Religion, Science and Democracy: A trio of rule-describing systems

by Sachin Gupta

This brief essay aims to characterize religion, science and democracy as rule-describing systems. Systems that sometimes compete with each other and sometimes support each other.

The structure of religious systems typically resembles a three-tier hierarchy best visualized as a series of concentric layers. At the core of each religion is a fundamental belief in the presence of a 'higher power'. Different religious systems will describe this core differently, but in all cases the existence of a 'higher power' is an axiom. Around this core, is a layer of rule-systems that obtain their legitimacy from the 'higher power'. Texts such as the Torah, Bible, Quran or the Bhagavad Gita codify these rules. For example: "You shall not kill" or "Every man must perform his duties". Though these rules are understood through intermediaries claiming to have received these rules from a 'higher power', followers never believe that they have a choice in the construction or modification of these rules. The final layer consists of communal practices which, although they are not 'rules' per se, are extremely useful in building a sense of community amongst adherents practicing a particular religious system. These communal practices can take the form of festivals, rituals or even individual acts of devotion. Such practices are in fact critical to the propagation of religious rule-systems from one generation to the next in a manner reminiscent of how viruses move from person to person mutating along the way. Indeed, religions mutate as well over time. As a particular religion migrates from generation to generation, its outer tier of communal practices is most susceptible to mutation. One can find a lot of variation in the festivals or rituals of different communities even though they practice the same religion. Less frequently, major religions will fork and create entirely new religious systems such as Shia Islam and Sunni Islam from Islam or Catholicism and Protestantism from Christianity.

Scientific systems such as physics or chemistry describe rules established by Nature and as such these rules are outside the control of Man's free-will (or at least perceived to be so). The force of gravity, quantum mechanics, etc while all products of human observation, are seemingly outside the manipulative power of humans. The nature of these rules can be verified repeatedly by experiments conducted by humans but cannot be altered by humans in any way. These rules are distinct from religious rules in that they can be tested via experimentation.

Democratic systems deal with rules established by a collection of humans. They are unique in that their rules are created by the same entities on which the rules are enforced. While different democracies come up with approximately the same rules (for example, women should have equal rights), it is not apparent that these rules are enforced by 'Nature' (here the term 'Nature' applies to a group of interacting human entities). In other words, if democracy A consisting of a million people devises a certain rule then it is by no means certain or inevitable that democracy B consisting of a different set of million people will come up with the same rule. Even if they do, those rules would have been derived from conscious independent deliberations within each respective democracy. It has not been shown that a large collection of humans will inevitably come to agreement on the same set of rules every time. If it were so, then democratic rules could be described merely as an outcome of some scientific theory. No scientific theory currently claims to do so even though the study of economics suggests some intriguing patterns in this regard. Democracy's rules genuinely seem to be a result of collective 'free will' (or choice) perhaps guided by scientific or religious influences.

It would be ideal if these different types of systems described rules in different domains to avoid conflict.

To a certain extent, there are no overlaps. For example religion and democracy remain silent on the topic of the gravitational accelaration of Earth. It is 9.8 m/s^2 and there is nothing religion or democracy can do about it. A certain religious system might say that if you don't pray in a certain manner then you will go to hell. Again democracy and science can say nothing about it. A collection of people in a democracy cannot proclaim that "No one will go to hell" because it is not in their control. Science cannot address this rule because it has no way of verifying the existence of 'hell', let alone verify if people actually go there if they didn't pray. Finally a democracy may lay down certain rules about business or taxation that may have no influence from religion or science.

However in many cases science, democracy and religion converge on the same exact area, polarizing different groups of people with different leanings.

Stem cell research or a woman's right to abortion are examples of issues where all three rule-systems want to have jurisdiction. All three want to establish their own rules. Sometimes religion will partner with science to show that a foetus is really alive soon after conception to bolster religious rules that 'man must not kill' while being indifferent to women's freedom of choice. Sometimes religion will partner with democracy to impose rules that may be scientifically unsupported such as in democracies where a particular religion is dominant resulting in democratically established rules based purely on religion.

In most 'modern' societies, however, there is a strong emerging partnership between science and democracy. Science describes the constraints within which a democracy may wield the creative choice of its constituent members. Even in deeply religious societies around the world, this trend is beginning make its impact felt. Will religious rule-systems then soon lose out on issues where they compete with democracy and science? Probably not. Religion thrives on infecting young minds that are incapable of the sophisticated thought processes required to understand scientific or democratic rule-systems. It is hard to convert an adult to a particular religious system without duress or in the absence of a stress-inducing context. Therefore any particular religion's fate will largely be determined by the strength of its communal layer to lure the young and indoctrinate them in its rule-system.

Religious systems have another problem. Besides having a difficult time getting along with democratic or scientific rule-systems, different religious systems have an even harder time getting along with each other. Competing scientific models and competing democracies have a protocol for interacting with one another. If one scientific model clashes with another, it is only a matter of time before a properly designed experiment will help resolve the conflict. Different democratic systems, which cover different sets of people, seem to be able to come to agreement on broad principles of policy, law and enforcement if the group of people covered by those democracies are sufficiently large and diverse. Different religious systems however have no protocol for inter-communication. This is surprising given the commonalities that they share. The core feature of each religious system is the same. A belief in a higher power. Even the rule-systems established by most religions have huge overlaps. Most religions value human life and forbid adultery. The area with the greatest difference is the outermost layer consisting of communal practices. Since most adherents of a religious system are introduced into its realm through this outer communal layer, their perceptions of other religious systems seem to be permanently and profoundly colored by the respective communal practices of those other religions. Ironically, the vehement (and sometimes destructive) friction between adherents of different religious systems seems to stem from their religions' most superficial characteristics.

In one respect however, religion still trumps science and democracy. Both science and democracy ultimately rely on the individual. The former relies on individual observations of Nature and corresponding logical analysis. The latter relies on the free-will and choices of every individual. Therefore both rule systems rely on an individual's tacit trust in himself or herself. In a way, that trust is an axiom not very different from the one that lies at the core of every religious system.