Role of Religion in Science & Technology Today

Introduction

Science & religion have been at odds with each other, but they should not be so. Unfortunately, many efforts to close the gap between science and religion have not yet produced the right environment for such an encounter. This work is another attempt to make this gap narrower in order to achieve a better and more comprehensive model for our thoughts.

The difference between science and religion is that of mind and heart. We have not yet formed or devised a comprehensive theory to combine these two aspects of human intelligence to give one solution for our understandings. In fact, wisdom is a combined process of rational thinking and feelings. Fortunately, there is a tendency in science today toward acknowledging the role of emotion in science as a whole. This movement tries to eliminate the habit of  relying purely on rational thinking and advocates that human thinking is actually shaped by our emotions. Goleman gives light to some aspects of this school of thought in his best-seller book “Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ”[i]. Since this article has more to do with “Theory of Knowledge”, it did not discuss the contents of this book in detail but some aspects of it which is relevant to this work has been used.

This article is divided into 3 sections. In the first section, the mechanics of thinking in the scientific process is discussed (only physical science is considered in this work and human sciences are ignored entirely) and it is argued that any scientific result is not  purely an objective thing but has a shade of subjectivity from its creator in it.  That is to say that science is not a secular thing after all and depends very much on our assumptions – a scientific word for our feelings, or may be better to call it “gut feelings”. This aspect of science is largely ignored and needs to be addressed broadly. Our emotional side plays an important role in our rational deductions. The recent movement toward acknowledging this relationship can play a great role in closing the gap between science and religion.

In the second part, it is first acknowledged that some religious people tend to have an irrational attitude toward science, albeit this behaviour is understandable. Afetr all, religious teachings are about preserving belief and it is too natural to defend and counter a critique of that faith. The problem lies in their persistence failure to use logic and rationalisation in their defence. We have also to acknowledge that some religions use rationalisation in their teachings more often than others. Obviously, some are more tolerant with empirical approach than others and it is up to an individual to select the religion that is deemed to offer the right balance between heart and mind. The writer is a Shia Muslim who is influenced by teachings in that school of Islam. We are proud to show that since early days of our religion we had people like Jaber ibn Hayyan who almost redefined the science of Chemistry.

The final considers the aims and objectives of science. What do we want from science? Where does science lead us to? It is these and similar questions that give us an interesting view point to look at religions. It is this aspect of religion that can play a great role in our scientific & technological approach.

If we had any advancement in science, it was because someone had seen something in the horizon that others did not. We always find what we are looking to find. Religion can give us this precious insight and more than something to look at and try to find. In other words, ideas are the building blocks of any progress in science & technology and religions can take us to domains almost totally unknown and new to humans. If the scientific community take this approach seriously, surely we will have another and anew explosion in both science and technology. This is the role of religion in science & technology today.

Role of Emotions in Science

Although it may sound strange, we believe that not only all scientific theories but any  human knowledge is affected by our feelings. Since we are not going to discuss the theory of knowledge, we will concentrate on the effects of assumptions on scientific theories only.

Einstein had in mind two assumptions when he was developing the general theory of relativity. He writes:

My original considerations on the subject were based on two hypotheses:

1. There exists an average density of matter in the whole of space which is everywhere the same and different from zero.
2. The magnitude (“radius”) of space is independent of time.[ii]

What is a hypothesis? Does it differ from the “pre-scientific thought” Einstein criticised earlier in his book? Hypothesis is a gut feeling of a theoretician. Of course, these should prove consistent all along the theory. Nevertheless, hypothesis is not a result of scientific approach, but rather psychological feelings created after much thought and experience.

In order to explain further our point, we have quoted Einstein’s description of the events that followed the above initial thought. Our main goal is to show how Einstein’s feelings were apparent from his progress to improve the general theory of relativity. Comments (as numbered) are made at the end of this quotation.

Both these hypothesis proved to be consistent, according to the general theory of relativity, but only after a hypothetical term was added to the field equations¹, a term which was not required by the theory² as such nor did it seem natural³  from a theoretical point of view (“cosmological term of the field equation” ⁴).

