The clash between religion and reason is an old story. Centuries have witnessed the two parallel forces influencing the society most. The Management Theory explains this as the race for supremacy to gain control over the society. While religion was the first source of authority as humanity acquired civility, the development of human intellect through scientific pursuits led to the emergence of rational-legal authority as a means of social control. As things stand, and as the bygone ages testify none is emerging as the winner. More so in India where religion has always been an important source of authority to acquire social control. Against this back drop, there is a need to revisit the religion versus reason conflict. Particularly, as the recent times are witnessing a tug-of-war between the institutions that represent the religious authority and those representing the rational-legal sources of authority. We need not go very far behind in the history. From Shah Bano to Sabarimala, cases galore point out at this conflict. The problem is to be reformulated if we need to come to an amicable answer. There is need for a philosophical approach blending religion and reason, rather than looking at it from a religion versus reason issue. We must understand that religion is more a matter of faith whereas reason is based on rational analysis. Naturally, the two concepts have their own standpoints based on very strong convictions. Faith is something guided by a belief system that is a result of centuries of cultural conditioning and hence rationality may not be able to change the belief that has such strong and deep roots. How far can the institutions of rational-legal authority, especially elected Governments and courts of law, go in interpreting and demystifying religious beliefs through rationality? It is a big question that may not be easy to answer. But it is important to realise that both religion and reason have their roles in effective development of the society. While one must admit that many issues of philosophy of religion have broad relevance to human concerns, they are also quite complex in their ramifications. Obviously, explaining or interpreting them on the touchstone of rationality alone may not be a prudent approach. They do need to be rethought in each age in the light of broader scientific knowledge and deepening ethical and religious experience. But a summary interpretation may not be the right approach. Best would be to follow an eclectic approach taking the best of both the views. The rationalist may have a major limitation in that for them the only truth capable of being asserted is based on analytical and hence tautological reasoning only. But that may not be enough in the cases of religious beliefs which arise out of faith. It is better if faith and reason join hands to reinvent religion and bring out prescriptions for right living. Yes, rationality is important to discriminate between belief and superstition. But the matter of faith is a crucial issue in religious beliefs and legal interpretations may not go very far in changing the belief system. Religion is not something that can be inferred by law. Hence, there is need to hasten slowly. Albert Einstein had very rightly suggested that religion begins where science ends. Social movements have been successful in changing many archaic beliefs in the past like Sati or human sacrifice. But it was more a process of attitudinal change and opinion creation rather than being just mandated by law.

Pathak is a professor of management, writer, and an acclaimed public speaker. He can be reached at ppathak.ism@gmail.com