two terms religion and spirituality
spirituality deals with principles and
religion deals with formal expression of
those principles but in this talk I will
not make any distinction between
religion and spirituality a common
perception of religion or spirituality
is that it is very dogmatic and a common
view of science is that it is very
pragmatic now I want to argue that
science is at least as dogmatic as
so-called spirituality and spirituality
is no less pragmatic than science the
features based on which religion or
spirituality is termed to be dogmatic
can be classified mainly into three
categories number one unquestionable
faith on the scriptures you are not
allowed to question you have to accept
them as they are
second strict adherence to the rituals
prescribed by any particular religion
and third unflinching faith in the
preachers and the saints of any
particular religion now let us look at
science is the science free from all
these things I say no the textbooks and
the journals and the conference papers
those are like the scriptures of science
often people say that because this
article has been published in you know
so-and-so journal therefore it must be
correct
similarly every University every college
has its own rituals rituals in the form
of mode of teaching mode of interaction
between students and teachers the format
in which you do experiments you present
results you
create your dissertation everywhere
there is ritual and hard we have faith
in our teachers faith in the scientists
whose work we study without which we
cannot progress now let us look at
science how it is pragmatic the
pragmatism of science mainly can be
classified into three categories again
first science tries to solve practical
problems it tries to make our life more
comfortable number two science is based
on logic and reasoning cause-and-effect
and number three science is verifiable
whatever claim you make either that can
be proved or that can be experimentally
verified now I would like to argue that
religion or spirituality also has the
same features how science tries to solve
problems of the outside world let’s say
you are in an air-conditioned room and
you hear the news of someone beloved
just passed away so can you enjoy the
soothing breeze of the air-conditioner
at that moment I bet not if the outside
world is in perfect shape but your
inside is in mess then that perfection
of the outside wall has no meaning on
the other hand even if the outside wall
is in perfect mess but your inside world
is calm and composed there is hope for
survival so science and spirituality
work at a different level our well-being
our happiness ultimately depends on a
perfect balance between the inside world
and the outside world science addresses
how to solve the problems in the outside
world and spirituality addresses how to
solve problems in the inside world next
like science all the spiritual texts
of all religion if you deeply study you
can find that they are based on absolute
logic every verse followed from the
previous verse logically though often in
public those things are not discussed
for other reasons for example if you
look at bhagavad-gita the Indian
philosophy is developed based on
questions and answers arguments and
counter-arguments in science we have
good teachers and bad teachers in
spirituality also we have good teachers
and bad teachers so a good teacher in
science can explain new things can
entertain questions
similarly in spirituality also a good a
spiritual master will encourage
questions and arguments from you the
third category that verifiability
spirituality also has verifiability
if you follow a particular spiritual
practice as per the specification under
the guidance of a proper teacher then
you can feel whatever theory is proposed
whether that is true or not
so in science we do experiments and
after the experimental results will
claim yes my original hypothesis was
correct or wrong similarly in
spirituality after we do the experiment
we have the right to say yes it is
acceptable or it is not okay now let us
turn into two broad approaches that is
followed in science
the first one is deductive approach the
second one is inductive approach the
deductive approach consists of axioms
rules of inference theorems and proofs
axioms are like statements assumptions
which you cannot prove for example you
have Euclid’s axioms for the subject of
geometry you have postulates for the
subject of quantum mechanics etc rules
of inference tell you how to derive one
step from the previous step in a
mathematical argument
theorems of statements which are either
true or false and a proof is a sequence
of steps starting from some axioms and
ending in the theorem statement
following the rules of inference most of
the disciplines under the broad category
of mathematics try to follow this
approach the deductive approach but
there are other sciences as well like
biology chemistry psychology sociology
that take another approach which is
called the inductive approach where we
have axioms we have hypotheses that
means some statements which can be
either true or false but then instead of
proof we have experiments and
observation and based on the observation
we conclude whether the hypothesis was
correct or wrong
now there are many people who believe
that eventually all the inductive
sciences can be converted to deductive
science and ultimately we can explain
everything in the form of mathematical
equations but actually that is wrong
because the deductive system itself has
its inherent limitations to summarize
there are two famous results by
mathematician card gödel the first one
says that in any deductive system there
will always be some statements which are
true but which cannot be proved within
the system you can prove those
statements provided you add more axioms