Hypothesis (2) appeared⁵ unavoidable to me at the time, since I thought that one would get into bottomless speculations if one departed from it⁶.

However, already in the ‘twenties, the Russianmathematician Friedman⁷ showed that a different hypothesis was natural from a purely theoretical point of view⁸. He realised that it was possible to present hypothesis (1) without introducing the less natural cosmological term into the field equations of gravitation, if one was ready to drop⁹ hypothesis (2). Namely, the original field equations admit a solution in which the “world radius” depends on time (expanding space). In that sense one can say, according to Friedman¹⁰, that the theory demands an expansion of space.

A few years later Hubble showed, by a special investigation of extra-galactic nebulae (“milky ways”), that the spectral lines emitted showed a red shift which increased regularly with the distance of the nebulae. This can be interpreted in regard to our present knowledge¹¹ only in the sense of Doppler’s principle, as an expansive motion of the system of stars in the large – as required, according to Friedman, by the field equation of gravitation. Hubble’s discovery can, therefore, be considered to some extent¹² as a confirmation of the theory.

There does arise, however, a strange difficulty. The interpretation of the galactic line-shift discovered by Hubble as an expansion (which can hardly be doubted from a theoretical point of view), leads to an origin of his expansion which lies “only” about 10⁹ years ago, while physical astronomy makes it appear¹³  likely that the development of individual stars and systems of stars takes considerably longer. It is no way known how this incongruity is to be overcome¹⁴.

When Einstein was working on the formula of his theory, he realised that it infers an expansion in space, contrary to common scientific and philosophical  belief of the time. However, it is well known that Judaism, Christianity and Islam assert a beginning for  the universe. As Einstein confirms at the end of his text, he did not come to terms with the idea of what we call Big Bang. Though, after Hubble’s experiments, he had to accept, reluctantly, the idea of expanding space.

1. This was called cosmological constant. By introduction of this constant, space became stationary and hence without a beginning.
2. Einstein admits that this action was not a result of scientific or rational thinking.
3. He somehow apologises for his action. If this term was not natural, then why did Einstein introduce it in the first place? This is a clear proof that his action was purely made out of his faith in the stationary space.
4. He later regrettably termed this action as “biggest blunder of his life”.
5. Notice the term appeared. Again an emotional term.
6. Look how he speaks emotionally: in order to avoid bottomless speculations.
7. It is worth mentioning that the man who tried hard to change Einstein’s mind on this subject was a scientist in Vatican called George LeMaitre. He did not like Einstein’s introduction of cosmological constant because it was predicting an important reality i.e. there was a beginning for space which in turn meant the universe had been created. By criticising Einstein – a really difficult job to do – he persuaded Hubble to initiate his experiments. A better version of truth was eventually found and we had a great leap in science. Therefore, it might have been better if Einstein would have quoted the Christian LeMaitre instead of the mathematician Friedman here.  One can consider this event as an interesting example of role of religion in science and technology.
8. Einstein admits that according to scientific approach, we have to drop the notion of static space.
9. Again one can see how difficult it was for Einstein to drop his second hypothesis. Another emotional stance by him is apparent here.
10. Quoting “according to Friedman” can have two different interpretations. 1) To acknowledge and somehow scientifically admire his work, or 2) Give him the liability of the results. I think Einstein was not comfortable with the outcome, as it is apparent from his many remarks, and wants to put the blame on Friedman if it was proved to be otherwise and he was right.
11. Another remark to make the new theory of expanding space look weaker since it is based on our present knowledge and not fully proved. Everybody knows that in science, we always speak of present knowledge. Inserting this notation is only to make it less credible and register his doubts about it.
12. Another remark to register his doubts. Another emotional action.
13. Notice the word “appear”. Logically, we should find out the life of stars first and then express our feelings about them, such as how short or long they are. But using our feelings before anything is proved, is something that almost every scientist do without admitting it. We feel first and then look at theories in order to evaluate them. This is what we want to prove in this work.
14. Einstein is considered to be our best thinking scientist. Yet, see how he prefers to use his gut feelings rather than scientific results of Hubble.

