In a world increasingly driven by scientific advancements, it is paradoxical that the lines between science, faith and superstition often blur. This phenomenon is universal. But in India, the conflation of these domains has increased alarmingly, with pseudoscience often masquerading as scientific truth. The consequences are far-reaching, affecting public policy, education and even judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the need to distinguish between science, faith and superstition has never been more urgent.
First, it must be clearly understood that formal education in science does not automatically instill a scientific temper. This is evident in the numerous instances where individuals with advanced degrees propagate pseudoscientific ideas. In 2021, a judge in India declared that cows are the only animals that inhale and exhale oxygen. In 2017, another judge claimed peahens conceive by swallowing the tears of peacocks.
Sadly, the academic community is not immune to this trend. Not long ago, an IIT director attributed cloudbursts and landslides in the region to meat consumption. This January, a director of IIT Madras sparked controversy by endorsing the medicinal properties of cow urine at a public event. While he defended his statements by referencing published studies, the broader scientific community remains divided. Some research highlights potential benefits, while others caution against adverse effects. This underlines the importance of rigorous scientific scrutiny and the dangers of selective citation.
Recognising that faith and science are not mutually exclusive may be critical at this juncture. Many of history’s greatest scientists, including Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and George Lemaitre, held strong spiritual beliefs while making groundbreaking contributions to science. Newton, a devout Christian, spent considerable time on theological studies; yet his laws revolutionised physics. Einstein famously remarked, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang theory, which transformed our understanding of the universe. These examples illustrate faith is a personal matter, while science is a professional pursuit. The two can coexist harmoniously, provided they do not encroach upon each other’s domains.
However, the ability to differentiate faith from superstition is critical. Faith can provide solace and mental resilience, particularly in times of illness or distress. Praying for strength and peace can be beneficial; but relying solely on prayer while rejecting medical intervention crosses the line into superstition. There are rare instances where patients recover without scientific intervention, but these are exceptions, not norms. Medical professionals, while respecting patients’ beliefs, always advocate evidence-based treatment. The challenge lies in ensuring that faith does not become a substitute for scientific reasoning.
Another fundamental aspect is that scientific knowledge—or, for that matter, any knowledge—is provisional. Research is an ongoing process, and what is considered a fact today may be revised tomorrow. This adaptability is what distinguishes science from dogma, which is rigid and unyielding. For instance, the debate over cow urine reveals the complexities of scientific inquiry. While some studies suggest potential benefits, others warn of adverse effects. The scientific community must remain vigilant against biases and vested interests. The infamous case of the American sugar industry lobbying in the mid-1960s to vilify fats while downplaying the dangers of sugar is a stark reminder of how corporate influence can manipulate scientific discourse.
So, how should the scientific community respond to such challenges? History is replete with positive examples. Renowned scientists like Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman have emphasised the importance of scepticism and critical thinking. Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World warns against the dangers of pseudoscience and stresses the necessity of evidence-based reasoning. Feynman advocated for doubt and self-questioning, urging scientists to challenge their own beliefs. Indian scientists like Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, a Nobel laureate in chemistry, have also underlined the importance of rigorous inquiry.
How do we build a scientific temper? Well, it requires a concerted effort at both individual and societal levels. Education systems must prioritise critical thinking over rote memorisation. School curriculums should promote the scientific method, teaching students how to question, analyse and verify. Universities should promote interdisciplinary discussions, allowing faith and science to be studied as separate yet coexisting paradigms.
Public discourse also plays a crucial role. Media and policymakers must discourage the spread of pseudoscience, ensuring that misinformation is countered with factual clarity. Institutions must hold academics accountable when they propagate unverified claims. Scientists and educators should actively engage with the public, making scientific knowledge accessible and comprehensible.
The objective is not to undermine faith or its efficacy but to prevent its misuse in justifying unscientific claims. Only through rigorous inquiry, open discourse and an unwavering commitment to facts can we create a society that truly values both rationality and spiritual harmony. The path forward is clear: we must embrace the beauty of faith, the rigour of science and the wisdom to distinguish between the two.
John J Kennedy | Former professor and Dean, Christ (Deemed) University, Bengaluru
(Views are personal)
(johnjken@gmail.com)