We should look to two of the 20th century's great thinkers in widening the science and religion debate
The science and religion debate in Britain is often framed around Christianity and atheism. But what began as a Western conversation has increasingly become an encounter between science and all the major systems of thought, especially the Hindu tradition with its rich and varied range of philosophies. This was the subject of a lecture I delivered recently at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, organised by The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion as part of its programme of research seminars.
The clash of belief systems is illustrated nowhere better than in the encounters between Albert Einstein, and Bengali poet, artist and Nobel Prize-winner Rabindranath Tagore, who met four times in the 1920s and 30s. As they talked, the crux of their disagreement was that Einstein believed “truth is independent of our consciousness …
Karl Ali
Hi!
Very interesting! And I totally agree with “As the global role of India—and its important scientific community—continues to grow, it is important for familiar debates to become less Western-centric.”
I have followed and written about the “New” Atheists and their “debate” with Christian Fundamentalists and it is a rather depressing story, which shows that you can be in total agreement about facts, like that there are documents that tell you that Jesus died, resurrected, stayed for awhile and then took off to “Heaven” and is expected to return and establish God’s Kingdom by separating the Saved from the Condemned.
This is a very POWERFUL STORY; I mean that there are TWO ENDINGS separating the GOOD from the BAD. You don’t need any proof to believe such a comforting piece of information, since it both satisfies your natural instincts to keep living and the human weakness for the taste of REVENGE!!!
We don’t NEED GOD: Heaven for me and my friends and Hell for our enemies is MORE THAN ENOUGH to live on.
It’s very difficult to Prove that all this ISN’T TRUE and DIDN’T happen and that Jesus WON’T return. The pious formulate this as “Absence of proof is not prove of absence” and I agree to a certain point, but there are limits to HOW FAR AWAY FROM EVERYDAY UNIVERSAL HUMAN EXPERIENCES you can divert in your beliefs about what is “Behind the Vail”. You don’t have to take Tagore’s strange position that the table ISN’T THERE WHEN NOBODY IS WATCHING to have a more “open” understanding of reality. To disprove Tagore you just put a camera in the empty room and you’ll see that the table is there ALL THE TIME REGARDLESS OF IF It’s being observed or not.
Got to get back to my book about the Bertrand Russell Vietnam War CRimes Tribunal at the BR Archives
Best
Dr Karl Ali Andeson
Manas
Hahahahaha…forget about the table and the camera. Think now 30000 light years away a star bursts which can not be captured in camera, telescope etc. At that very moment was that truth to you ? you were not at all informed about that, so truth is that which is taken in to account in your very own consousness. Modern quantum physics supports Tagore and not Einstien quite ashonishingly that existence is based on observation only. The moment you thought that you will put a camera in the lone room to prove that the table still exists even if non one is there, you are indirectly observing the table to prove the truthfullness of the table in that room.
postgutenberg
David Gosling, thanks for this piece and I will go in search of your Faraday lecture. Why hasn’t Prospect posted a link to it?
Looking at your headline, I thought, what a bizarre comparison! I was baffled to see a scientist of genius compared to a poet that some place in the same category, even if he was awarded a Nobel prize. But then I realised that we rely on great communicators to explain foreign cultures to us, so it is easier to quote Tagore on Indian philosophy than an Indian scientist.
But it might be more _useful_ to show an Indian reckoned a genius for his contributions to mathematics by _western_ scientists. He was (i) a true mystic; and (ii) a mathematician who used mysticism in his work. The mathematical discoveries of Srinivasa Ramanujan, as I have said here, (if I may be forgiven for quoting my own blog) have been crucial in more than one field, and yet … –
=== [Kanigel] shows how dream interpretation, palmistry and astrology influenced crucial decisions with which Ramanujan wrestled.
All that makes it specially wonderful that the mathematical discoveries of the mystical auto-didact have been used in polymer chemistry, crystallography, string theory, computer science and cancer research. ===
I am quoting an appreciation of two books about Ramanujan, one a fictionalisation of his life by David Leavitt; the other a biography by Robert Kanigel. … The novel is considered here as a fascinating update for our time of E. M. Forster’s A Passage to India, taking into account its new status as a software superpower. … http://post-gutenberg.com/the-riddle-of-ramanujan/
Manas
Hey! Excuse me. You are talking like a South Indian!! Read the head line carefully. Its Science and religion. No one has comapred Einstien to Tagore. Both were genius in their own world. There will never be a 2nd Einstien or Tagore ever. I think you have very little information on Tagore. At his time, Tagore had a substantial grab on post Newtonian Physics. Famous scientist Hizenburg was deeply influenced by Tagore.