I hope I did not over exaggerate Einstein’s feelings. This was what I honestly could read in between his lines. Since then, things have changed a lot and everybody today believes in the Big Bang and in creation of the universe from singularity. But of course, what was before singularity, is everybody’s speculation.

Positivism or Scepticism

It is interesting to note that usually those scientists who looked at religious ideas with scepticism, became positivist in their empirical approach! This is a clear double standard approach. Because either we believe in an objective world or we don’t. If we believe that there is a real world outside and we can reach certainty in that conclusion, then why do we doubt those who claimed to have reached that level of certainty and informed us about it. Isn’t it time to start considering these claims as potentially real ones and try to examine them?

However, as history of science tried to prove to us, we are not going to know the whole truth. This is a common belief among all scientists and we concentrate our work from now on, on this aspect only. The question will change to this: If we are not going to believe in anything, then why do we teach science and technology to our children? Why do we discuss scientific results? And how come that we actually progress?

If we do not know the truth, surely, we can not progress in anything. Therefore, we have to conclude that we know something. And by that we mean we have reached the level of   certainty for that matter. If we cross the road, it is because we are sure that we are not going to be struck by a car. If we are sitting comfortably in our sofa it is because we are sure that the roof above us is not going to give in and collapse; and so on.

It is essential to find a system in order to interpret our levels of certainty. One solution is to say that we have two types of truth: conceptual and practical. When we study the Theory of Knowledge, we conclude that  we can not reach the conceptual reality. But in science and specially in technology, the shape of our perceived truth is based on our latest findings and is certainly a pragmatic one. It is important to note this before we proceed with the role of religion in advancement of science.

So far, we showed that our emotions are the first building blocks of our science. Of course, it is rational thinking and scientific procedures that evaluate those feelings. By using science, we correct our feelings in order to reach sound results. Another important point is to note that all our technological findings and related sciences are practical realities.

Empirical Approach in Religion

This is a taboo subject indeed! It is important to accept that religion is about having belief in those things that our mind can not comprehend, yet to prove it. For example, Islam literary means submission. In such an environment, it is almost meaningless to ask for any form of critical approach to religious beliefs. So, should we conclude that there is no way of empirical approach in religion? The answer is, no.

Since religious teachings and information do not cover details on every subject, especially those related to centuries later, we should find a way to find new interpretations based on what is available. One way of doing that is suggested in this work as follows. By all means this is not the only way to look at it, but it can be a starting point for further works.

The main points in this approach – call it principles – are as follows:

• Religious scripture should be considered as real data.
• Researchers should adhere to all moral teachings of that religion.
• Rational thinking and critical evaluation should be used only in selection of religions and schools of thought within religions.
• Usually, theories in religion are not fully known and almost in all cases, no new scripture is available in religion, hence no point of testing.
• Creation of new methods of extracting principles based on the above points should take place (a methodology of research in religion).
• According to the above, the empirical approach in religion will be only in the form of creating and testing of new religious-based theories (and not in their teachings).

Religious scripture 

As in any scientific work, it is essential to immaculate all available religious scripture for originality. Any accountable result can only be obtained by working on authentic scripture. After we have done that, it is essential to treat them as real as any data or test from our observations of the world. However, there are differences in the comparison of physical data and religious ones. Some of these are as follows:

• The domain of religious data obtained from scripture is much wider than our experimental world. Things like information on those concepts that we can not even comprehend or things that we can not test, or data from future and so on falls within this extra field for religious scripture.
• Religious data comes from past while physical data can be found in the present and future. This is a vital element for any verification process.
• Contexts of the religious physical data obtained from scripture are not clear. Some of these models might have used the theories and models of the day in order to make them easier for people to comprehend. Nevertheless, some data may be understood by models unknown to present day knowledge and will be clear once we believe in them someday later. This is a challenging task that makes any interpretation of scripture really difficult.

