death.86 And hence the system continues to evolve, of course on a different level, till life merges with eternal flow of time, in order to conglomerate with the Origin of origins.

Death is a window to a newer reality on a higher phase of continuum of time. The eternal cycle of evolution could be understood as: Primordial Energy ® Creation ® Matter/Energy ® Life ® Consciousness ® Soul ® Death ® Merging with Primordial EnergyAs Paul would put it, ‘the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time’ (Rom 8:22) and continues till reaching the ultimate reality.

9. Religion and Science: Are they at Crossroads?

81 https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380651/jewish/Levels-of-Soul-Consciousness.htm [Soul as God-Consciousness. Ascension of Consciousness: 1. Physical/world consciousness; 2. Emotional consciousness; 3. Intellectual Consciousness; 4. God Consciousness; and 5. Merging with the Sublime – Omega Point]82 R.J. Geis, Personal Existence after Death, Sherwood Sugden & Co., Peru (Ill), 1995, p.16f.83 B. Shannon, Immortalism in a Temporal World, Vision Press, London, 1974, p.116.84 F.P. Xavier, God of the Atoms, ISPCK, Delhi, 2006, p.141.85 J. Pieper, Death and Immortality (Tr. Richard and Clara Winston), St Augustine’s Press, South Bend (Ind), 1969, pp.93-195.86 J. Moltman, The Future of Creation, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1979, pp.124-126.

16

For many, today, there seems to be an inherent conflict between religion and science. Two specific historical moments are given to support this:

a. Galileo’s defending the Copernican Revolution; andb. Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Both are paradigm shifts from belief system to observational inference. We could also see a change in most historians moving from a conflict model to a complement model, namely science and religion can peacefully coexist, provided one understands that religious events, that might be apparently in conflict with scientific interpretation, could convey meaning beyond scientifically untenable or literal content.

However, science is quite silent about moral and ethical values, which are very much essential. Making distinction between good and evil, between just and unjust, etc, is one of the roles of religion. Religion may not restrict scientific investigations but religion has a lot to say about the ends to which the resulting scientific knowledge could be used. So, one needs both religion and science: Religion helps one decide whether one should do whatever science permits one to do.87 Science answers the question ‘how’ of the universe, whereas religion answers ‘why‘ of life in the universe – They not only complement, but supplement each other.

Many great scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, etc had deep religious convictions. For them science and religion both address the same world, the same reality. Albert Einstein said: “A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. In this sense, science and religion are not enemies but companions.88

10. Conclusion:We need to understand, as Tom Chi89 would say in his YouTube talk, that ‘Everything is connected’: We are integrally connected with breath, heart, and mind. Breath is very important for us to live: About 4 billion years ago there was no oxygen – Oxygen originated from bacteria through photosynthesis. Similarly, we cannot survive without heart and heart is fed by hemoglobin, which carries oxygen to the entire system of our body. But the central atom of hemoglobin, namely iron, was not there in the beginning of the universe. Out of supernovae explosions, galactic collisions, gravitational dance etc came in iron. Breath and heart are made complete by brain, which is the coordinating powerhouse in us. Modern neuroscience dictates that the brain gives rise to consciousness. All these (inorganic ® organic ® life) evolve into consciousness connecting us as a part of the universal symphony. We need to challenge ourselves to understand this harmony in the universe, which is known to science and at the same time, it is religion that helps us merge with this universal connectedness through consciousness.

Science explores what is perceptible and observable while religion explains what we could do with science. Science tells us that we are temporal beings but religion enlightens us to become part of the ultimate eternal reality. Science enlightens us to know more and religion enlivens us to live better in harmony. Science learns from the 87 http://www.firstcongoappleton.org/worship/sermons/2013-09-22/science-and-religion-complementary-or-contradictory88 https://thelife.com/science-and-religion-competitors-or-companions89 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPh3c8Sa37M&feature=youtu.be

17

created universe and religion contemplates the transformation of the universe. Science tells us how heaven goes and religion tells us how to go to heaven. Both search for meaning: from being to becoming - Science about history of universe and religion about mystery of life. If science is the question, religion is the answer with respect to meaning of life. And science of time merges into the eternity of religion.

As the Dalai Lama has beautifully put it in his book, “The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality”, our different approaches to understanding ourselves, our universe, our religions, and one another, can be brought together in the service of humanity to create harmony and peace. On the demise of Stephen Hawking, whose ashes are interred in the Westminster Abbey (London) near the graves of Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, the Dean of Westminster (Rev Dr John Hall) said: “We believe to be vital that science and religion work together to seek to answer the great questions of the mystery of life and of our universe”.90

When a ray of sunlight emerges from a prism, we get the rainbow colors. When all these different colors are painted in segments on a disc and rotated fast, it appears to be white (Newton Disc). Truth is embedded in the reality of universe. Reality is one but perception and understanding would vary – We need an integral approach, understanding, and acceptance.

