Science and Religion: Must the two Never Meet?

by FRANCIS GONSALVES

Pushpa M. Bhargava’s article in Mainstream (March 24, 2011, pp. 21-22) entitled “Miracles or Hoax by the Clergy?” made interesting reading. While his critique against miracles—specifically, the manipulation and marketing of them by the clergy—is relevant and acceptable, some of the points he raises are neither backed by solid facts nor sound reasoning. Hence, it seems that Bhargava throws out the baby with the bathwater and appears as dogmatic and irrational about his own beliefs as the clerics he criticises. I will first comment about his critique on miracles, and then argue that there is much that both, science and religion (faith, in the broad sense) can and must learn from each another.

Bhargava basically questions: (a) the appro-priateness of the canonisation of the late Pope John Paul II on the basis of the claims of a woman being ‘miraculously’ cured of Parkinson’s Disease after praying to him; (b) the “two miracles said to have been performed, in retrospect, by Mother Teresa to support her candidature for sainthood”; (c) that, if such cures did, indeed, happen, can’t they have a scientific explanation?; and, finally, (d) “why was the cure never talked about during the lifetime of John Paul II?”

At the start, it would help to be precise about terms. What Bhargava terms ‘canonisation’ (that is, a person being declared ‘saint’ because of that person’s outstanding life worthy of emulation and the miracles attributed to him or her) is actually only a ‘beatification’ in the cases of John Paul II and Mother Teresa, that is, they are presently declared ‘blessed’—a stage before they are finally declared ‘saints’. However, this is but a minor matter of imprecise terminology that does not detract from weightier issues that Bhargava raises, and those require consideration. For now, let us simply take miracles to be extraordinary events which defy the physical laws of nature and are seemingly unexplainable.

Albert Einstein wrote: “There are two ways to live: You can live as if nothing is a miracle; or you can live as if everything is a miracle.” Atheists normally hold that nothing is a miracle since everything is explainable on the basis of the empirical laws of nature; while there are those who believe that everything is a miracle either because they are ‘gullible’ or ‘irrational’ (as Bhargava holds) or simply because they are mystics who view everything with awe and wonder. To the latter, very earthy and ‘secular’ phenomena like raindrops, the scent of a jasmine, the ocean tides, the smile of a babe and the love of a friend are all miracles. However, what we are reflecting upon is seemingly inexplicable phenomenon like miraculous cures and faith healings.

Bhargava seems to think that miracles—if at all one can call them that—must only be performed during the lifetime of candidates to sainthood. It is not uncommon to hear of holy persons who have performed miracles during their lifetime. Padre Pio of Italy was credited with some during his lifetime; Mother Teresa with none that I know of. However, in neither case would such lifetime miracles—even if ‘proved’—be counted for the canonisation to take place. Reason: because no one in the Catholic belief is a jivanmukta—all those alive, including reputed saints, have feet of clay and may therefore fail in the later part of their lives. For canonisation, the miracles needed are after death.

Are miracles possible? Bhargava says: “[A]ll miracles are inventions of the clergy” and denies them with the certitude of a believer in non-miracles! This reminds me of the famous ‘flat-earthers’ who for years refused to believe that the earth is round and refuted every evidence presented, or those who even today continue to deny biological evolution in spite of the growing evidence for it, or those who proclaim that the landing on the moon was a fiction created by American TV. They are all ‘fundamentalists’ of established beliefs, stubbornly refusing to look at the evidence. A kind of disease for which the only remedy is compassionate tolerance.

All miracles are not “inventions of the clergy” for there are many mysterious phenomena that even believer-scientists term as ‘miraculous’ since science and medicine cannot explain them. Here comes the question of miraculous cures and faith healings, which, failing to be explained by the empirical method, makes a scientist say: “I do not know how this has happened.” Here, with faith the believer says: “I experience the power of Transcendence (God, for many) in this unexplainable phenomenon.”