Moral Practice

Unfortunately, most philosophers do not practice their belief. More damaging is the fact that majority of religious teachers also do not practice their teachings. This is utterly unacceptable. Religions are all about practice. Any teaching of religious doctrine is only to give light to those who are new to those religions. From a religious point of view, anyone who does not practice a religion is ineligible to claim that he has understood the concepts of that religion. It is simply not possible to grasp many fundamental points of religion if it is not adapted. Can we speak about laws of electricity without performing experiments in electricity? These are inner experiences which should be strongly encouraged in our universities.

Faith Selection

If there is anywhere in religious studies where we need to practice rational thinking, it is in the field of faith selection. Rational thinking is the only way to guide us through different schools of thought. It is worth mentioning that by having faith only and not incorporating logic, one can not understand where the problems are. Where do we draw the line between faith and reality. Surely, one would remain in the subjective world without any mechanism to link him to the real objective world. It seems that this is the role of logical process of mind that we call it rationalisation. Here is where we can combine heart and mind. It is not an easy task but needs to be addressed.

Our proposal is as follows: Be faithful but vigilant. One should remain faithful to his belief firmly and resolute until he finds a better version of truth in another school of thought, faith or religion. A true believer who has practised the deepest aspects of religion can distinguish (by both results of heart and mind) a better idea once he sees it. This is true even within one religion. In any religion, there are several schools of thought which can represent a school of thought outside their religion. Selection of the right faith and moreover, continual look out for a better idea is the key to success in any heart-mind process.

Religious Scientific Theories

Most religions are aimed at improving human values and goals. Therefore, they are more concerned with human sciences than physical ones. Nevertheless, since they claim to have data from the creator, their reference to physical world can be very much enlightening.

However, laws or theories of the universe are not usually given. Therefore, we have no physical theory to work on. Almost all religious theories – including laws of creation, causal laws, etc. – are created by followers of those religions and not by their founders. Therefore, any empirical work on original religious ideas are not practical. Specially, as we have mentioned above, we have no new scripture to extract new data from them in order to test those theories. For any empirical approach we need to have a theory and fresh, untested data to verify it. Here we have neither.

Scientific Methodology in Religions

The above findings should not prevent us from looking for ways to improve our understanding of our environment, universe and physical laws based on our faith. Certainly, there are many questions to be answered. Traditions and original data in any faith do not give direct answers to our every day questions, specially the contemporary ones.

Muslim Jurists have devised several laws to extract new findings (diligence) based on original ones (Qur’an and Sunnah) in the field of jurisprudence. Since jurisprudence deals with our everyday requirement and our private and social life, it has been prioritised. Work on physical aspects of Islam has been confined to interpretation of Qura’n as confirmation of current physical theories. Contemporary Muslim scholars are not in the process of finding new concepts or theories based on Islam but merely proving that Qur’an referred to these new theories, incredibly 14 centuries ago. This approach may fascinate many Muslims. Indeed it was an encouraging factor in giving confidence to ordinary Muslims faced with ever increasing threat of technological advancement in the West. But it has a drawback. These theories may change according to new findings. Since the newly rejected theory was directly related to Qur’an or Hadith (tradition), its elimination may lead to weakening of the faith itself.

One of those who tried to introduce a methodology in our extraction of theories from religious data, is Ayatullah Sadr. He discussed the implications of such approach and devised some criteria for them in his book Iqtesaduna (our economy)[iii]. As an example, he first discussed how we can deduce the concept of ownership in Islam and went to discuss the “transfer of ownership” among other things.

Empirical Approach in Religions

Based on the above, it would not be right to expect to put our findings from scriptures to test. Since we do not have an established theory, or even new data, we can not apply the same methodology of empirical experiences. Furthermore, those who want to do these tests are not practising individuals. Scientists should start practising their faith, devise new methodologies to enable them to reach better theories, and only then, they would be in a position to start examining the original teachings of religions.

