When we follow religion, we are being religious men. We should admit this truism. There are very few men in this world who do not pray to God in their crises, whether He hears them or no. At a critical moment, when we don’t get any response from the world, we rely on God. Everybody faces troubles in his life. So everyone sometime or other is a religious man. And are we not also more or less scientists? When our mothers are unmindful in their cooking, we get a bad meal. It is a matter of cause and effect. We also have a scientific outlook in our daily office works. We prepare a lot for doing a job before we actually get down to work. In every department of our lives…agriculture, industry, commerce, education…we put our scientific brain to work. When we are not successful in a thing, we assume that the work has not been scientifically done and hunt for the point of error.

If we are really simultaneously scientific and religious why is there conflict between these two tendencies? What makes us to think of them as separate? We often say that those who are following science are destroying religion. What do we mean by that? When a boy from a conservative family goes in for science, he abandons faith in any system of religion. What makes men to do so?

That our upliftment is being hampered due to this want of harmony between religion and science is a matter known to all. The importance in our daily life of scientific knowledge is incalculable. It is essential to human happiness. From radios and airplanes to common daily necessities science is taking the lead in making us comfortable. But is it not true that the way of the scientist would have been eased had he had the guidance of a seer? The scientists have come to such a position that they cannot see anything more with their eyes or hear anything more with their ears. They have to employ instruments. They have employed microscope, telescope and balance. Electrons, protons, and positrons were known through mathematical calculations though they could not be seen. It is said that if the present power of the microscope could be increased 109 times, the protons and electrons and positrons could be perceived. But after sixty or seventy years the power of the microscope has been increased only thirteen times. Scientists are asking themselves what they are to do. Some of them think that the faculty of external observation is to be increased. But how? The sages and seers of the past often increased their faculty of external observation and internal cognition. They even saw what cannot be seen through a microscope or telescope. Sir James Jeans writes: “So far the pendulum shows no sign of swinging back and the law and order which we find in the universe are most clearly described, and also I think, most easily explained in the language of idealism.” But what is this language of idealism and how can it be learned ?

In our Ancient days the union of religion and science was an observed fact. What is religion? What binds us together? Who is the author of that binding force? In the endeavor to solve these questions a religious- minded man becomes a seer. His sense organs become able to appreciate the most acute phenomena. In ancient times such questions were burning ones. It can’t be said with certainty whether ancient science reached or not the stage of modern science. But it is doubtless that scientists of our ancient sub-continent were also seers. The weapons which modern men employ have their roots in science, but not in illumination. But science and illumination effected a conjunction in the invention of the weapons used in the battle of ‘Kurukshetra’. Science is limited to the control of acute powers that come with the scope of machines. But the internal power of that power belongs to the field of illumination.

So it can be easily understood that the weapons which are invented through the combination of science and illumination will be more lethal than those invented with the help of science alone. By the by we have described the lethal capacity of science and illumination when united. In this light we shall also have to realize the life-giving, inventive, and constructive power of the combination.

Have we seen in modern times anywhere the united power of religion and science? In this matter we may refer to Kekule. One evening, while returning home with his mind concentrated on the chemical atoms, he saw the dance of atoms in the street. Perhaps this is first instance in modern times of the union of science and illumination. It is also an auspicious instance, because if he had not seen the dance of atoms, Kekule could not have established his benzene theory which is responsible for three-fourths of modern organic chemistry.

Religion is that which upholds being and becoming. If anyone says he doesn’t admit religion, he is a perfect liar. One can refuse God. One may deny the magnanimity of the church. But he cannot deny religion. The laws and formulas which he obeys for his existence and expansion are the very laws of religion, He may exercise the finer laws of life without knowing it. From the day he first gasps for breath he tries for his development and becomes a religious man.

We are all scientists too. Everything which a child performs in order to win the mother’s mind is an expression of his knowledge of psychology. As he grows older, he also makes use of practical science. He who abuses science can’t prosper. If any man hears that there is a mistake at the foundation of his efforts, he tries to remedy it. In his effort we find the scientific nature of man. (If you do such and such, such will happen- this kind of law is true in both the scientific and practical worlds. If we don’t obey such laws, we meet unsuccess.) One may not know that finer laws of science, but when he battles for life, he automatically becomes a scientist.

If we are all scientific and religious at the same time, why can’t the men who are reputed scientists and religionists get on well together? If religion has nothing to give science, we must realize there is not proper exercise of the finer laws behind it. If we are by birth both religionists and scientists, it is most likely that specialists in these two endeavors should come close to each other. But what do we see? We see that as dignified titles of ‘scientist’ or ‘religionist’ become applied to people, the harmony of science and religion in them tends to disappear. There is an inner tie of regard between the two, no doubt, but they never mix as milk and butter but rather as oil and water. What is the cause?

Religion is what holds us together. It holds also our food and dress, our mind and intelligence, our feeling of this world and the next. To know religion is to know one’s own self. And illumination is born out of that urge.

In science we discover the cause and effects of things with the help of mathematics and machine. Where mathematics and machine fail, science can do nothing. Suppose a phenomenon has to be observed. Science starts to observe it with the help of machines and mathematics. It succeeds to the extent that mechanics and calculation can help it. But illumination has no need of machinery and mathematics. It at once knows the nature of a thing.

The whole world is a sphere for science. Science has to construct many things. So many dangers come in our social life. So long as science does not intervene, there is no safety. If science does not come to our help, we can’t save our lives. Science has taken the responsibility of extending our wealth and facilities. It is our backbone.

Still this science has no relation with illumination. If science gets the help of illumination, it can make possible what would seem to be impossible. If science cannot bring within its purview, in its machines and calculations, the realizations and facts of illumination, the human race will be deprived of the practical value of illumination. Why should it be deprived?

If we want immortality in our daily life, we must have the union of religion and science. And that union is possible.