Lip Service to Religion: The European Scenario

In an earlier blog, I had talked about Alberuni's observations on the Indian astronomers, particularly Brahmagupta.

Note that even Brahmagupta refers to the Manu Smriti in his 'Brahmasidhanta' (as Alberuni shows) in connection with the 'Head' or 'Rahu'. But there are other interesting details to consider.

Alberuni is certainly not the first to have studied the astronomical work of Brahmagupta. But none before him--and for that matter no Indian scholar of eminence after him--notes such a palpable absurdity in Brahmagupta.Alberuni of course , being a visiting scientist, has the advantage of taking a more objective view of the Indian situation which the Indian mind failed to do. But why was this failure to detect the gross incongruities in Indian astronomy by the Indians? The answer is not far to seek. Told through generation after generation for more than two thousand years that the view of the Head gobbling up the sun and moon enjoys the highest scriptural sanction, the Indian mind is naturally inclined to accept it as make-belief which it is not easy to reject.

When the astronomical researches give a different and more reasonable explaination of the eclipses, an effort is somehow made to have them coexist peacefully in our minds, notwithstanding the abject incompatibility between the two different explainations for the eclipses.

With his tremendous admiration for Brahmagupta, Alberuni lamented that something like the calamitous fate of Socrates could have befallen our astronomer. But the comparison fails to be convincing.

Like Brahmagupta, Socrates might have been confronted with a huge heap of hoary superstitions. But he never allowed anyone to make any dent on his convictions. He took up the cup of poison cheerfully and his last words remain for us as perhaps the most exquisite joke in world literature. (Details regarding the death of Socrates are given by Plato in his book 'Phaedo', the relevant passage is given in Will Durant's 'Story of Philosophy' pg 10-12).
The god of healing in ancient Greece was Esclapius, to whom it was customary to offer a sacrifice when one recovered from an illness. Socrates wanted his friend Crito to sacrifice a cock to Esclapius: by dying he felt recovered from his society which was ruled by foolish superstitions and therefore he believed he owed a cock to the god of healing.

So Alberuni's comparison of Brahmagupta with Socrates hardly stands. If we are at all permitted to see any parallel of Brahmagupta's technique, we have to look towards the French scientist-philosopher Descartes.

In one of his earliest writings, La Monde ('The World') Descartes discusses a good deal of astronomy and is only to be expected of a genuine scientist following Copernicus and living in the times of Galileo, Descartes gave in the book the theory of the rotation of the earth.The manuscript was about to be sent to the press when Descartes came to know of the troubles Galileo was facing because of his defence of the Copernican theory. Scared by this news, and hoping to be assured of personal safety, Descartes immediately withdrew the manuscript and did not allow it to be published during his lifetime.


But this was not all. To further allay any suspicion of heresy, Descartes wrote a work with the title 'Meditations on the First Philosophy' which he dedicated with a long,eloquent and flattering passage to the Dean and Doctors of the Sacred Faculty of Theology in Paris. A substantial part of this book was devoted to a series of proofs for the existence of God along with apparently irrefutable arguments for the most orthodox conclusions, as if showing that he had much greater faith in piety and religious orthodoxy than on reason.
As if all this was not enough, in another book called 'Principles of Philosophy', Descarte declared (quoted by G.Santayana in Introduction to Everyman's edition of 'Descarte' pg xii):

"I submit all my opinions to the authority of the church and the judgement of the sages; and I desire no one to believe anything I may have said unless he is constrained to admit by the evidence of the force of reason."

The trick is obvious; the first part of the statement is intended to placate the stern demands of the church authorities, while the second part shows Descarte's commitment to the demands of science. The demand of science follows from the methodology of Descartes: he begins with an uncompromising doubt and refuses to be satisfied with anything short of the absolutely clear and distinct.But an outright defence of this method--the scientific method--evidently entails a grave risk in his time; it is the risk of facing the Inquisition. So in the first part of the statement, Descarte pretends to be very pious, proposing to submit all his observations and findings to the scrutiny of the church authorities. Such a show of piety, he must have felt, was necessary to save his science.


So, evidently, behind an imposing facade of pious reverence for the church authorities lurked the sly philosopher who did no less than anybody else to usher in the age of science and hence also the demolition of religious orthodoxy and superstition. (Together with Sir Francis Bacon, Descarte is generally acknowledged to be one of the pioneers of Modern Science--both Bacon and Descarte laying special emphasis on the scientific method involving experimentation and hands on practical observation rather than scholastacism).
Such then is the effective technique of evading censorship of science, particularly when resistance to this censorship becomes menacing. It is the technique of paying a heavy ransom in the form of an apparent veneration to the age-old superstition and, under its cover, get away with science. The same, presumably, was done by the Indian astronomer Brahmagupta and also the founders of Indian Logic (representing the Nyaya-Vaisesika school of Indian philosophy)