you add more rules to the system to
create a larger system but in that
larger system itself you will have new
statements which are true and not
provable in the larger system so you can
build on and on and on and go ad
infinitum at each stage you can prove
lower system but you cannot prove the
system that you build in so there will
always remain some truths out there in
the universe which will not be covered
by any mathematical theory the second
result says that no axiomatic system or
deductive system can verify its own
consistency now consistency is a very
simple thing it means that you cannot
say a statement is both
true and false at the same time for
example I cannot claim that right now
right here it is raining as well as not
raining right now what this result says
is is that no axiom system can prove or
verify its own consistency but we have
an inherent assumption that an exam
system is consistent otherwise the whole
paradigm the whole science will pull ups
but the problem is we cannot prove it we
have to assume so that is a strong faith
of course we can add more axioms we can
extend a system in order to prove
consistency of the lower system but
again the larger system becomes devoid
of any proof of consistency so there
lies a big question of faith and
assumption in the correctness of any
theory that we can make I claim that
spirituality is an inductive science
like the other inductive sciences is the
example I have given so an example of
axiom could be existence of soul or
existence of God an example of
hypothesis could be for example if you
connect soul to God then the soul
becomes happy example of experiments and
observation could be prayers meditation
chanting etc and after you perform the
experiment you see the effect you have
the right to deny the hypothesis or
accept the hypothesis in the form of
conclusion now I would talk about five
major blames that science puts on
spirituality and I would like to show
that science itself is not free from
those blames number ones religions are
the root of all riots and fights that is
happening in the world should not all
religions be banned my argument would be
physics and chemistry are the source of
all bombs and all nuclear weapons and
all the disaster all guns that is
happening in the world so should not
physics and chemistry be banned
altogether should not I instantly blamed
for his equal to MC square because that
was responsible for the atomic explosion
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
so our mode of thinking is of course
wrong
the same knife in the hand of a surgeon
can save a life and the same knife in
the hand of a murderer can take a life
so it is not the problem of religion or
science parts say it is how we use them
it is our intention second point this is
a picture of a child born of the nuclear
disaster so you can see how much role a
science can play the second point is why
follow a particular path cannot everyone
invent one’s own spiritual path or you
don’t have to call it a spiritual path
you say the path of your own life from
your own experience and then leave your
life according to it well in science
does everyone reinvent the will when you
go to a new apartment before taking your
electricity connection do you decide to
do research on your own to find out the
best mode of power generation and then
subscribe to electric supply corporation
or whatsoever know both in science and
in spirituality anyone is welcome to try
invent new paths to create new ideas
however one cannot do everything in one
lifetime so you have to begin somewhere
you have to take some things which
others have done research on in both the
disciplines next science says that why
you should follow a particular a guru or
a spiritual master one can read and
understand and practice on one’s own if
at all one wishes to follow a spiritual
path in science don’t we have PhD
supervisors don’t we have lab
instructors of course few geniuses are
out there who may not need any guidance
so in spirituality also we might have
some geniuses who may not need any a
guru but for the common mass we need a
guide we need a supervisor in both the
discipline it’s not spirituality and
religion the source of all superstition
for example the untouchability that has
been talked about other vulnerabilities
well the answer to that is is not say
mobile phone the source of all MMA
scandals so should we all throw away our
Mobile’s is not credit card the source
of all the fraud that is happening in
the digital banking industry should you
go back to our cash based banking system
of course not so in science what we try
to do we try to build protection
mechanism we try to educate people about
the potential vulnerabilities so
similarly if you go deep into any
religion or any spirituality you will
find that those blames are actually
baseless just like people misuse these
technologies for their own benefit
similarly there are people who misuse
spirituality and religion for their own
benefit just to make money or to make
votes no spiritual principle talks about
these things so we have to educate
people we have to spread the awareness
and then there will be the same
protection mechanism just like in the
mobile phone or in the credit card the
last one is not spirituality intangible
is not the result produced by
spirituality intangible well yes science
do produce tangible result for example a
sea in the summer but spirituality as I
have already described is an EC for the
summer of the mind we see that in
schools and colleges in universities we
have formal education of the so-called
science however proper formal teaching
and formal education on the logical
reasoning about spirituality and
religion is missing as we have seen that
spirituality is no less science than
science itself
so either we accept both or reject both
thank you very much [Applause]