The relationship between Hinduism and science

What we can say is that Hinduism, like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is a metaphysical system. Science, on the other hand, is non-metaphysical and so accepts no divine or "outside the system" source. In this way, Hinduism stands alongside the major theologies of the world in its relation to science. That Hinduism has a polytheistic side, unlike Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, matters little when it comes to the issue of science. The key point is that Hinduism is a metaphysical tradition, whereas science is not.

In many ways the relationship between science and religion can be determined by how the members of a particular religion view scripture. And as might be expected, within Hinduism, there are conservative Hindu views, modern liberal views, and everything in between. Conservative Hindus accept the Vedas as the direct revelation of God and therefore inerrant. Whatever is stated in the Vedas, even if it is contrary to reason, sense perception, and modern science, must be accepted. This is religious fundamentalism.

On the other hand, there are Hindus who admit that the Vedas contain much that is spiritual, yet they also think that the Vedas are not infallible and so those parts of the Vedas that contradict reason or science can be rejected. This is religious liberalism, and it involves a high degree of rationalism and secularization.

And finally there are those Hindus, the vast majority of whom accept that the Vedas contain divine revelation, who think that such revelation is not free of errors because the Vedas have been written and interpreted by human beings who are flawed and conditioned by their place in history. Consequently, those parts of the Vedas that seem out of step with reason and proven science are not to be rejected, but must be reinterpreted in a way that conforms to reason and, ultimately, science.

All three of these approaches fall within the realm of what, in theology, is called hermeneutics or the interpretation of sacred writings. Indeed, all religions have adherents who subscribe to one of these basic modes of scriptural interpretation and therefore their views toward science follows one of these three general modes.

Here is an example of how an important Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, might regard modern science. There is a chapter of the Gita entitled, "Sankhya Yoga." The word sankhya means "counting," "enumeration," or "analysis." In the Gita there is a simple form of "analysis" that classifies matter into eight constituent elements: earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intelligence, and ego. This is essentially a periodic table and an excellent example of early science or what used to be called natural philosophy. Even before the Gita, Hindu thinkers had taken this theme of "counting" and developed it into one of the six traditional philosophies of ancient India called Saankhya.

From the perspective of Bhagavad Gita, it is fair to say that modern science is simply a highly detailed analysis of matter and so, in this sense, there is no conflict between the Gita and science. Modern science is simply more of what ancient Hindu thinkers had been doing for millennia, but where the Gita would disagree with modern science is that modern science does not go far enough in its analysis of reality. Vedic "science" is not simply about the mere analysis of matter, but it also includes the analysis of soul and God. In other words, it includes metaphysical reality as well as physical reality.

The sankhya of the Gita therefore includes an analysis of physical reality as well as a spiritual reality. At present, modern science only accepts physical reality as its domain of study, but the call from the Gita is that ordinary science should also explore the metaphysical dimensions of life and so become a complete form of sankhya. But an objection can be made that science does not need to include such metaphysical issues as the soul and God because philosophy and theology already do this. I think the answer from the Gita would be that physical reality and spiritual reality are ultimately inseparable, and therefore, any study of one that omits the presence of the other will create a false or incomplete body of knowledge. Therefore even such non-physical sciences as psychology, biology, or the medical sciences must include at least the premise that at the heart of reality there is a spiritual foundation, and even though we may not be equipped to see it at this point, it is there nonetheless and must be accounted for.

