the complementarity of science and religion 155elaborated upon this notion which Nishida associated with what he called “pure
experience” in memorable words:^38
There is a single life that vitalizes the universe as a whole. In reality
no separate, individual things exist on their own. The only such self
is the one that we have thought up; nothing in reality is so pat-
terned. This view of the world may seem to leave us out of the pic-
ture altogether, but it only means that in our looking and listening
the activities of looking and listening have emerged somewhere
from the depths of the universe. Our looking and listening and all
the other things we do issue from a point where things form a sin-
gle living bond. This is why these activities are united with all sorts
of other things and why we cannot think in terms of things existing
on the outside and a mind existing on the inside. This is a later
standpoint; the prior standpoint is that of pure experience where
subject and object are one and undifferentiated. It is here that all
experience takes place.Science, Religion, and Truth
The question naturally arises when speaking of complementarity, whether sci-
ence or religion, or both, or neither, gives us truth. In the quotation above Sir
John Templeton cautiously speaks of science and religion as “complementary
avenues of truth.” This is a fairly optimistic assessment of science and religion;
a more pessimistic view holds that either science or religion speaks truth, but
not both. Perhaps we should approach this weighty question by first consid-
ering science and religion seriatim, then together.
Science and Truth
We have been taught to think that scientists are laboring in the service of truth.
In the steady growth of science, many supposed truths have given way to what
are thought to be more certain truths. Some of these supposed truths were
earlier scientific theories, while others were prevailing notions associated with
religion. Cosmologies came and went, all in the interest of a better understand-
ing of the physical world.
Scientists have been vigorous in their pursuit of better understanding. But
not all have agreed upon the nature of their conclusions. Some use the word
“truth” more confidently of their theories than others. There are endless an-
ecdotes about this, but I shall call attention to an interview between Richard
Feynman and Fred Hoyle which was aired on the BBC in 1972. Feynman was
questioning the propriety of saying that the laws of physics evolved over time,