# The Harmony of Science and Religion

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-20 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Steven Phelps, The Harmony of Science and Religion, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> THE HARMONY OF SCIENCE
> AND RELIGION
> Steven Phelps
> 
> In this chapter:
> 
> 1   Statement of the principle
> 2   Antecedent teachings
> a    Ineffability, metaphor, and epistemic humility
> b    The intelligibility of the universe and the elevation of rational thought
> c    Emanation and degrees of being; necessary relationships
> d    The relativity of religious truth
> 
> The principle of the unity of science and religion is one of the foundational teachings of the
> Bahá’í Faith (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections no. 71). It was first articulated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá during
> His travels in Europe and North America between 1911 and 1913, where He proclaimed to
> audiences in the cultural and economic capitals of the West that both science and religion are
> vital, necessary, and indeed spiritual endeavours in humanity’s collective evolution towards the
> realization of its highest potential.
> To a gathering in Paris in 1911 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said: ‘We may think of science as one wing
> and religion as the other; a bird needs two wings for flight, one alone would be useless’ (Paris
> 130–131). To an audience in London that same year, He said:
> 
> Religion and Science are intertwined with each other and cannot be separated. These are
> the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion
> which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential.
> (London 28–29)
> 
> And at a meeting in New York in 1912, He said: ‘The fundamental principles of the Prophets
> are scientific, but the forms and imitations which have appeared [from religion] are opposed to
> science. If religion does not agree with science, it is superstition and ignorance’ (Promulgation
> 128). Numerous similar statements were made in the course of His Western travels and in letters
> written from this time.
> While not explicitly stated in the writings of the Báb or Bahá’u’lláh, the principle of the har-
> mony of science and religion is a direct consequence of their teachings on the nature of reality:
> 211                DOI: 10.4324/9780429027772-20
> Steven Phelps
> 
> ‘Bahá’u’lláh has . . . reconciled science with religion by revealing the pure teachings of the divine
> reality’ (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation 231). By Bahá’u’lláh’s own declaration, His teachings are at
> their heart a re-expression of timeless truths—‘This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in
> the past, eternal in the future’ (Kitáb-i-Aqdas para. 182)—and many can be readily identified
> as perennial themes in the spiritual and philosophical traditions of East and West. However, it
> is in the context of the Bahá’í teachings and through their view of humanity’s progressive and
> ever-evolving encounter with the divine that these teachings are understood as grounding a
> worldview in which science is seen as essentially in harmony with religion.
> 
> Ineffability, metaphor, and epistemic humility
> At the heart of Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings is the principle of the ineffability of ultimate Reality and
> the inability of human minds to conceive it or of human language to express it:
> 
> All that the sages and mystics have said or written have never exceeded, nor can they
> ever hope to exceed, the limitations to which man’s finite mind hath been strictly sub-
> jected. To whatever heights the mind of the most exalted of men may soar, however
> great the depths which the detached and understanding heart can penetrate, such mind
> and heart can never transcend that which is the creature of their own conceptions and
> the product of their own thoughts.
> (Gleanings no. 148)
> 
> For Bahá’u’lláh, epistemic humility is thus identified with the highest degree of human attainment:
> 
> Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that
> Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts
> as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery
> of the Living God, the Daystar of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This
> confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every
> mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmina-
> tion of man’s development.
> (Gleanings no. 83)
> 
> As a consequence of the inherent limitations of thought and language, the deepest descriptions
> of reality, as narrated, for example, in the world’s sacred books and spiritual traditions, must be
> couched in the language of metaphor. As told by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in a statement itself couched in
> metaphor:
> 
> [I]t is from the luminous cup of metaphors and the ethereal chalice of similes that they
> that are sore athirst in the vale of bewilderment are given to quaff the life-giving wine
> of inner truth and knowledge . . . that the birds of human minds and understandings
> may soar beyond the nests of perplexity and bewilderment.
> ( Makátíb 2: 8, provisional translation)
> 
> While certain materialistic philosophers are chided for their lack of epistemic humility and for
> their ontological flattening of the world—on several occasions ‘Abdu’l-Bahá playfully compares
> them to ‘cows’ in their shared ignorance of higher realities (Promulgation nos. 90, 101, 111)—the
> harshest condemnation is reserved for those religious adherents who, mistaking the metaphorical
> 
> The harmony of science and religion
> 
> language of their sacred scriptures for literal truths and adhering to miraculous accounts whose
> true meaning is to be found in the symbolic, have become the cause of much of the conflict in
> the world, whether between different faith communities or between science and religion:
> 
> All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony
> alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific
> discoveries of the time. Many religious leaders have grown to think that the impor-
> tance of religion lies mainly in the adherence to a collection of certain dogmas and
> the practice of rites and ceremonies! Those whose souls they profess to cure are taught
> to believe likewise, and these cling tenaciously to the outward forms, confusing them
> with the inward truth. Now, these forms and rituals differ in the various churches and
> amongst the different sects, and even contradict one another; giving rise to discord,
> hatred, and disunion. The outcome of all this dissension is the belief of many cultured
> men that religion and science are contradictory terms, that religion needs no powers
> of reflection, and should in no wise be regulated by science, but must of necessity be
> opposed, the one to the other. The unfortunate effect of this is that science has drifted
> apart from religion, and religion has become a mere blind and more or less apathetic
> following of the precepts of certain religious teachers, who insist on their own favorite
> dogmas being accepted even when they are contrary to science. This is foolishness, for
> it is quite evident that science is the light, and, being so, religion truly so-called does
> not oppose knowledge. We are familiar with the phrases ‘Light and Darkness,’ ‘Reli-
> gion and Science.’ But the religion which does not walk hand in hand with science is
> itself in the darkness of superstition and ignorance. Much of the discord and disunion
> of the world is created by these man-made oppositions and contradictions.
