A contemporary religion ~ Life Stylzz

Whether religion is science is a question that has occupied a central place in debates among believers and the

faithful on the one hand and empiricists and scientists on the other.

Modern science accepts a theory or a practice only if in principle it can be proved and confirmed by experiments and observations. According to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, conventional religion is not able to provide the kind of proof demanded by science -- theories of creation, human nature, ethical and social values.

Science, however, is able to give such answers. For example, scientific theories of evolution are able to present satisfactory and rationally acceptable explanations of the existence of human life than any theology has done so far. Astronomy conclusively demonstrates the insignificance of earth as compared to other celestial phenomena. Theories of good moral conduct can be better explained as social conveniences rather than the embodiment of eternal values as theology does. Psychological behaviourism explains human nature in terms of stimulus and response.

Religion from a psychoanalytic view is an illusion. Karl Marx goes to the extent of saying that religion is opium to people. Scholars of comparative religion and social anthropology maintain that all religions are manmade. So much so that men "can make a god out of glands, if only we set about it". `Proofs' advanced for the existence of God by all religions and theologians are far from satisfactory.

Religion faces formidable challenges not only from science, but is also threatened by much more damaging inter and intra religious contradictions. According to Radhakrishnan, "Nothing is so hostile to religion as other religions." This has disastrous effects for all religions. It makes the conventional and established religions morally ineffective. From this he concludes that, "The world would be a much more religious place if all religions were removed from it."

Sectarian religions are the outcome of the illogical belief in a single religion for mankind, and this is because of 'unreason and intolerance'. The religion we need is that which rejects this mistaken belief. It subscribes to the concept of a universal God, as advocated by mystics. It asks us to get behind all outward manifestations like churches, temples and mosques and worship the nameless that comprehends and transcends every name.

The purpose of such a universal religion, according to Radhakrishnan is not communicability; rather, it "is spiritual certainty, the conviction that love and justice are at the heart of the universe, that the spirit which gives rise to man will further his perfection". Its outcome is universal brotherhood. Such a religion, even after undergoing the onslaught of conventional religions, shall persist with the conviction that "though the waves on the shore may be broken, the ocean reigns, nevertheless".

We need a religion that recognises that man is mind-body-spirit and divine by nature. Its goal would be total harmony. The objective is not just self-perfection but social redemption as well. The moment we realise that all human beings are divine "we could not rest until the whole world was redeemed. No one was really saved until the world was saved".

The religion we need, according to Radhakrishnan, will have to be "a vital religion, a live philosophy which will reconstruct the bases of conviction and devise a scheme of life which men can follow with self-respect and joy". Contact with the given reality, fulfilling metaphysical requirements, balancing spiritual needs with a scientific temper would be its hallmark.