However, there is a partial solution to the above. It does not give full religious credibility, but at the same time, it is not as damaging as the above approach. Baqeri explains how this approach works:

We do not build theories based on religious data. This approach prevents us from exposing (the religious data) to experiment. What we do is to use our religious views in order to suggest some axioms (hypothesis). Then we build theories around these assumptions. This theory can then be subjected to experiment. If it fails, no harm is done to the religion.[iv]

As one can see, this approach creates theories based on feelings of a religious person and not on the faith itself. Nevertheless, it is a useful approach. It enables scientist to discover new frontiers based on belief, and improves the science by introducing new ideas – the building block of any advancement in science & technology.

Conflicting Circumstances

There are times that faith and science come head to head. The outcome of this challenge depends on the observer’s position.  In order to elaborate this further, it is best to give an example: the story of what has come to be known as the “Shroud of Turin”.

Shroud of Turin is a piece of cloth kept at Turin Cathedral which is claimed by Roman Catholic Church to be the clothing Jesus left behind when he arose on the third day. From early days of its discovery there were doubts about its authenticity. In 1988 three pieces of stamp-size samples were cut from shroud and distributed to laboratories of Zurich, Oxford and University of Arizona. Each performed at least 3 radiocarbon measurements on its sample. Several months later, the labs revealed their verdict: the linen of the cloth dated no earlier than the late Middle Ages.

Sceptics rejoiced and romantics were subdued, but not entirely. Time magazine wrote on this subject: “Counterintuitive as it may seem in an age when technology has either trumped belief or became its new focus, a fascination with the shroud seems to have not only survived but also flourished”. Finally, in 1989, when asked if he believed the shroud to be genuine, John Paul II replied, “I think it is”[v].

Which version of truth is more real? The carbon dating results or events surrounding the Shroud? Both sides should be cautious. Scientific results are governed by certain criteria. One can not rule out the possibility of unknown factors. Here is an instance where one can be sceptic (conceptually). On the other hand, if we do not criticise faith by scientific findings, we are bound to miss some aspects of reality.

However, in order to find a way in which we could decide between the two, we have to formalise a method. There is no doubt that we have to almost create the science of processing emotional findings. The basic elements of such an approach are:

• Change the attitude of the universities toward religion
• Finding ways of scientification of religion

Role of Universities

It seems that universities are as much accountable as stubborn religious followers in their failure to find new ways of refining and classifying our religious feelings. For whatever reasons, one can see that from early days the academic communities were not religious if we do not claim that they were actually against it. By adopting and using rational process only, they thought that they have done something good for religion. As a result, we saw books and articles written on religious subjects which were totally wrong. It is like discussing electromagnetic fields by implementing only magnetic tests. There are two sides to humans as a whole, and in religions in particular, that should be addressed. As long as universities tend to keep their traditional stance of anti religion, they will not benefit from real data coming from religious people.

Universities should change their attitudes toward religion. For start, they should believe in the concept of revelation. They should not treat prophets as just merely highly motivated or bright persons but put the concept of revelation as a basis of their study. Academics should practice the religion and provide courses on inner experiences. They should invite religious people to their universities to lecture and try to understand them. Fortunately, now there are many religious lecturers wishing to penetrate those institutions but they are facing solid walls.

Role of Religion Today

Before we discuss the role of religion in our today’s scientific activity, it is worth answering this question: What is the aim of science and technology? What are we aiming to achieve by improving our science?

If the answer is a better future, one can argue that religions give much better scope of our future. They look well beyond our immediate future; they describe our situation in times much later than our death. Isn’t that great?  This dilemma is better expressed in the argument of  Imam Sadiq (pbuh) to an atheist by saying:

There are two possibilities; either there is a hereafter or there isn’t. If there isn’t, then we are both experimenting more or less the same difficulties or joys in the life. But if there is – which there is – you will have a very bad future and we will have a very prosperous one. [vi]

Why should we not allow religious values to play a role in science? They are at least as good as any other man-made theory. The mere possibility that they contain data from the source of creation and can see life beyond our death is wonderful by itself. Isn’t it time to think about their importance? At the very least, the advantage of religious laws to physical ones is that they probably give us a better life – for eternity.

