Welcome to one of the only sites to merge the topics of Sikhism and Science!

Science and Sikhism

The question of whether science and Sikhism are "compatible" (do not disagree) is often raised, mostly on Sikh forums and websites made by Sikhs and devoted to Sikhs. A collection of verses are cited, and most of them are also the same, recurring ones. However, I think it's time to clear up a few common misconceptions.

Let's start with some definitions. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary indicates one of the origins of the word science: from the Latin "scientia." A complete definition is also given: "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through [the] scientific method." Pay special attention to the "obtained and tested through the scientific method" part. Science has roots right up to the Antiquity, but what has been defined as science in modern times only came into its own gradually over the past millennium. You know the story: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, et all. Science is not just another version of truth, however, as it is not biased or subjective to a person or a culture. It is pretty much objective fact, as simple as "the earth is round." Science is collected knowledge gained through testing, and so is more of a verb than a noun, as Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, once put it in a TED meeting.

Sikhism, however, is a religion, and while there might be room for debate as to the exact characteristics of a "Sikh" (much better covered on other sites), there are some easily observable characteristics. The Guru Granth Sahib, a text written by the ten Gurus, is believed to carry the "Shabad Guru" or the message of the Guru (in simple terms). A Sikh is supposed to believe in his Gurus and in the "Living Guru" of the Guru Granth Sahib. Sikhism is a much more recent religion, born in the time that would be considered as the Middle Ages in the West. Probably the only contact with the West would have been through Islam, as Muslim scholars carried the texts of the ancient Greeks. But as modern science was still developing, it has no direct mention in the Guru Granth Sahib.

It is important to realize now that we are talking about quite different things, and just by definition, it is clear to see that science and Sikhism are about as compatible as potatoes and baseball. What I mean is that the two are so inherently different in nature that they can't be said to be "compatible." On the one hand is the process to understand our universe and on the other is a cultural phenomenon, a religion dealing with moral, "spiritual," and subjective issues. For those who have heard of the following characterizations, this falls into what is called the "nonoverlapping magesteria" argument (a term originated by Stephen Jay Gould, I believe), which essentially states that religion and science are inherently different things. There are finer points to this argument, and I haven't yet addressed the oppositions to it, so bear with me...

Let's look at some of the arguments made for "compatibility." The following are excerpts from http://www.realsikhism.com:
    
Sikhism beliefs have not been disproven by science. Scientific facts support the teachings of There are planets, solar systems and galaxies. If one speaks of them, there is no limit, no end. There are worlds upon worlds of His Creation. As He commands, so they exist. He watches over all, and contemplating the creation, He rejoices. Nanak says, to describe this is as hard as steel!” (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 8). Furthermore, it is stated that God created the whole universe including the earth. “You Yourself created the earth, and the two lamps of the sun and the moon” (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 83). And, “Many millions are the moons, suns and stars” (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 275).

In this case, the words merely matter, as the significance of them is to present the idea that there's more "out there," and to further put the Sikh in awe of creation. However, the claim that this somehow makes Sikhism compatible with modern science is a stretch at best. It's not hard to imagine that this kind of basic astronomical knowledge existed back then. There's also the case that since the original words are not that specific (like the word "world"), we interpret them in light of what we know.

Clarification: The meaning of “You Yourself created the earth, and the two lamps of the sun and the moon” (Guru Granth Sahib, 83) is that God created the Sun and the Moon. The lamp is figurative not literal. Which means they both give us light, Sun during the day and Moon during the night. But in no way Guru Granth Sahib Ji is saying that Moon makes or generates its own light.

I think that the author is inserting his/her own judgement when he/she decides to interpret "the two lamps" as meaning one emits light and the other reflects. In the original lines, this information is not present, and therefore this claim does not stand. Even the claim that the moon generates its own light is not made in the original lines. All that is said is that the Sun and the Moon are "lamps", which can only be understood to be "light emitting objects" or something along those lines.

