Onset:
Despite his more esoteric views, the anti-imperialist revolutionary and Sikh preacher Bhai Randhir Singh (1878-1961) delineated certain substantive boundaries between Sikhs and non-Sikhs as well as Sikhi and non-Sikh ideologies to ensure the spiritual cleanliness of the Gurus’ doctrines as versus the false and polluted doctrines of other ideologies and philosophies. The heir to the Sikh apologetic traditions of the Hazuri originated Bhasur revivalism as well as its Lahore Singh-Sabha counterpart, the Bhai was well-placed to confront the age-old insidious attacks of the non-Sikh faiths as well as the more modernist nihilistic dogmas of atheism, humanism, and scientism. It would be scientism, however, that would feel the brunt of his criticism in his ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਗੌਰਵਤਾ or the Beauty of Gurmat.Science vs. Faith:
Science and faith have undeniably been at odds since time immemorial. Ranging from the Roman Inquisition to the current iteration of Islamic and Sanataan fundamentalism, science has continually been either devolved or perverted or even dismissed altogether. Timothy Ferris in his The Science of Liberalism underscores how science is either forced into the role of handmaiden for totalitarian absolutists, bred by belief, or declared a perennial enemy. Although there are constant efforts to reconcile both polar opposites, the conflict between both continues to define both the powers of logic and belief with both paradigms arrogantly immersing themselves into a blind belief in their own supremacy.The Sikh purview does not enjoin conflict between faith and science or vice versa. Rather, as described in ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਗੌਰਵਤਾ, science or ਵਿਗਿਆਨ (Vigyan) is a necessary tool to discover the unlocked wonders of creation with and control them for the betterment of humankind and other existential species. Nor does the canonical Guru Granth commit what may be called the Islamic fallacy: provide abstract and vague descriptions that can be interpreted to mean “scientific facts” in the current period though what many Islamists don’t realize is the scientific facts of today are often the disproven “facts” of tomorrow. What the Sikh purview opposes is the supplantation of the transcendent divinity with science i.e. scientism.
The Inductive Nature Of Science:
Science is rooted in inductivism, the presumption (contrary to what many scientists may claim) that the future will effectively reflect the past. The ancient Greek sceptic school of thought known as Pyrrhonism was the first to challenge inductivism and its adherents though it was David Hume, in the 18th century, who finally delineated the weaknesses of the inductive approach and methodology. Hume highlighted that inductive propositions transition from specificity to generality or a set of specific experiences are used to account for situations that have not been experienced yet and that are not entirely replicable either. Essentially, inductivism is not deductively valid because its conclusions never originate from its premise.Hume articulated that human reasoning arose from cause and effect that are rooted in experience and because experience is subjective it cannot provide universal certainty. Thus, inductivism could only argue for the future to mimic the past but could not prove its hypothesis leading to the logical conclusion that science was an empirical tool but not a conducive alternative for belief in the transcendental itself. Put simply, an inductive argument is circular and similar to placing your word rather than your assets as collateral on a loan because you promise to repay it. All talk, no substance. Samir Okasha, University of York’s philosophy stalwart, elaborates that the inductive scientific facts of yesteryear are the fallacies of today having been disproven because science is neither perfect nor transcendental.
Elliot Sober, the science philosopher, elucidates that the inductive nature of science constrains it to being limited by the observations of the scientists at hand. The natural outcome being that science is restricted to problems that only observations can identify and solve. Observations that cannot be made today, but can be made tomorrow due to technological advances (read microscope) often challenge and dismantle the proven observations of the past. While this does not discredit the scientific method altogether, it presciently clarifies its limitations. Limitations, that veteran scientists are often the first to bring to attention to show that our comprehension of our existence is always changing and not perfectly static.
It should be noted that inductive arguments differ from inductive reasoning that focuses on making substantive conclusions based on observable phenomena. Historians of science such as Kuhn, Feyerabend, Ravetz, and sociologists of knowledge such as Rose, Mitroff, Latour, Woolgan, and Knorr-Cetina have described this principle repeatedly in their works. Scientists do not discover the laws of nature but provide their own comprehension of how these laws might function based on their own subjective comprehensions. Take for example the Newtonian model of physics and its dominance for 200 years. The discovery of Quantum mechanics upended it and supplanted it with the more viable Einstenian model.
