There are times we think there are two, but there is only one or simply none.

Science and Religion are one such thing. We often think that science and religion are different and discuss/debate on whether they are converging or diverging.

The way I see it, science and religion are same. They are no two different entities. They are one. They evolved from a basic instinct of ours, which played on our cortex and evolved homosapiens from Neanderthals. The instinct of questioning.

''Questioning' and subsequently reasoning and understanding is the key instinct that made what we are today. It is not that such instincts are not with other life forms. Sure they do have some. But not as pronounced as it is in us.

What we call as religion was a science. What we call as science is a religion

***

This may look like stating "world is round" to people who lived in 1400's. "World is round" might have looked utterly foolish to the established scientific community of those days.

In fact it may even look like the statement "Newton's third law works irrespective of a medium" Everybody thought that a medium is required to get a reaction for action. When it was stated that the law holds good in vacuum, a letter to the newspaper stated "Even a high school student knows that a medium is required. How come this guy does not know..?".

Religion was the science of those days. Sometimes I am afraid that science is going the way of religions in adapting to new theories, if the scientific community does not learn from the mistakes of the past.

***

When I talk of religion, I restrict myself to what is referred as 'hindu' religion and so many other religions referred to as 'pagan' religions. I do not want to draw into dogmatic religions like christianity and islam. I appreciate these religions, have great appreciation for their founders and promoters, but then these were religions that guided people to have an orderly society.

The Hindu religion, on the other hand, represents an evolution of thoughts as it occurred. In the Aryan culture, many procedures were defined by 'Rishi's. They defined and re-defined the way of life and influenced the advancement of the society. "Rishi's were the guiding spirit of the Aryan society.

"Rishi', in sanskrit means observer, a keen observer. A person who observes, questions and understands.

Naturally some human beings would have been born with higher observation and questioning capability as the evolution proceeded. These people would have taken the role of rishi's, bringing in the benefits of their capabilities to their societies.

What they learnt or observed became an ocean of knowledge and this was passed on to further generations. Such knowledge was in the form of information, procedure, practices and rituals. But at no point of time, Rishi's prohibited questioning. Questioning of information, procedures, practices and rituals were always promoted, as questioning only develops knowledge.

Knowledge is nothing but processed information. When processed information passes on through several generations, it is learnt not by experience but by the faith in the teacher passing the information. Hence such knowledge becomes faith or belief. Many times, it may loose its original purport.

When knowledge becomes faith or belief, and in the name of orderly society, the same faith or belief is enforced without the room for questioning, there is the danger that overall knowledge of the society stagnates and does not grow.

Hence most rishi's promoted questioning. Questioning of 'anything and everything'. Questioning of all rituals and beliefs and faiths.

The entire upanishads are a standing testimony to the fact that questioning was the 'Key' aspect of our religion in those days. In fact almost all upanishads celebrate the questioner and try to answer the questions in the best possible way. They promoted scientific thinking. Or scientific thinking was called the 'religious' thinking in those days.

In fact in those days, religion was the science. The way science works now and religion evolved in what I wrote above is no different. As science springs from dedicated scientists, religion sprang from dedicated rishi's. Their motives are common. Seeking of truth and knowledge and deploying the truth and knowledge to the overall improvement of the society.

There were two different aspects of research in those days. One is to do with external observations and experiments, in which a number of rishi's dedicated themselves. Other is to do with insight and internal search, which would lead to the ultimate realization of knowledge.

The rishi's were the scientists of those days. Many of the scientific advancements or discoveries that we know as made in those days were the result of this questioning of the rishis.

Questioning and answering the question either conclusively or inconclusively was a key methodology in all these. Upanishads raise a question and give a possible answer. They do not proclaim that these answers are 'the' answers. This is the true of spirit of science.

Hence it is not true that the entire methodology of observation, test and reasoning evolved with modern science only. This is how our society and civilization started and evolved.

Then there are the vedas, which are a collection of rituals. It is very difficult to understand the vedas, from a simplistic view point.

****

When a society evolves over thousands of years, it is natural that processed information or knowledge becomes an issue of faith or belief. This kills the questioning nature and stalls the overall advancement of socieity. This is what has happened to our society.

But the same danger exists in scientific societies today. Like the newspaper letter I cited, when knowledge becomes issue of faith, scientific progress stops. There are umpteen circumstances, under which today's scientists assume knowledge as faith.

We can talk about gravity for example. Today law of gravity is an issue of faith. If somebody comes up with a theory that gravity does not exist, the first thing that would happen is, it would be ridiculed. Because, law of gravity is the established norm. Can u deny, u will fall back on earth, when tossed up..?

No matter, what scientific procedure exists, it is extremely difficult to prove a theory against the prevalent norms. It takes time, passion and sometimes the entire life of people. This is what exactly existed in those days also.

It is worth spending resources on a subject that our ancestors have collected as a form of knowledge and analyze it statistically, scientifically and otherwise. Who knows.? There could be lot of new findings, which may help the overall knowledge of human beings. But in the name of science or knowledge, not even allowing to question/investigate, is ridiculous.

Hence it is also not true that science does not become a matter of faith. In fact anything over a period of time, becomes a matter of faith and belief and it is very difficult to re-learn knowledge, whether it is science or religion.

****

Our religion was the 'science' of life for our ancestors. Over a period, as knowledge became huge and people who had proximity to power overruled everybody else, it lost its teeth for questioning and further knowledge. We stagnated as a society for long time.

Fortunately, compared to those days, when we stagnated, we have democracy and freedom today. There will be no persecutions or reprisals or it may be limited to the scientific domain and not extend to personal domain. Hence, people are free to question and postulate new theories.

People who seek real knowledge loose all inhibitions and dogmas and look at things openly in several dimensions. For them, answers dig up further questions and it is a never-ending cycle.