In England, till the mid twentieth century, science and scientific education was considered inferior,akin to tradesmen and an education in the classics considered a true mark of an intellectual.-- and England dominated the thinking of the western world. In the 50s, CP Snow lamented the fact that science education was abysmal and warned that this would cost England dearly. His was the transitional generation where slowly, scientific thought was considered important - probably, the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics helped or maybe the WWII changed perceptions and scientists became important.
In ancient times, philosophy and science were indistinguishable-- Archimedes, for example- was he a scientist or a philosopher? In Ancient India too, the scientists were the philosophers.
When did science become a trade?
Now it has gone to the other extreme. The humanities are considered inferior. A person studies for a BA only if he cannot do anything else.
Coming back to CP Snow, he proposed the idea of two cultures. He experienced it first hand, being a scientist by training and a bureaucrat by profession (or should I say livelihood?) and a writer by choice. His friendship with other writers and scientists of his time, gave him ringside view of their ways of thinking.
This idea of two cultures has come up again in an article that I finally ended up in starting from a post in a blog. AK Ramanujan's father tells him "the brain has two lobes" when asked how he can reconcile astrology and astronomy.
That is what I keep thinking whenever someone asks ' how can a scientist believe in god?'..........like Alice, one can believe in "six impossible things before breakfast". We all have many irrational beliefs. We all have many facets to our thinking. We none of us behave in a linear fashion or following a standard equation set out for us.
In ancient times, philosophy and science were indistinguishable-- Archimedes, for example- was he a scientist or a philosopher? In Ancient India too, the scientists were the philosophers.
When did science become a trade?
Now it has gone to the other extreme. The humanities are considered inferior. A person studies for a BA only if he cannot do anything else.
Coming back to CP Snow, he proposed the idea of two cultures. He experienced it first hand, being a scientist by training and a bureaucrat by profession (or should I say livelihood?) and a writer by choice. His friendship with other writers and scientists of his time, gave him ringside view of their ways of thinking.
This idea of two cultures has come up again in an article that I finally ended up in starting from a post in a blog. AK Ramanujan's father tells him "the brain has two lobes" when asked how he can reconcile astrology and astronomy.
That is what I keep thinking whenever someone asks ' how can a scientist believe in god?'..........like Alice, one can believe in "six impossible things before breakfast". We all have many irrational beliefs. We all have many facets to our thinking. We none of us behave in a linear fashion or following a standard equation set out for us.
5 comments:
many people may compartmentalize but there is leakage also :).. when belief in God starts affecting the science you do.. then that is a problem..
@suvrat kher:- Does that happen often? If the statement attributed to Einstein, about god not playing dice is true,did it make him reluctant to accept QM?
I think people compartmentalise easily. In fact one even compartmentalises ones moral values often which leads to the hypocrisy one sees everywhere. What do you think?
L- i think there are all sorts. I have been involved in enough debates on Ram Sethu and Saraswati river where I do suspect that religious sentiments have influenced scientists.
An average or below average scientist doesn't have much respect just because she does science and similarly a good litterateur in any of the humanities or even a tiny subclass of it is respected just like a scientist worth her salt by either original work or scholarship. So although I almost sympathize with your sentiment here, I think gross generalization is the root cause of such depressing thoughts.
And I love to point out that in stone age all subjects were the same not just art and science. We have come a long way from even the ancient times which you seem to miss, when philosophy and science were the same - it was so only because science was not very well formed. Contrast it with the present times where we have precise knowledge about zillion things and have the tools and ability developed enough to probe them even further.
About our country I would like to point one thing though. In the developed world the idea of religion has been successfully beaten up with rational thought so much that it has receded into the safe quarters of individual minds with no influence on people as a whole. We still have to see such a thing happen here. The ability to decide whether something is a phantom or real should be taken away from the society at large and given back to individuals. India is still swayed heavily by religious thought..little too much to be scientific in its broad outlook.
Science and God aren't two poles. If you believe in the marvels of Cosmos as a scientist, you should have no problem in believing in the creative forces (hitherto unknown)behind them.
The symmetry, universality,complexity and the interrelationship of all leads one to believe in some kind of force controlling the affairs, which may alternatively called God. (Upnishads give precisely this definition of God. That is why man is asked not to worry about the fruits of his action as they are governed by the cosmic rules !)
Post a Comment