God has created the entire universe. Guru Granth Sahib Ji explains that there was nothing present and then God created everything. "For endless ages, there was only utter darkness. There was no earth or sky; there was only His command. There was no day or night, no moon or sun; God sat in primal, profound meditation position. There were no food or sources of speech, no air or water. There was no creation or destruction, no birth or death. There were no continents, regions, seven seas, rivers or flowing water. There were no heavenly realms, earth or nether regions of the underworld. There was no heaven or hell, no death or time ... When He so willed, He created the world. Without any supporting power, He sustained the universe ... He created the creation, and watches over it; His Command is over all. He formed the planets, solar systems and nether regions, and brought what was hidden to manifestation. No one knows His limits. This understanding comes from the Perfect Guru. O Nanak, those who are attuned to the Truth are wonderstruck; singing His Glorious Praises, they are filled with wonder." (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 1035)

Here, while the lines have been presented, there is no support for the claim that modern science agrees with them. The same claim has been made by other monotheistic religions. But at present, these claims cannot be tested. Also, some religions, including Sikhism, define God as beyond human knowledge or as supernatural. By that definition, science and Sikhism can never really agree upon this claim. Besides, why would Sikhs want confirmation in nature about something supernatural? By its very definition, such a confirmation or validation cannot be found. It is important to remember that science tests empirical claims and is concerned with the natural. Since all that humans can perceive is the natural, the domain of science extends over whatever we can perceive. Sikhism and other religions find recourse in describing things as supernatural and beyond the human perception.

Furthermore, "From the True Lord came the air/gasses, and from the air came water. Based on water, He created the three regions (sky/air, land and ocean). In each and every heart, He has infused His Light." (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 19). God created the gases. Water (H2O) came from the gases. When two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine, they form water. Life in the ocean, on land and in the air is based on water. Without water, life cannot sustain. Within all life, He has infused His Light, meaning our soul, which is a part of God. This quote on a broad scale implies that God created the entire Universe including the Earth and life on the Earth.

Here, too, the author interprets the general wording of the Guru Granth Sahib in light of what he knows, and makes the mistaken claim that the claims he makes were present in the original text. The idea of the five elements is quite basic and frequently found because of the fact that it originates from Aristotle. It is actually not a surprise that the original text's wording was the way it was. Again, the mere words matter little to the Sikhs as they gather from this a sense of awe. However, addressing the claims made by the author, I must say that there is also another explanation. Since rain is known to come from the sky, and rain is what crops need to survive, and crops are what really, literally, make up the bread and butter of human existence, isn't it more logical to assume that that was the appropriate analogy made in the original text? Rather than making bold, untestable claims that the air "must" mean hyrdogen and oxygen, and making the untenable claim of the compatibility of science and Sikhism, it helps to be a little objective.

Now, you may wonder if the "nonoverlapping magesteria" argument has any opposition. The opposition exists from both the religious and the non-religious. The stoutly religious, taking religious texts far more literally than figuratively, have traditionally made the argument that their specific religion is correct in all its empirical claims. Often, those claims also have been interpreted in light of what they previously knew (the claims made above are an example). Anyway, what those people then claim is that all of knowledge is contained in their holy texts, no matter if the text itself never made that claim. In essence, they are claiming a world without modern science (something patently false) and only with religion. These are often the same people claiming evolution isn't true, or, in the West at least, that the universe is 6,000 years old.

On the other side is another argument made quite in the opposite way. The claim is that religion and science both make empirical arguments and that both make testable claims. What this means is a world, again, with only one "magesteria," that of science.


I think what really should be gathered from this rather long talk is that there are many misconceptions about science. Scientific truth is not merely yet another version of truth, but THE truth. Of course, science changes because it must, and it is sign of its strength and objective brilliance that it does. However, religion is finite and a defined set of beliefs that believers are not willing to change. Religion is also credited with providing lessons about morality, but as it is defined, those lessons remain the same through the centuries. Religion is also subjective, culture-dependent, and not subject to change. It is often perceived as a weakness of religious belief if it continually changes.

As for the solution...as you might have guessed, yes I am fully in support of science as it provides for the future advancement of mankind, and for the enlightenment of all. Critical thinking and skepticism, reason and rationality all are beautifully encapsulated within this verb.
But on the other hand, I am aware of my cultural heritage as a Sikh and continually reminded of the community-binding aspect of religion. I think if religion is utilized to mobilize people to do good and to better themselves, it can be a beneficial force in the world. For the institution of langar, for the praise given to community service, tolerance, and rational thinking in the Guru Granth Sahib, I respect its teachings.
In this way, I find a sense of the positives of both science and Sikhism leading to an overall better outcome. The true enemies of science and Sikhism, and any other religion for that matter, are ignorance, bigotry, and extremism. Let us hope that we check ourselves and continually humble ourselves at the trying challenges that face our common world.