Scientism:
While it is benignly tempting to classify Christianity’s battle with Darwinian evolution as a case of transcendentalism versus inductivism, the Darwinian aspect is now a facet of inductive reasoning and not argument effectively outpacing Christianity’s fallacious doctrine. However, the rise of new-age atheism spearheaded by Dawkins and Harris has regressed science from its role as a tool of discovery to an alternative for transcendental perfection embodied by the unblemished Akal. Obviously, this may be comprehendible in light of the atrocities wrought by the Abrahamic faiths and their adherents it is also imperative to remember that science’s inductive origins disqualify it from being declared a substitute for divinity.However, inductivism has not discouraged new-age atheists from enervating the impartial science of old that was cognizant of its own weaknesses and transforming it into scientism: science as religion. And the basis of this new religion is the most childish of mantras: if it works, it is true. One need only study phlogiston, a theory that was a mainstay of chemistry for almost a century before being disproven in the late 18th century. It was also justified on the basis of if it works, it is true. Given the scientific method, scientism stands refuted. But the lure of scientism and scientists as the prophets of a new order are too strong for many modern scientists to withstand who would deny the illogical nature of inductivism.
Sikhi:
As aforementioned, Sikhi does not emphasize that Sikhs be at odds with science. The Sikh scientific tradition, hitherto not as profoundly studied as other Sikh traditions, provides notable examples of inquisitive seekers who unearthed and studied natural phenomena. Guru Har Rai, the seventh Guru, was renowned for his contemporaneous medicinal and surgical skills while Khalsa generalissimo Banda Singh was famed for his mathematical ability alongside his strategic acumen. Prior to the Singh-Sabha Lahore’s renewal of Sikhi’s widespread emphasis on ਵਿਗਿਆਨ, Lehna Singh Majithia was the Lahore court’s resident scientist attracting the attention of his English counterparts. Others like the unsung Dr. Narinder Singh Kapany dominated the 20th century Sikh scientific scene.Essentially, even Bhai Randhir Singh himself was also conversant with the scientific method having studied it during his school years. Irrespective of religion’s conflict with science, the Sikhs remained insulated from the polarizing aspects of this clash knowing fully well that the physical realm could not conquer the metaphysical. After all, a biologist analyzing organic matter does so in his role as an upholder of the biological sciences and does not question the meaning of life taking the existence of life for granted. The science of what constitutes reality can only be situated within the framework of metaphysics and not any physical science. This is what Sikhi recognizes ergo its neutrally effective stance between faith and science.
ਪੜਿਆ ਮੂਰਖੁ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਿਸੁ ਲਬੁ ਲੋਭੁ ਅਹੰਕਾਰਾ ॥
“Mired in avarice, obsession, and arrogance even the educated ones are called fools.”
-Guru Granth, 140.
Unless one is able to internally restrain themselves and reform their base self, they will forever remain foolish beasts irrespective of their education level. Education and science in themselves do not consist anything negative. But education and science in the hands of Manmukhs or the unenlightened individuals are only a catalyst for sanguinary conflict.
ਪੜਿਆ ਲੇਖੇਦਾਰੁ ਲੇਖਾ ਮੰਗੀਐ ॥ ਵਿਣੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਕੂੜਿਆਰੁ ਅਉਖਾ ਤੰਗੀਐ ॥
“Even an educated and responsible man is called to account. Without the divine wisdom, it is impossible to escape the pangs of falsity.”
-Guru Granth, 1288.
No matter one’s educational attainments and proficiency, without the Naam or the practicality of the divine wisdom in their lives they will continue suffering under the delusions of falsity bred by their unenlightened minds. The educated and the uneducated, both are called to account for how they lived their divinely bequeathed lives upon their deaths. None can escape from this judgement. The divine metaphysical laws of Akal, in their perfection, are unalterable and impartially applicable to everyone.
ਪੜਿਆ ਹੋਵੈ ਗੁਨਹਗਾਰੁ ਤਾ ਓਮੀ ਸਾਧੁ ਨ ਮਾਰੀਐ ॥ ਜੇਹਾ ਘਾਲੇ ਘਾਲਣਾ ਤੇਵੇਹੋ ਨਾਉ ਪਚਾਰੀਐ ॥
“If the educated are transgressors, then why punish the saintly ones? As the acts committed in life, so the acknowledgements and reputations earned.”
