Relationship between Science and Religion or Spirituality is often a deeply contested issue. Popular (mis)perception and (mis)understanding propagated by most of the rationalists, secularists, atheists, agnostics and socialists-communists is that science and religion are diametrically opposed, hostile and at cross purposes. They generally argue that religion is based on a belief system or faith that is superstition, ignorance and emotions while science is rational, logical, empirical, objective, verifiable, quantifiable and universal. Such an approach, however, seems to overlook empirical evidence. In this context, it may be pertinent to briefly look at religious views of some of the leading scientists themselves.
For example, Sir Issac Newton was highly religious. Newton believed that behind the veil of the physical world lived a divine, infinite intelligence which continuously supported and maintained it. The God who designed the universe and the life it hosts was infinitely superior to the human ability to understand Him. Newton saw himself, “…like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me”. This was his extraordinary level intellectual humility often noticed among the greatest scientists. Newton was a true theist, just like other leading champions of the scientific revolution: Galileo, Kepler, and Bacon. He shared with these learned men a generally Christian faith, as well as a propensity to develop personal views on foundational doctrines of this faith which were often at variance with the orthodoxy of the Denomination to which they ostensibly belonged. In an explanatory note in his famous work Principia, Newton outlines his views of God’s role in creation, which remarkably differs from that of other contemporary philosopher-scientists, such as Descartes and Leibniz. These learned men limited the role of God to the establishment of a mechanical universe. Once created, the universe required no further intervention from God, and could be understood entirely in terms of mechanical principles derived from an observation of physical phenomena. In contrast, Newton’s God remains actively involved in the universe He created. Without continual divine involvement, the universe would eventually collapse; for instance, the orbits of planets have to be divinely maintained. This kind of interventionist God was criticised by Descartes, Leibniz, and others on the ground that it portrayed a poorly built universe that demanded a continuous tinkering on the part of God to function: and what kind of om­niscient and all powerful God would have to do that? However, for Newton the God of these thinkers came too close to rendering the very idea of a Creator ultimately unnecessary: and much of the subsequent developments vindicated his concerns.

Another great scientist Charles Darwin, although deeply dissatisfied with Christianity, he was not done with God. At the time he was writing the Origin, he writes, he found other reasons for believing in the existence of God. In particular, he thought it was nearly impossible to regard the physical universe, life, and man’s consciousness as the result of pure chance. He was therefore compelled ‘to look to a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man’; because of that, he felt it proper to be regarded a theist. At the time of the writing of the Autobiography, the ageing Darwin had lost his trust in human ability to ever solve these problems. “Can man’s mind,” he wondered, “with its deep roots in the crude cognitive abilities of the lowest animals, be capable of answering ultimate questions, such as the one concerning God’s existence?” His final answer was negative: “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.” This was probably his final, lasting position.

Albert Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind”. He stresses, “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind”. He added, “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift”. An innocent and curious mind is naturally amazed by the vastness of nature and natural law. He remarks, “The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”. Nothing can be clearer than these observations.

Robert Oppenheimer, the architect of the nuclear bomb, referenced another verse from the ancient Sanskrit text Bhagavad Gita when recalling his state of mind as he witnessed the Trinity explosion in the New Mexico desert on 16 July, 1945: “If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendour of the mighty one”. These verses refer to the sublime form, “Vishwarupa”, Lord Krishna takes in the Bhagavad Gita when he reveals his divine nature to the warrior prince, Arjuna.
“Who are you?” asks Arjuna. “I am Time,” replies Krishna, “powerful destroyer of worlds, grown immense here to annihilate these men”. Arjuna is blinded by Krishna’s radiance even as he quakes with fear at God’s capacity to destroy evil with the fire emanating from his ferocious visage.

Professor Christian Anfinsen (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, biochemistry of RNA, Johns Hopkins University): “I think that only an idiot can be an atheist! We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place”.

Professor Werner Archer (Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, restriction enzymes and molecular genetics, University of Basel): “I do not think our civilisation has succeeded in discovering and explaining all the principles acting in the universe. I include the concept of God among these principles. I am happy to accept the concept without trying to define it precisely. I know that the concept of God helped me to master many questions in life; it guides me in critical situations and I see it confirmed in many deep insights into the beauty of the functioning of the living world”. There are many such views of scientists. This is only a tip of the iceberg. Due to paucity of space, it is not possible to cover religious and spiritual views of all the scientists in one blog post. Principles and propositions propounded by those great scientists are, however, important. Their honesty, modesty, humility, objectivity, rationality and curiosity are pervasive. Can the self-styled and self-proclaimed champions of rationality posing themselves as arch rivals of religion be fair enough to acknowledge these facts?
Let us once again remember profound statements of Einstein: “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. When the solution is simple, God is answering. God does not play dice with the universe. God is subtle but he is not malicious”.