None of the religions are scientific, and they don't have to be

I find it very interesting when various religions try to claim that they are the most scientific ones among all other religions. Amazingly, such an old institution like religion feels compelled to demonstrate that it also possesses some or all characteristics of a much younger academic discipline like science. I am not saying that science didn't exist when religion originated as a personal and social wellness product for human civilization, but back then science was not an organized and well-defined discipline as it is today. Scientific facts and phenomena exist whether we know about them or not. But this fight among all religions to claim how scientific they are demonstrates how science has become a more reliable discipline than religion. So reliable that even ancient institutions like organized religion feel the compulsion to demonstrate their alignment with science.

The compulsion to prove how scientific they are is not limited to any particular religion. If you look at any major religion in the world today, you can find various articles, books, blog posts, and even research papers published in some scientific journals where they claim how various scientific facts or phenomena were already explained in their religious scriptures. There seems to be competition among all religions to show who is more scientific, whereas none of them can pass the rigorous test of producing verifiable data to prove their religious claims. I always thought that most religions could stand on their own without demonstrating any association with science or claiming how scientific they are. Religion satisfies a unique need of the human mind, it puts an end to your questions about the unknown by convincing you that there is some supreme power that controls everything and hence you don't have to worry. Religion commands people to follow the path recommended by whatever scripture is prescribed by that particular religion. By putting an unverifiable and unrecognizable entity as a supreme controller it puts an end to all questions. This approach is supposed to put an end to all the anxiety about the unknown to all people who are willing to accept the existence of any such power. On the contrary, science is an endless pursuit of knowledge. It is a never-ending journey, science not only searches for solutions to existing problems, but it also searches for new problems. The quest to find answers to existing problems and new problems from existing answers is an endless voyage. No book in science can claim that it has all the answers to all human problems because that's not what science is supposed to do. Science doesn't hesitate to accept that it doesn't know answers to many questions, but hardly any religion dares to accept this. This is one of the major differences between science and religion, and as long as religions don't gather the courage to accept this simple fact they cannot claim themselves to be scientific. 

So far, I have not come across any scientific discipline claiming that they are the most religious. I don't think they ever felt the need to claim any association with any religion to demonstrate their validity and relevance. But somehow religion feels insecure because of the popularity and rapid spread of scientific knowledge. As they can't stop this, they figured it out that it is better for them to claim an association with it. It is an unnecessary tactic. As I mentioned, religion satisfies a unique need of a very large number of humans on this planet, this need is going to remain as long as people fear the unknown and don't accept the role of randomness in our lives. It is tough not to worry about the unknown because as a human we are innately curious and want definite answers to our questions. No matter how illogical that answer is, we want an answer and religion does a very good job of providing answers to these types of questions. The need for religion is going to remain no matter how much science progresses as there will be always something that we don't know. Fear of the unknown is not easy to overcome. It is also true that many of the religious scriptures do mention some scientific facts, but this is not enough to validate their claim to be scientific. Even some fiction books contain elements of scientific facts, but that doesn't mean those stories are scientific. The presence of verifiable data is one of the important requirements of any scientific experiment and religion doesn't believe in presenting any such data. None of the current religions are scientific, they don't have to be and they don't have to claim that they are, they should leave science out of their mess, the same way science leaves religion out.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

Is there a democracy in your family?

Democracy is the most desirable social and political structure that most of the world prefers as their way of social and political governance. I agree that it's not a perfect system, but there is nothing better available, it is the best system among all that we can consider. We all (or most of us) love to live in a democratic society, a society where we are free to express our views, free to dissent with powerful people and organizations no matter who we are. We value our democratic rights and expect our governments and society to provide a proper environment to practice those rights. Wherever we feel disagreement we raise our dissenting voice without any fear, this is the ideal picture of any vibrant and working democracy. The topic of today's blog is about democracy at home. Is there a democratic environment in your family where dissent and disagreement are encouraged, or there is a dictatorship where elders or a particular elder makes all the decisions for every member of the family?

The first question people might ask, is why we need to have democracy in our homes? Why do kids who are minor and non-earning members of the family need to have the power to oppose or challenge decisions taken by the earning members of the family? The answer is very simple, for the same reason why everyone needs to have a right to express their views in a society, the reason is, to have a safe and welcoming environment. I agree that it's very easy to run the family when one person has all the decision-making power and others just follow without asking any questions, but then it will be easier to run a country like that, with no opposition and no dissent, just one voice for all. Do we want to live in such a country where someone else speaks for us all the time?

Allowing people to express their views does create some chaos and one needs to spend a lot of time in discussions and debates, but this process also makes everyone understand each other's needs and viewpoints. The democratic environment encourages the exchange of ideas within the family.  Sometimes it may lead to a polarized environment, but if the process of discussion continues eventually family members learn how to agree to disagree. This also teaches each member of the family to speak up and stand for their and other's rights. We should not expect that schools will teach the value of dissent and disagreement to our kids, it is our responsibility as parents to teach them the meaning and value of dissent. Democratic families result in a vibrant democratic society, where there can be disagreements but at the same time, there is collective decision-making and space for alternative opinions. 

Please encourage kids and all other members of the family to share their views and ideas. This will not only make them feel at home but also make them feel a valuable member of the family. This will not only increase understanding of each other but also increase happiness and remove the feeling of fear and suppression. Give it a try and let me know your experience with this. A democratic family is also a happy family.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.