-Guru Granth, 469.
The adherents of scientism in their blind delusion are unable to distinguish that morality is not a scientific deduction or even phenomena. There is a metaphysical basis for human moralism that cannot be entirely explained by scientific theories. Nor can the evolving scientific method be made the basis for comprehending the metaphysical realities of existence. An equilibrium needs to be maintained between both to mitigate unnecessary conflict. This is the essence of the Sikh emphasis on ਵਿਗਿਆਨ or science. It be used to better the world, but it not be made the mainstay of human life itself that emanates from a divine and transcendental source.
ਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਮਹਾ ਤਤੁ ਬੀਚਾਰਾ ॥
ਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਘਰੁ ਦਰੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਭਗਤੀ ਭਰੇ ਭੰਡਾਰਾ ॥੨॥
“It is only from the Guru (the Guru Granth) that true wisdom can be obtained to contemplate the essence of reality. Through this Guru (the Guru Granth) the gate (shield) to the house (the self) is installed and the fruits of adherence reaped.”
-Guru Granth, 424.
Irrespective of one’s proficiency in ਵਿਗਿਆਨ, it is only the Guru Granth that can provide the metaphysical knowledge required to discern the quintessence of existence. By living the injunctions of the Guru Granth, one erects a protective boundary between themselves and the unenlightened vagaries of Manmukhs while remaining adherent to the Akal. This is the aim of Sikh life that scientism with its nihilistic imperfection cannot provide. The Gurmukh or the enlightened Sikh uses science as a tool but not as a substitution for Akal.
Conclusion:
In this age of rapidly growing atheism that espouses scientism as the new God of the nihilistic masses, the words of Gurbani ring true and clear:ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਆਪਣਾ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਸਬਦਿ ਕਸਵਟੀ ਲਾਇ ॥ ਮਨ ਹੀ ਨਾਲਿ ਝਗੜਾ ਮਨ ਹੀ ਨਾਲਿ ਸਥ ਮਨ ਹੀ ਮੰਝਿ ਸਮਾਇ ॥
“The Gurmukh (enlightened Sikh) slays their mind utilizing the yardstick of the Shabad (divine word-injunctions of the Guru Granth) to measure their progress. They war with their minds, they parlay with their minds, it is within the mind they cleanse their self-conceit.”
-Guru Granth, 87.
It is only in rare moments of lucidity that the individual realizes the immoral purposelessness of a life led astray by the hollow creed of scientism that reduces everything to an organic level of chemical reactions lacking will. This is what the Sikh Gurus, Hume, and even the earlier Pyrrhonists picked up on. The directionless life of one who would worship the imperfect scientific method disguised in the trappings of divinity cannot led to anything creative or even productive. But neither can the scientific method be outright rejected. For this reason, Sikhi emerges as the sole supreme faith melding the physical and the metaphysical in an effective equilibrium for the betterment of humankind. This is exactly the conclusion Bhai Randhir Singh also reaches in ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਗੌਰਵਤਾ.
Ferris typecasts science as either the victim or the victor in what he deems to be the perpetual battle between faith and rationality. Yet Ferris, like many others, is himself a victim of political correctness unable to distinguish between the different varieties and even natures of faiths across the religious spectrum. Is it any wonder that with a lack of Sikh discourse on this subject, the Sikh youth are forced to select between one of two binaries: faith divorced from rationalism or rationalism divorced from faith. Of course the boomers in their obsoletion may voice the occasional scientific faith to substantiate some myth associated with the Gurus, but other than scientism veiled as science per se, they have nothing to offer.
The aggressive Sikh apologetics of Singh-Sabha Lahore that Bhai Randhir Singh inherited, tempered with the religious dynamism of mystical warriors such as Baba Wasakha Singh, are required to not only arm and empower the Sikh youth to defend Sikhi in the 21st century against the ravages of scientism and its delusional prophets but also expand the faith among non-Sikhs. Such an undertaking is only possible when one comprehends the multifarious foes the Sikhs confront in today’s age and time who weaponize even rationality and the scientific method against them.
Subscribe to get such content directly in your mailbox
