I don’t know the answer to this central problem – the problem of maintaining the real value of religion, as a source of strength and of courage to most men, while, at the same time, not requiring an absolute faith in the metaphysical aspects.
– Richard Feynman

Most of us, at one time or another, have felt some tension between religion and science, between ancient thought and modern discoveries, between Vedic wisdom and secular traditions. Probably the greatest challenge to my faith has come not from any religion, but from adopting a scientific world view. So I was fascinated to come across Richard Feynman’s thoughts on the topic. Here is a speech he gave on the conflict between science & religion: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm.

Feynman’s argument is very methodical, and I’ve tried to reconstruct it here.  In another post, I will give my thoughts on how I interpreted it in the context of Hinduism.

1. Religion has three aspects: the metaphysical, the ethical, and the inspirational.

The metaphysical aspect of religion is that which comments on the nature & origin of the world. What is the nature of God? What is the nature of the Self? Stories of how the world came to be fall into this category. Guidelines on behavior, and advice on the right ways to act and live contribute to the ethical aspect. This can take the form of simple advice from parents, or can also be scriptural dictums to follow one’s own duty. The third aspect, the inspirational, is perhaps the most essential. Inspiration is what brings people to follow the ethical guidelines. It can take the form of communal festivals like Diwali, or may simply consist of the telling of tales like the Ramayana. When people refer to “organized religion”, I think they are generally referring to organized inspiration.

2. The inspirational aspect, which is derived from the metaphysical, enables the practice of the ethical aspect.

Here, Feynman makes what I think is a fairly uncontroversial claim: that the inspirational aspect of religion enables the ethical aspect. Any ethical code needs some inspiration, be it intrinsic or extrinsic, to be followed. The idea that the inspirational must derive from the metaphysical is more subject to debate. It seems to hold true for many Western religions, though I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on how it applies (or doesn’t) to Hinduism.

3. While science does not conflict with the ethical aspect, it (necessarily) conflicts with the metaphysical aspect.

Because the metaphysical aspect postulates statements that are not (and often cannot be) scientifically proven, science is necessarily in conflict here.

4. Because it conflicts with the metaphysical aspect, it also undermines the inspirational aspect of religion.

If we accept Feynman’s claim in #2 that the inspirational aspect derives from the metaphysical, then this statement follows directly from #3.

5. Therefore, the strength of the moral code, the ethical aspect of religion, is lost.

When the inspirational aspect is undermined, religious ethics lose their value.

6. Therefore, while science is logically consistent with religious ethics, it does not support the inspirational aspect of religion, which is the lifeblood of most people’s faiths.

Feynman acknowledges that science can be consistent with religious ethics. However, because it conflicts with the metaphysical and inspirational aspects of religion, science cannot be consistent with religion as Feynman knows it.

7. He concludes: “I don’t know the answer to this central problem – the problem of maintaining the real value of religion, as a source of strength and of courage to most men, while, at the same time, not requiring an absolute faith in the metaphysical aspects.”

His conclusion acknowledges the value of religion, but he cannot reconcile his religion with his science. Fortunately, all is not lost — Feynman provides an opening here. The way to argue against Feynman is to find a way to support the inspirational aspect of religion that is logically consistent with science.

Related posts:

1. Science and Religion This semester, I took one of the most thought-provoking...
2. Living Morally Without Universal Morality A lot of the discussion on Swadharma focuses on how...
3. The social aspect of religion Today at Wellesley, we had our Darshana (our Hindu student’s...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

More importantly, are the answers to these questions even relevant spiritually? Sonali wrote an excellent post about different ways to interpret these epic texts. The three categories she posits are: history, literature, and scripture. There are certain aspects of these epics that may seem unrealistic, and cause us to doubt their historical veracity. But does that matter, if we primarily view these epics as scripture, or even solely as literature?

While there is plenty to discuss just considering the Ramayana & Mahabharata as literary works, I want to focus on the spiritual interpretation of these texts – this is, after all, Swadharma. To consider these texts as scriptures is to draw, or attempt to draw, moral lessons from them. Did Yudhisthira act appropriately when gambling with Shakuni and putting Draupadi’s honor at stake? Was Bharata’s decision to try to disobey his mother and put Rama on Ayodhya’s throne the right one? By answering these questions, one is creating, or perhaps simply applying, certain rules about the proper way to act. So if we consider that the true value of these scriptures is that they provide a source for a moral code, does it even matter whether these events are hypothetical or actual?

I don’t think so. Fables & exaggerations are used all the time for teaching moral lessons. So clearly, the historical inaccuracy of a set of events doesn’t preclude them from being used as a source of morality. What is essential is posing a question about what is “right”, and then answering it, or at least prompting the reader to answer it. For example, the events of the Mahabharata set the context for the discourse of the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most well-known sources of moral guidance in Hinduism. To connect this back to Sonali’s original post (and to disagree with my own comment on that article eight months ago!), I think that you can indeed consider the Ramayana & Mahabharata as scripture without considering them as history.

Related posts:

1. Question of the Week: Are Hindu Epics Literature, History, or Scripture? Ram Navami was this past Friday, and for that reason,...
2. (How) does history matter? Sid and I attended a lecture-demonstration yesterday by the Carnatic...
3. Why religious texts? We have two extremes regarding religious texts — one is...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Despite growing up in a community with a relatively sizeable Hindu minority, I rarely discussed issues of faith outside my immediate family. Religion was mostly a cultural phenomenon. Becoming a part of Harvard Dharma marked the first time that I engaged in a discussion of philosophical issues surrounding my faith with Hindu peers. Both the Hindu community, and the Harvard community at large, have affected my conception of faith, and my perspective on the world around me.