Apart from the above, and before we can devise the scientification of religious teachings, there is one thing that certainly can help us achieve better results in science and technology: Ideas. Religions can give us a diverse sense of ideas for scientists to work on, or at least a world view to choose one theory from conflicting ideas.

For example, our contemporary theories give us a choice of three cases in the subject of expansion of the universe as follows:

1. Universe is flat and expanding to a limit
2. Universe is ever expanding on an open curve
3. Universe has a cyclic form (expansion and contraction from and to singularity)

As a scientist, it is good to have an extra opinion, even if it is not a proved one.  This narrows down the selection list and in case they have guessed it right, then obviously a lot of time and money is saved. For example in this instance, we argue that Islam calls for the third choice. We have verses in Qur’an to refer to the three phases of expansion, explosion and contraction of the universe as follows:

Expansion: The following verse not only refers to the expansion of the universe, but to the Big Bang (power) as well.

“And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are expanding” 51:47

Explosion:

“When the heaven becomes cleft asunder” 82:1

“When the heaven bursts asunder” 84:1

Contraction:

“On the day when We will roll up heaven like rolling up of the scrolls for writings” 21:104

“I swear by the heaven which can retract” 86:11

It is a delightful insight for a scientist to see not only such concepts have been addressed, but a clear selection is possible.

Further Studies:

In order to make this work more productive, some concepts of Islam is listed below with a short description. Researchers and universities are urged to look at these concepts and the possibility of their implications in our immediate future.

Jinn (some kind of ghost)	A creature made of fire (energy?), enjoying almost the same intelligent civilisation as human beings. Have construction abilities under water which could be utilised by Humans.
Splitting of the Moon	Unfortunately, little information is available on this occasion. However, this and several occurrence of returning of the sun back from sunset is recorded in Islamic traditions. These events can not be explained by today’s theories on the motion of planets. Therefore, new theories should be developed to incorporate or verify these events.
Contraction of Earth (Teyyul Ardh)	Contraction of Earth (Teyyul Ardh) Travelling of material bodies from far distances at a glance is recorded in Islamic traditions. The meaning of these, their possibilities and new theories to incorporate or verify them is needed. It seems that the concept of space-time needs to be changed dramatically.
Seven Heavens	What is the meaning of Seven Heavens in our today’s theories? Should we modify supersymmetry theories to accommodate for seven dimensions?
Human Soul and Universe	Human Soul and Universe Our state of mind (human will and intentions) have great effect on the physical development and prosperity of the world. Many experiments should be performed to evaluate the truth and effects of this idea.

Conclusion:

The aim of this work was to call for scientists to give more consideration to human beliefs and a request from religious people to drop their fear of performing experiments on their beliefs. However, a systematic approach should be developed to facilitate the above. This is the way of future. Today, what we can do is to create new theories based on our beliefs and encounter them with experiments. Their failure will  not harm our belief: we can modify or change the theory altogether and continue the same.

Seyed Ehsan Shahrestani, PhD

Vice President,

International Colleges of Islamic Science, London

---

References:

[i] Goleman, Daniel, Emotional Intelligence why it can matter more than IQ, Bloomsburg, 1996

[ii] Einstein, Albert, Relativity, page 133

[iii] As Sadr, Muhammad Baqir, Iqtisaduna (Our Economics), WOFIS, 1983

[iv] Baqeri, Khosrow, Head of Philosophy of Teaching at University of Tehran in an interview published in Iran journal No. 1001-1003, 27-29 July 1998

[v] Van Biema, David, Science and the Shroud, Time Magazine, April 20, 1998

[vi] Al Kulayni, Sheikh Muhammad ibn Ya’quob, Al Kafi, WOFIS, 1982