There have been many atheists and scientists who have encountered extraordinary events and seen in them signs of the Divine. Aldous Huxley was an unbelieving philosopher who went to Lourdes, in France, witnessed some miracles, reflected upon them and became a believer. Pedro Arrupe was a fourth-year student of medicine in a University in Bilbao, Spain, who likewise personally witnessed a miracle and became a Jesuit priest. He would later head the Jesuits worldwide. To prevent anything and everything being labelled ‘miracle’, there is a ‘Lourdes Medical Bureau’ whose membership is open to all to investigate all claims of inexplicable cures. After dismissing many claims of miracles every year, a few cases are recorded as ‘inexpli-cable’ after undergoing minute scrutiny.

•

ONE cannot deny that many reported miracles are hoaxes or the result of gullibility. This happens in all religions, as well illustrated by Bhargava in the three major religions: Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. We are all inclined to rely on the unknown to make up for our ignorance or weakness. Hence, a basic skepticism regarding miracles is healthy. But a blind and blanket rejection of their possibility is evidence of a “faith” in atheism, which is not reflective of a scientific temper. Indeed, while what is rational might be said to be true, one must remember that all which is true is not necessarily rational. For example, how would one explain someone sacrificing one’s life for the good of someone else, or, when everyone seems to be making money at any cost, how ‘rational’ is the option of one who opts to be truthful despite being threatened, losing one’s job, or even slain for one’s satyagraha?

Fine-tuning our preliminary definition of miracle, it is not just an inexplicable event, but it has within itself the signs of explanation if one is open to all truth. Authentic miracles clearly point to a higher order of existence or a Higher Reality. The appearance of living and growing cells in physical matter is a sign of a new form of existence, the biological existence that grows and reproduces itself and dies. It cannot be explained by mere physics, but one must come to biological science. So too within human existence the unexplained “x” offers explanation about a higher order of reality. The context of prayer, of a ‘good person’ (‘saint’), of a benevolent Power at work, point to an explanation of the ‘unexplained’. One may continue to reject the explanation even after repeated evidences show the way out—in which case one will have to question whether such a rejection is really scientific or rational.

It’s only partly true that “the clergy every-where have played a major role in distortion of history” and that “science has been the biggest enemy of the clergy” since there have been many clergymen who have been distinguished scientists. For instance, Georges Lemaitre, the Belgian astronomer who first proposed the ‘Big Bang’ theory, was a clergyman as was Mendel whose discovery of the principles of heredity provided vital support for the theory of evolution. Here, Bhargava’s sweeping claims reveal a prejudice and do not match up to the hard facts.

As per Article 51A of our Constitution, Bhargava rightly advises us “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”. This seems to forbid us to remain locked in a 19th century scientism that in fact proved not to be really humanistic but led to two World Wars. A true humanism opens the roof towards Transcendence.

It is said: “Good fences make good neighbours.” The domains and objectives of science and religion are distinct, and must be maintained. The developments in the natural sciences have often been so radical as to transform the socio-religio-cultural milieu. Thus, theologians of all religions must find new ways of expressing their religious faith so as to make religion a meaningful and powerful force to address societal ills. As far as Christianity is concerned, the Copernican Revolution and the Galileo and Bruno affairs are examples of fundamentalist religion that did not take science seriously causing much heartburn and embarrassment to the Church. Fittingly, it was Pope John Paul II who pronounced a so-called ‘mea culpa’—literally, “my fault”—in asking forgiveness for past sins of the Church’s refusal to be open to the advancements in the various disciplines.

Speaking to Christian scientists some years ago, Pope John Paul II called for dialogue and close collaboration between science and religion. He said: “The unity that we seek is not identity. The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion science... We are asked to become one. We are not asked to become each other. To be more specific, both religion and science must preserve their autonomy and distinctiveness. Religion is not founded on science nor is science an extension of religion. Each should possess its own principles, its pattern of procedures, its diversities of interpretation and its own conclusions.... Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Even if anyone were to doubt the sanctity of John Paul II, one is not likely to dismiss the sagacity of his opinion. And, should the scientists and atheists not be convinced by a Pope’s opinion, then perhaps we could listen to Einstein once again: “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” Hence, couldn’t we try more earnestly to make the two meet—if not marry?

Francis Gonsalves is the Principal, Vidyajyoti College of Technology, Delhi.