I can think of at least two ways that the Harvard experience has influenced my perspective on spirituality. I feel the atmosphere at the college impels one, perceptively or imperceptively, to develop more rigorous intellectual foundations for one’s beliefs than society in general expects. As a result, I’ve thought not only about what I believe, but also the reasons for that belief. Of course, my beliefs are in an inchoate state, and I’d love to hear not just what you believe, but especially why you believe it.

A second, equally powerful influence, has been the dialogue I’ve been able to engage in with other Hindus. Being able to discuss moral issues with people who all share, to a reasonable extent, a common set of values has given helped me learn more about my own sense of faith. An oft-overlooked impact of this community is a certain level of awareness that affords us the luxury of not constantly having people question our beliefs simply because they are unfamiliar with them. However, the social pressures from outside the community are often replaced by pressure from within the community. What are your thoughts on the relative roles of external & internal social pressure?

The event organizers want us to think about ways in which the Harvard experience has either bolstered or challenged our faith. The best answer I can think of is this: Harvard makes you ask more questions about your religious beliefs. Whether this experience strengthens or weakens the foundations of your faith is up to you.

Related posts:

1. Question of the Week: Where do we get our beliefs? Being in Dharma, we are all linked by our common...
2. Reason and Faith at Harvard At Harvard, there is a clear emphasis on the importance...
3. Question of the Week: Why tolerate intolerance? As Saketh discussed in a previous post, religious intolerance is...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“Every system has two sets of rules: The rules as they are intended or commonly perceived, and the actual rules (“reality”). In most complex systems, the gap between these two sets of rules is huge.”

Hacking, then, is discovering the actual rules, and using this knowledge to violate the perceived rules.  This often seems like a shortcut or loophole.  What if we think of our spiritual journey as an attempt to “hack” life, and figure out the truth?  Buchheit seems to encourage this notion of life-hacking (though his post relates to technology, and steers clear of any spiritual context) when he says that to discover great hacks, “we must always be searching for the true nature of our reality, while acknowledging that we do not currently possess the truth …”

So, let’s return to the question I posed: Can we think of our spiritual journey as a way of hacking life?  If so, what are the consequences of this?  By now it’s probably clear that I’m in favor of this interpretation.  Life is a complex system, with a set of perceived rules that governs it — these can be laws made by governments, theories in the natural sciences, and observations made by social scientists.  Having religious faith also means believing there exists a set of actual rules, that may (or may not) differ from these perceived rules.  Life, then, is a quest for this true nature of reality, and to attempt to hack life is to engage in a search for this truth.  A hacker who gains a glimpse of understanding about the true nature of things can then identify the differences between the truth, and what is perceived.  In other words, it is only the hacker who can identify māyā as māyā.

The very idea of hacking involves questioning the status quo, and searching for the true nature of things.  But not all hacking is good hacking.  Hacking social relations & financial regulations, a la Madoff, to steal billions of dollars is bad (as Buchheit notes).  In life too, there are bad spiritual hackers, who use their knowledge to mislead.  But there are good life hackers too.  Generations of rishis have sought the truth, and also sought to pass this truth on to others.  This quest for truth may be endless; we may never learn the true nature of reality.  But that does not make hacking any less worthwhile of a pursuit.  Even glimpses of understanding can have a huge impact.

Considering spiritual progress as akin to hacking raises some tough questions.  People differ in their ability to hack practically every natural & manmade system.  Some are just better at it, or have more of a “hacker mindset”.  Are we willing to acknowledge the same in spirituality?  Among computer hackers at least, one who discovers some new, productive way to break the “rules”, but keeps this knowledge to himself, is frowned upon.  There is an implicit obligation to document & share so that the society as a whole may progress.  Should yogis necessarily be burdened with such obligations?  Is it right to simply seek complete knowledge for oneself, or must one help others in this quest?

What do you think of this extended analogy?  Does it shed any light on the spiritual journey?

Related posts:

1. Gita Study Group 2.28.11 In this week’s Bhagavad Gita study group we discussed chapter...
2. In Search of the True Self There is much discussion in Hindu literature about the true...
3. Question of the Week: How do we make time for God? First off, let me thank everyone in Dharma who made...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“A man can pray in his own room, but he will never pray there as he prays in Church… where the singing of many voices rises united towards God, where all have but one thought and one voice in the unity of love”

While these particular words were uttered in the context of a debate within the Orthodox faith, a similar sentiment can be extended to many religions, and I wanted to consider this statement in a Hindu context.

There are two aspects to Joseph’s quote: the communal synergy, and the sanctity of the mandir or prayer space itself.  The mere presence of fellow worshipers can be inspiring, with everyone united in prayer.  But sometimes I feel that prayer is best done alone, free from social distractions.  To what extent is each of these factors important?  I guess the answer depends on how much one values the cultural and spiritual aspects of religious practice.  What have your personal experiences been in this regard?  Do you feel that prayer is best done at a temple, or in a quiet, secluded area?

Related posts:

1. Go Not To the Temple…. A friend recently sent me this poem; I hadn’t read...
2. Question of the Week: Why pray? Over the past few weeks, I have taken more interest...
3. Why Pray?: Part II The ever-burning question about prayer in college. Why should we...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.