Francis P Xavier SJGasson Professor, Boston College, USA

Vice President for Academics and Research, Jesuit Worldwide Learning (JWL), Geneva, The Switzerland

(0945030418)

Appendix: IReligion and Science: A Conversation1. As a scientist, are you concluding that science is relatively more necessary, OR as a theologian, religion is contributing more for betterment of humankind? Again this may be an individual's belief or perception but what is your recommendation as an expert in both the domains? 

Today science is acceptable to all but religion cannot be taken for granted - It is a faith system coming through 'revelation' from above (or from a tradition) and cannot be proved, as science, experimentally. Science learns from the created universe and religion contemplates the transformation of the universe. Science tells us how ‘heaven’ goes and religion tells us how to go to heaven. Both search for meaning: from being to becoming. So one needs both.

2. You mentioned science is rational and religion is faith. So science leads to accept death but religions offers faith to live after death. Hence only few people with a belief lived after death?

Science is not concerned about death, perhaps prevention of death, as death is a commonly observed phenomenon. Science does not burden itself to ask what happens after death. It is the realm of religion with various beliefs such as death, rebirth, nirvana, eternal life etc.

90 Cf CNN: 21 March 2018 (Ben Westcott)

18

3.Science is a mixture of physics, chemistry and biology and hence it’s applicable to all living creatures but religion is addressed only to/by humans. So can it be concluded religion is evolved one and only for directing the self-reflection of humankind? Where does science lead to know the unknown?

Both science and religion lead to the unknown - Science on the realm of intellect whereas religion on the realm of faith. Science is in the realm of ‘how’ and religion is in the realm of ‘why’. As science is related to observable events, it does not go beyond non-perceptible phenomena, whereas religion is centered on taking the humans to the divine level. Science works on what one needs at present, and religion works on what one should be both in the present and in the future, even beyond death.

4.Religion offers a belief that there is a Superior as a Creator and science gives a reason that an individual is a creator – Is that so?

Science points out to a Grand Design and Religion claims that the Grand Designer (God) brought out the Grand Design and continues to be operative of it. Science is based on assumptions and hypotheses, which could change and which does change often. Science has not said the final word about the reality – For Science, reality is a spectrum of possibilities of probabilities. Religion leaves everything to God as the creator and preserver and one who takes human beings onto an eternal phase.

5. Science is knowledge and so research is required for /in science where religion is a belief, so research on religion leads to chaos or progress?

Religion also should be reasonable to certain extent to make sense of one's life. As Einstein says: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Both science and religion should lead to peace, prosperity, and harmony in the world. Research in religion would create a rational matrix to faith. And this would make religion more understandable and this could also pave the way to eliminate myths, if any.

Appendix: II New Religion91

“When Ambition is your God, the office is your temple, the employee handbook your holy book. The sacred drink, coffee, is imbibed five times a day. When you worship, Ambition, there is so Sabbath, no day of rest. Every day, you rise early and kneel before the God Ambition, facing in the direction of your PC. You pray alone, always alone, even though others may be present. Ambition is a vengeful God. He will smite those who fail to worship faithfully, but that is nothing compared to what He has in store for the faithful. They suffer the worst fate of all. For it is only when they are old and tired, entombed in the corner office, that the realization hits like a Biblical thunderclap. The God Ambition is a false God and always has been.”

For Further Reading:H.W. Attridge (Ed), The Religion and Science Debate – Why does it continue?, Yale

Uni Press, New Haven, 2009.91 E. Weiner, The Geography of Bliss, Transworld Pub, London, 2008.

19

M.H. Barnes, Understanding Religion and Science, Continuum, London, 2010.D.M. Byers (Ed), Religion, Science, and the Search for Wisdom, US Catholic

Conference, Washington DC, 1987.W.H. Chalker, Science and Faith – Understanding Meaning, Method, and Truth,

Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 2006.P. Clayton, Religion and Science – The Basics, Routledge, London, 2012.S. Fuller, Science vs Religion? – Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution,

Polity, Cambridge UK, 2007.Y. Gingras, Science and Religion – An impossible Dialogue, Polity, Cambridge UK,

2017.J.W. Jones, Can Science explain Religion? – The Cognitive Science Debate, Oxford

Uni Press, New York, 2016.T. Peters and G. Bennet (Ed), Bridging Science and Religion, Fortress Press,

Minneapolis, 2003.F.P. Xavier, God of the Atoms, ISPCK, Delhi, 2006.

20