These ancient scriptures are classified into two major texts: Shruti and Smriti. Shruti (“that which is heard”) primarily refers to the Vedas, which form the earliest record of the Hindu scriptures’ and are regarded as eternal truths revealed to ancient sages. The most notable of the Smritis (“memory”) are the epics and the Puranas. The epics consist of the Mahabharata (the Bhagavad Gita is an important part of this epic) and the Ramayana. One has to search these scriptures diligently to find the links to science. Nonetheless, Hinduism has been called the “oldest religion” in the world and some practitioners and scholars refer to it as Sanātana Dharma, “the eternal law” or the ‘eternal way” beyond human origins. Hinduism includes a diversity of ideas on spirituality and traditions, but has no ecclesiastical order, no unquestionable religious authorities, no governing body nor any obligatory holy book; Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic, pantheistic, humanistic, conservatism, or liberalism. Based on this diversity of worldviews, there is plenty of room in which science can fit into Hindu philosophy. For instance, in the Veda texts, Chaplain Gadadhara Pandit Dasa at New York University and Union Theological Seminary and Sri Devasthanam, the Sanskrit Religious Institute find where science and spirituality intersect. Dasa notes that there are many examples of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in the Puranas texts. Einstein’s hypothetical experiment known as the “twin paradox” suggests that if one of a pair of twins travels to outer space at light speed, while the other remains on earth, when the space traveling twin returns, he will be younger than the twin on earth. A passage from the Bhagavat Purana communicates relativity: One’s life endures for only one hundred years, in terms of the times in the different planets. Eternal time is certainly the controller of different dimensions, from that of the atom up to the super-divisions of the duration of Brahmās life; but, nevertheless, it is controlled by the Supreme. Time can control only those who are body conscious, even up to the Satyaloka or the other higher planets of the universe Sri Devasthanam believes that interpretation of the Veda texts is based on the individual’s political leanings. For instance, conservative Hindus accept the Vedas as the direct revelation of God and, therefore, free from error regardless of any non-scientific content, while liberal Hindus admit the great spiritual nature of the Vedas but are willing to reject those parts that contradict reason or science. The mass majority of Hindus, however, believe that the Vedas contain divine revelation but the interpretation is not free from errors because human beings are imperfect, and those parts of the Veda that contradict reason or science must be reinterpreted in a way that conforms to reason or science. 

Einstein looked at space and time and saw a single dynamic stage — spacetime — on which matter and energy strutted, generating sound and fury, signifying gravity.

Newton’s law of gravity had united the earthly physics of falling apples with the cosmic dances of planets and stars. But he couldn’t explain how, and he famously refused to try. It took an Einstein to figure out gravity’s true modus operandi. Gravity, Einstein showed, did not just make what goes up always come down. Gravity made the universe go ’round.

Gravity’s secrets succumbed to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, unveiled in a series of papers submitted a century ago this November to the Prussian Academy in Berlin. A decade earlier, his special theory of relativity had merged matter with energy while implying the unity of space and time (soon to be christened as spacetime). After years of struggle, Einstein succeeded in showing that matter and spacetime mutually interact to mimic Newton’s na?ve idea that masses attract each other. Gravity, said Einstein, actually moved matter along the curving pathways embodied in spacetime — paths imprinted by mass and energy themselves. As expressed Decades later by the physicist John Archibald Wheeler, mass grips spacetime, telling it how to curve, and spacetime grips mass, telling it how to move.

Einstein’s theory explained a famous observation that Newtonian gravity could not: a subtlety in the orbit of the planet Mercury. And his equations implied further slight deviations from Newtonian calculations. Over the last century, general relativity’s predictions have been repeatedly verified by modern precision measurements. To physicists today, general relativity and gravity are essentially synonyms.Therefore, I end with a simple phrase written by celebrated theoretical physicist Albert Einstein: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. The claims of incompatibility between the findings of science and religion are wrong. It is religious fundamentalism that is incompatible with science. This is why it is imperative that scientists and religion scholars work together to stem the tide of religious fundamentalism.

The main theme of this writing here is to re-emphasize this balance between science and religion and to show that the scientific method was almost never violated by these classical scientists who were indeed very religious. In fact, their worldview was quite healthy – doing science to show the glory of God. This worldview removes the “noise” in the arguments on the incompatibility between religion and science leaving the clarity of a beautiful accommodation. This may be the “key” to a greater acceptance today of this conceptual compatibility between science and religion. I discuss these ideas in great detail emphasizing the fact that these classical scientists laid the foundation for the science and technology we presently enjoy despite their devotion to God. I re-emphasize the argument of a lasting conceptual compatibility between science and religion, because on an epistemological level, these belief systems are generally two views of the same reality. On a practical level, an alliance generates sensible information which stifles the growth of religious fundamentalism. No one should have to surrender their religion for the good of science.