In this debate ultimately Tagore came victorious as today’s quantum physics states that truth is based on observation and not mere existence. Can Einstien dominate Tagore in Tagore’s own world as Tagore did not dare to do so with Einstien. Actually they shared their thoughts as truly two planets were talking to each other. In India we had and have Dozens of Ramanujan but who cares! Einstien and Tagore were living legends and most powerful personalitites of their time, and how come Ramanujan will stand here!!!!!!!!!!
postgutenberg
Sorry, that should have read,
‘But it might be more _useful_ to show an Indian reckoned a genius for his contributions to mathematics by _western_ scientists who was (i) a true mystic;…etc.”.
And of course I meant to say, … taking into account India’s new status as a software superpower, not E.M. Forster’s novel. …
Peter Davis
Karl Ali, if only it was as simple as the ol’ camera in empty room ploy. To observe the camera film is to ‘observe’ and engage with the ‘table’ still as a human consiousness, even if retrospectively – no consciousness = no table, no description, no describer. The use of koans, i.e. ‘If a tree was to fall in a forest with no-one and nothing to hear it, would it make a sound?’ is not to invite either a yes or no in a straight logical (dualistic)answer. The point is to short circuit the intellect (not discard it!) by the realisation that it cannot be personally answered honestly, as it would be a conjecture at a removed distance, regardless of the camera (asserting the reality of the ‘table’ on ‘film’ would in fact be an act of faith, strictly speaking). This invites humility and a less egocentic, reactionary tendency. It is the intellect that cannot help jump logically at filling the gap with the camera ploy, still short of realisation. The realisation alone is the intention of the koan, the freeing of awareness from the tyranny of the constantly thinking mind. The perspective of Tagore (and religion proper) is more subtle and profound than logic can grasp.
Some years ago, a gentleman that had been born blind had his sight restored and, while at a zoo, was asked if he could see a gorilla in its cage. What he described was initially akin to a single field of movement without discernible objects, like a movement of energy or patterns. Only when he had been repeatedly instructed in how and where to see the ‘labelled’ gorilla did he slowly come to realise it as something distinct in its own right. His consciousness gave reality to it by being conditioned to do so. We take for granted such conditioned assumptions. Religious experience documents moments of elevated awareness when the certainty of solid objects dissolves into a single whole inseperable from consciousness. We are a long way from a simple answer, ‘obvious’ though the rational mind assumes it to be.
Fabio Corsi
Einstein was a deeply religious person, this is clear.
He believed in a universal Truth, which is absolute and above human consciousness, and science was a tool to discover it. He held this ideal of “absolute objectiveness” of science in his whole life, and for this reason he also was convinced of the existence of some faults in the probabilistic reasoning of quantum theory (“God does not play dice”).
Nevertheless, according to quantum theory, if we open a box containing a cat (Schroedinger’s cat), we have 50% probability of finding him dead and 50% of finding him alive; yet when the box is closed, i.e. not “observable” and not accessible to human consciousness, the cat is in a state which is a linear combination of dead and alive, which is for our consciousness absolute nonsense, and when opening the box we force him in the state of either dead or alive, which is all that our consciousness is able to perceive. Finally, quantum theory (with a lot of experimental proofs) tells us that indeed what we observe, perceive and measure IS ULTIMATELY THE RESULT OF AN INTERACTION WITH OUR CONSCIOUSNESS.
So, I have myself a scientific background and love science, which is an invaluable instrument of our mind to do a lot of things, among which to see a picture of Einstein and Tagore together via Internet and to make a cartoon of their dialog; but between the two, I think Tagore had a deeper understanding of the “Truth” and a … relativistic vision of science, as not being THE absolute and sole instrument of knowledge. In this sense I would say that Tagore was “more scientific” than Einstein, rather than Einstein was “more religious” than Tagore.
Anyway, what a marvelous thing, to read the dialog between these two great spirits !
James R. Johnston
In discussion with Tagore regarding truth and/or beauty existing independent of humans, Einstein made an interesting comment: “”I cannot prove my conception is right, but that is my religion”. Ultimately, we choose to believe that which makes logical sense, and that which makes intuitive sense, weighted according to our personality and experience.
I cannot speak clearly of the connundrum (?) this presents; but, it might be pointed to by the question: “Does the question being debated exist separate from humanity?”
Einstein often made the point that all the “facts & objective stuff out there” (my words)is hypothetical construct that has value only to the extent it allows us to coordinate and make sense of experience. So, the very concept of separation between truth and beauty is held, or rejected, as a matter of “religious” belief (having nothing to do with religion).
[There is a book by Herbert L.Samuel, “Essay in Physics” (Harcourt, Brace, 1952) that has a letter from Einstein at the end, that is a “great read”, relating to this perspective.)
James R. Johnston
In a comment just sent, I may have left out the title of a book by Herbert L.Samuel, mentioned therein.
