(published in the college magazine Phyzion of 2008 issue)
We think that human beings are probably the only creature on earth that is trying to unfold the mystery of life and universe. We know two ways to unfold this great puzzle. One approach is categorised as scientific while the other is known as spiritual. Both these ways claim to have the capability to understand the mystery.
Scientific approach
Science shows us the way to get to the truth in a scientific manner. It tries to answer ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ related queries. Science chooses the path of research and experimentation. It tries to evolve the approach by keeping all options open at any given point of time. It allows questions on itself also. The approach uses the past experiences to light up the way ahead.
Believes and assumptions keep on changing with new experimental results and fresh theoretical analysis. Let us inspect the following statements given at different times. Following few examples demonstrate how things keep on changing with time in science.
- Earth is at the centre of the solar system; no, sun is the centre of our solar system; actually sun is also revolving; no, all motions are relative; in fact one can not talk of an absolute rest frame or of a moving frame in an absolute sense.
- Matter and energy of an isolated system are conserved separately; no, actually mass and energy are equivalent and we can talk only of mass-energy combined conservation.
- There is no limit to the velocity; no, velocity can never cross the velocity of light.
- Matter and waves are different and light consists of particles; no, it is a wave; no, it is both.
- Temperature of a substance is due to the presence of calorie in it; no, there is nothing like calorie and heat is a form of energy.
- There is ether medium and light uses it for propagation; no, it does not exist and light does not require any medium for traveling.
- We can determine the position and momentum of a particle exactly; no, we can not do that.
- We can predict things to any accuracy; no, we can only talk in terms of probabilities and uncertainties.
Can we say for sure that whatever we know now owing to our scientific knowledge would not get negated or modified in future?
Spiritual approach
On the other hand, spiritual approach claims to reach the truth directly. Spiritual approach arrives at the conclusions without mentioning the method to arrive at those. Ayurveda never discuss the method by which it was established that a particular herb would cure a disease. The author of Ayurveda appears to have reached to the conclusion without any documented research. Yoga is yet another such example. Hymns of Gita are also in the form of conclusions. Koran, Bible and such holy books are claimed to have originated from a source whose authority and knowledge can not be put to test. Buddha got answers to all his questions as soon he acquired Nirvana. The only way to progress on this path is to develop complete faith and then follow what has been told to, without questioning.
Science rejects this approach out rightly. Science does not allow us to follow something without questioning; to rely on a theory without experimenting; or to accept a result without research.
Discussion
But let us put the basic question first. Is it possible to come to the conclusion without argument and discussion; to develop knowledge without experimentation; to preach without experiencing? Have you noticed that there are many creatures on earth that use some obscure method to attain knowledge? Isn’t it strange that a fish knows how to swim; a bird knows how to fly; a cub knows how to run and within a few hours of birth a calf knows how to stand up and walk on its feet? Astonishingly these creatures also know many herbs that help in the treatment of many of their common diseases. These creatures do not use any scientific method. They never use research or teaching for making others aware of the failures and the successes of earlier approaches. A medicine considered to be safe once may get declared harmful after some time. We have many such instances. However the cure mentioned in Ayurveda may be effective or ineffective sometimes but amazingly they more or less never harm.
It appears that some extra-scientific technique is adopted by some to acquire a mental state that knows the solution. Science at best calls it intuition. There were many who observed things similar to those observed by Newton, Einstein, Bhor and Chandrashekher like scientists. Only a few were in such a state of mind that could think of an approach to get to the solution. Science uses intuition but never rely on them. Science often tries to understand origin of such intuitions. Is it possible to understand origin of an intuition? Does spirituality help in acquiring a state that stimulates intuitions? Do creatures other than the human beings know the mystery of life and universe and that is why do not experiment? Do they know that the best way to live on earth is to live with nature without disturbing it? Is it possible to unfold the entire mystery by acquiring a state of mind that knows it? Can this approach be developed to get a correct intuition? Can we have science of intuitions?
Conclusion
Think of it and it can be realised that science can never claim to have reached the truth. It defines the path to reach the truth probably at the cost of the knowledge of the truth. On the other hand, if you believe in the spiritual approach you are termed as conservative and are understood to possess an unscientific temperament. To me this progressive approach smells unscientific. Spirituality may claim that science can never get to the truth. This is consistent with the spiritual way of thinking. However saying that spirituality is unscientific is actually an unscientific argument in itself.
I will like to conclude this discussion by inviting scientists to open up and assess other (extra-scientific) approach to the truth in a scientific manner. Science does not accept conclusions blindly but seems to have developed a blind faith in its approach.
