The relationship between science, or science and technology, and this general principle of secularism may be examined at two levels: first from the standpoint of the nature of the activity of science itself, and secondly(related to the first) from the standpoint of the relationship between science and society; that is, the way in which science is affected by social forces and the manner in which science influences society.
A working definition of science is that it is a human activity concerned with the organisation of facts about the material world into universal concepts. It is an essential feature of modern science that it deals only with the material world and that all explanations and concepts refer only to the laws of the material world. It is necessary that its predictions are testable against material facts and that its conclusions are falsifiable. It is also explicitly recognised by modern science that its explanations and theories are always subject to change based on fresh facts. It recognises that the boundaries of knowledge constantly change over time.
The point at issue here was made sharply by the biologist J. B. S. Haldane: ``My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course...'' (as quoted in Halstead, 1984). The statement goes to the heart of the matter. Science does not recognise any kind of faith as an explanation. The explanation for material facts has necessarily to be found in the material world itself. Where science cannot find an answer or explanation it limits itself to noting its failure for the present moment, recognising always that an explanation might be found later.
It is this willingness to live with uncertainty or incomplete knowledge that distinguishes science from religious faith; the latter in which-ever form, always asserts some component of complete certainty. Scientific theories cannot be tested by appeal to the Bible, the Koran, or the Vedas and the Upanishads (as the fundamentalists belonging to the respective religions claim). Almost by definition faith does not admit of testing, being a personal experience or state of mind that is not repeatable by others in any objective fashion. Nor does the personal character of faith admit of falsification. All religions possess elements which are considered absolute and immutable; theological changes are considered to be corrections of imperfect human attempts to understand something that is unchanging and fixed. The character of different religious faiths vary but all of them contain in some form or another elements that make them non-science. The activity of modern science simply does not recognise the intervention of these elements.
This is, of course, not to deny the complicated thought processes by which the individual scientists develop their theories and methods. Such processes have many inputs and are influenced by many factors in society, socio-economic, political, cultural and ideological, including religion. But the realm of operation of scientists' scientific ideas is the real world and the laws they formulate are those of the real world in explanation of real facts. It is not that a Galileo or a Johannes Kepler lacked a cosmic vision of religious origin, but when the facts confronted the visions they followed the way the facts pointed to. Even today, many scientists hold personal beliefs that are sharply at variance with the irreligious character of science. However their work as scientists is judged only by the criteria set by science and not by criteria relating to their beliefs. ( However, there seem to be limits to the toleration within the scientific community of these `beliefs'. For example, a theoretical physicist or biologist who practices astrology in his or her spare time is likely to find his or her scientific reputation among peers discredited soon enough.) Modern science as an activity is therefore intrinsically secular. This basic understanding of modern scientific activity was not achieved without a long historical battle--one that continues even today in a variety of forms.
Historically, science has been instinctively secular in the sense that persons of science always learnt or borrowed from other persons of science from other cultures. The history of science shows that even in the ancient world, scientific learning travelled long distances, breaching cultural and religious barriers. By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the internationalist character of science came to be explicitly recognised. But the freeing of science from the imposition of religious dogma, both in matters of scientific fact and interpretation, was harder and more difficult. Many of the landmarks of this struggle are well known: they include Galileo's battle with the Catholic Church, characterised beautifully in Bertolt Brecht's play, ``The Life of Galileo''; the burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno; and, in the more recent period, the bitter debates following the work of Darwin.
But it was not merely that science attempted to shake off or defend itself from dogma. Science in instinctive self-preservation of its growth and development actively aligned itself with the development of a critical and rational spirit in society. Science was firmly linked throughout the period of the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution with progressive economic and social thought . The developments of science and technology continually challenged myths, superstitions and prejudices.
By the beginning of this century, the imposition of religious dogma on science in the developed world was becoming increasingly difficult and today the battle is more or less won. Rearguard actions by fundamentalist forces still manifest themselves from time to time. However, in the United States, where Darwin's theory of evolution began to be seriously taught in schools only in the 1950s, a shift in tactics has taken place in the attack on evolutionary theory by religious fundamentalists. Immediately following the appearance of Darwin's work, evolutionary theory was challenged on the grounds that scientific fact and interpretation did not accord with the literal interpretation of the Bible. More recently, however, the attempt has been to elevate a bogus theory named ``creation science'' (essentially an amalgam of half-baked science and Biblical lore) as a competitor to evolutionary theory and to demand equal time for teaching this `theory' in schools. This experience suggests that science can no longer be fought directly and that fundamentalism needs at least the external trappings of science to succeed. The same trend is evident in the emergence of `Islamic science' and `Vedic science', to which we shall return in more detail.
The historical record reveals that societies where the material and ideological conditions have been such as to retard the development of a rational and critical spirit, societies where dogma rules inflexibly, have lagged behind in the development of science and technology. This is indisputably true of the modern period. Nor is the critical rational spirit essential to science associated with calls to regain the glory of a mythical past. Nazism dealt a critical blow to the exact sciences in Germany, where the efforts to eradicate ``Jewish science'' were particularly virulent. Spanish society after the Moors left, dominated by a rigid Catholic Church, lagged behind the rest of Europe for centuries. Where, in contrast, social changes led to the promotion and development of this critical spirit (for instance, the October Revolution which led to the founding of the Soviet Union), a tremendous leap forward in science and technology became possible. None of the countries where fundamentalism holds sway in the developing world today are recognised as making rapid strides in science and technology.