Can Science Be Religious?

[RonSouther]

Q. Can science itself be religious?


A. It has been one of the greatest misfortunes that science is not religious. It can be religious and it should be religious.

Science is only a method. It has no direction, no values; it is just a method. It can be used for destruction, it can be used for creativity, because in itself it is only a neutral methodology.

Science has not been religious up to now because religions will not allow it to be religious. It is a question of a large vested interest.

No religion would like science to be religious.

It will mean religions will have to commit suicide. They cannot go on exploiting people, giving them superstitions, beliefs – all that will have to stop, because science has no belief system, it does not create superstitions. If science knows something, it is knowledge. If it does not know something, it accepts the ignorance but takes the challenge, that “One day we will know it.”

Science is very humble in comparison to your religions. They are arrogant. They are claiming things they don’t know. They are fighting for things which nobody has ever seen – Mohammedans fighting Christians, Hindus fighting Mohammedans, about the attributes of God. Nobody has seen God ever, and they are fighting and killing thousands of people in such stupid inquiries: What are the attributes of God?

Theology is a contradiction in terms. Theo means God and logy means logic – logic about God. There is no logic about God and if there is logic there is no God. They both can’t exist together.

So for three hundred years religion has been fighting continuously against every invention, every discovery. But because science is based not on belief, but on doubt – it accepts something only when there is no doubt possible about it. And then too it accepts it only hypothetically. That has to be understood. That shows the humbleness of scientific effort.

Hypothetical acceptance means: “Tomorrow new facts may be discovered, and we may have to change the theory. So for the time being we accept. Remember, for the time being – not forever. All that we know up to now is in agreement with the discovery, but who knows about tomorrow? People may invent more subtle instruments, and tomorrow new facts may arise and the theory will not be able to stand those new facts. Hence, it is only hypothetical, for the time being.”

This is true humbleness. They are not arrogant about things which are absolutely proved! Still they will not say that this is absolutely proved, because infinity is waiting.

So all scientific statements are relative, never absolute.

Religious statements are always absolute. It does not say, “Perhaps God exists.”

Science, making every discovery, says, “It is hypothetical, perhaps tomorrow we will have to change it.” And in three hundred years we had to change many times – that is enough proof.

What Newton has found, Albert Einstein has to discard, because he penetrated deeper. Naturally, he is grateful to Newton. Without Newton, Einstein would not have been able to penetrate deeper. He is standing on the shoulders of Newton; that’s why he can see a little far away, which Newton could not. But he is aware somebody someday will be standing on his shoulders and he will be able to look even farther. That’s why he called his theory, the theory of relativity.

Now in science there will be no absolute statement. Everything will be relative to the knowledge, to the time, and we will remain open to change it if reality reveals new secrets, new facts.

Religion was afraid of two things: one, the basic method of science – doubt. Religion is against doubt, it is all for faith. And if doubt succeeds in revealing objective reality, then the day is not far away when somebody will start using the same methodology to explore consciousness. That’s what we are doing here. Using the same methods which have proved solid in the objective world…now we have to take those methods to the subjective reality.

Religion tried in every possible way, but could not succeed – nobody can succeed against truth. The religions had the whole world with them; the scientists were individuals, they had no power. But truth gave them such immense power that millions of people who were in favor of religion could not prevent their truth. They could not prove that it was not true, they had to accept it – reluctantly, unwillingly.

Now a greater step has to be taken, which will be fought by all religions everywhere. If they fought about objective reality which is not their concern…. I am trying to enter their territory, challenging their territorial imperative.

And the scientific methodology is simple. For objective exploration science needs billions of dollars, but for inner exploration you don’t need even a single dollar. So there is no problem at all. Meditation is individual, and does not depend on anybody’s support.

Doubt all the dogmas, because doubt is just like a sharp sword. Cut all the ideologies from the very roots. Use doubt for clearing the ground, and then use any method of meditation. You can choose from one hundred and twelve methods.

If it is not going to be religious, then it is going to be in the service of politics, in the service of war, in the service of death.

If science becomes religious, then it will be in the service of life, in the service of love, in the service of rejoicings.

Osho