It is titled “Essay in Physics” (Harcourt, Brace, 1952)..
D.P.Datta
All these comments and counter comments has got no meaning (truth) if we are not concious about the meanings of what Tagore and Einstein exchanged among themselves. To a non concious object these paragraphs are nothing but some black straight/curved lines having no special sense. Hence ,reality is within conciousness— be it human or cosmic conciousness. As per Tagore’s saying , human conciousness is part of all-pervading cosmic conciousness like water particles in the vast ocean. all differences of thought/conciousness merge finally to the cosmic conciousness. This may be compared with the modern concept of GRAND UNIFICATION MODEL (GUM) of Quantum Fields.
Give it a concious thought.
James R. Johnston
Some time has passed, and it was a pleasure to read, or re-read, comments by Peter Davis, Fabio Corsi, and D.P.Datta. So, I decided to express my gratitude.
Thanks.
What I liked most about the conversation between Einstein and Tagore was the very deep integrity within both men. They were looking at different aspects of reality, aspects that are intertwined in ways that we do not yet comprehend fully. Einstein could not open fully to quantum theory because the non-locality (built in to the wave-likeness of the quantum postulate) is not compatible with relativity (*) — the arena of his deepest intuition. And, of course, there is the deeply significant difference in the aim (sighting) of the attention of these two scientist/philosophers, outward and inward, respectively. (There is good chance that the former arena is embedded in the latter — and that is likely an important direction to aim ones questioning, hopefully in a wedding of the two disciplines.)
(*) D. Z. Albert and R. Galchen, R., “A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity.”, Scientific American (March 2009), p. 32.
D.P.Datta
D.P.Datta
Sir James R. Johnson,I am very much pleased that you are keenly following the different comments on Tagore-Einstein dialogue.
Here I want to draw the reader’s attention that , in India Tagore is regarded as a poet cum seer (sage) of UPANISHADic culture– an after-VEDIC culture developed about some 25000 years back, as a form of dialogue ( in the form of question-answer regarding religion, earth, Universe, The cosmic rules. Human behaviour,etc. etc.) between the master and the disciple (disciple sitting below master’s seat). In one of his poem he describes that “LIFE IS SPREAD EVERYWHERE IN THIS COSMOS”—just contrary to the common belief that life is only here in our planet earth. He even ventures to see LIFE in so called lifeless objects also—an UPANISHADIC thought.
Similar poems regarding The God claims that if there is God (He was a believer in God) God belongs IN MY HEART—Godly goodness / love all are in vein (FALSE) without ME,- my recognition. In his view, God and Human conciousness all are intermingled and interdependent like the UNIVERSAL / COSMIC conciousness. This is very much revealed in the Tagore – Einstein dialogue.
My realisation about the dialogue is that BOTH SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE APPROACHING EACH OTHER TO MAKE A “GRAND UNIFICATION” in a most reasonable and scientific basis.
Apparently Tagore and Einstein seem to be against each other. But to my mind Expression may be different , EINSTEIN WAS SCIENTIFIC AND RELIGIOUS, And TAGORE WAS RELIGIOUS AND SCIENTIFIC.
James R. Johnston
Yes.
My comment on inward and outward “aim” of attention had to do with the process of focus, more than content. In addition to Upanishadic, Vedic, Yogic, poet-sages, there are also, Sufi, Buddhist, Taoist, etc., poet-sages. All involve deep presence in body, mind, heart, and a “melting” (for lack of a better word) into a “quiet awareness” [or “disappearing”, choose your own words], in which deep “knowing” becomes available. Western science tends to not operate that way (though some scientists occasionally touch into something similar).
(While quantum theory has opened the door to consideration of consciousness, and some consider it to be a fundamental aspect, I do not trust the early perspectives of that. Western science has had so little to say about consciousness, especially personal [individual] aspects versus collective aspects, and only a little, generally, about the tools of [Western] scientific exploration of such. This is in a beginning stage.)
Deb Prasad Datta
Sir, James R. Johnston,
To my mind ,the words you have chosen in your comment, like “aim”, “melting” into a “quiet awareness” are well chosen and echoes the same “aim” of Tagore’s thought. .The “melting”/merging of individual mind with the cosmic conciousness (God , the all pervading, omnipresent and omnipotent— like the all – pervading cosmic unified energy field controlling all natural events– not visible directly but inductively & logically proved and conceivable.
I agree to the fact that early scientific analysis stressed only upon commonly conceivable events and observations and Quantum theory is now exploring the OBSERVER,S role in the events and synthesis of the theory behind them in sub-atomic level (micro-level), and we all know that what is true in micro-level apply in macro-level too. The ocean is made up of small drops of water.
I am happy that my understanding fully matches with yours– rather I am enriched by your comments.