> (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris no. 44)
> 
> As to the contents of these metaphors themselves, two related metaphors explaining the origins
> of the universe, both of ancient origin (characteristically Neoplatonist but with even earlier
> roots) and reaffirmed in the Bahá’í teachings, provide the theological foundation of the Bahá’í
> view of science in harmony with religion, although, as with other metaphors of the sacred, they
> can be mistakenly interpreted along literal lines.
> 
> The intelligibility of the universe and the elevation of rational thought
> The first of these metaphors is that the universe is the creation of a ‘mind’ or ordering principle,
> called variously in the Bahá’í Writings the ‘Primal Will’ (mashíyyat-i-ulá), ‘First Intellect’ (al-
> ‘aql-i-awwal), and the ‘word of God’ (kalimátu’lláh, the logos of the ancient Greeks and the
> Gospel of John) (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions no. 53). It is typically anthropomor-
> phized as the action of a divine Being Who has a specific plan and loving intention for creation.
> As Bahá’u’lláh stated, assuming the voice of the Divine: ‘I loved thy creation, hence I created
> Thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit
> of life’ (Arabic Hidden Words no. 4).
> The work of ‘mind’ leaves its imprint within all things, from the form and function of living
> creatures to the structure of physical law itself. As such, it transcends the usual interpretation
> of mind as a faculty strictly connected with the human brain. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá employed such an
> expansive definition of mind when He stated, ‘All that we see around us is the work of mind. It
> is mind in the herb and in the mineral that acts on the human body, and changes its condition’
> (London 95).
> 
> Steven Phelps
> 
> The pervasiveness of mind within all things explains why the universe is intelligible and why
> it follows predictable and orderly laws which improbably yield up their secrets to rational inves-
> tigation. As ‘Abdu’l-Bahá stated, ‘nature is subject to a sound organization, to inviolable laws,
> to a perfect order, and to a consummate design, from which it never departs’ (Some Answered
> Questions no. 1). The scientist who is able to deduce the mathematical form of these laws is thus
> accorded the highest praise:
> 
> The greatest attainment in the world of humanity has ever been scientific in nature.
> It is the discovery of the realities of things. . . . The highest praise is due to men who
> devote their energies to science, and the noblest center is a center wherein the sciences
> and arts are taught and studied. . . . Verily, mind is the supreme gift of God. Verily,
> intellect is the effulgence of God.
> (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation 348–350)
> 
> Emanation and degrees of being; essential relationships
> The second and related metaphor which deeply informs the Bahá’í concept of the relationship
> between science and religion is that the creation of the universe takes place through an eternal
> process of ‘emanation’: it is like the rays of the sun, which partake of the attributes of the sun
> (light and heat) and are sustained at every moment by its shining, while remaining separate from
> it in essence (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions no. 53). And, similar to how the rays of the
> sun travel progressively further from their source, the process of emanation takes place in stages
> or degrees comprising a descending arc (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions no. 81).
> The stages in this ‘arc of descent’ can be observed in the ancient division of being into min-
> eral, vegetable, animal, and human kingdoms (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions no. 55).
> Through these degrees, which are degrees of gradually awakening consciousness, an infinite
> diversity of expressions is produced, through which the purpose of creation in manifesting the
> divine names and attributes is best fulfilled (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions no. 32).
> The pattern of the original source is repeated within each stage of the emanative arc, whether
> on the arc of descent or the arc of ascent, introducing a principle of correspondence between
> different degrees of being:
> 
> Know thou that whatsoever can be found in this mortal world, this realm of limi-
> tation—every name and description, every form and attribute that can be seen or
> heard—hath, in each world of the worlds of God, manifestations and appearances
> corresponding to and befitting that world, and appearing with another name, another
> description, another form and another attribute.
> (Bahá’u’lláh, Má’idiy-i-Ásamání 7: 120, provisional translation)
> 
> This relationship of correspondence holds true between the degrees of being often called the
> ‘material’ and the ‘spiritual’: ‘The spiritual world is like unto the phenomenal world. They are
> the exact counterpart of each other. Whatever objects appear in this world of existence are the
> outer pictures of the world of heaven’ (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation 10), although, viewing the
> emanative arc as a whole, the very division of the world into a physical and a spiritual dimension
> is a consequence of our limited human perspective. At any point in the circle of existence, the
> ‘spiritual’ is simply a term for the degrees which lie ahead:
> 
> the truth is that the world of existence is a single world, although its stations are mani-
> fold in accordance with the manifold realities of things. For instance, the world of
> 
> The harmony of science and religion
> 
> mineral, plant, and animal existence is the same world. Despite this, the animal world in
> relation to the world of the vegetable is a spiritual reality and another world and abode.
> (Abdu’l-Bahá, Amr va Khalq 1: 202, provisional translation)
> 
> The relativizing of the categories of the material and the spiritual into matters of perspective,
> which is a feature of the holistic viewpoint of emanation, is particularly evident in the identi-
> cal definitions given to ‘religion’ and ‘nature’ as comprising the interrelationships that bind all
> things together:
> 
> [R]eligion consists in the necessary relationships deriving from the realities of things.
> (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions no. 40)
> 
> By nature is meant those inherent properties and necessary relations derived from the
> realities of things.
> (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Forel 13)
> 
> The same principle can also be seen at work in the collapsing by Bahá’u’lláh of the traditionally
> distinct categories of natural action and divine action:
> 
> Nature is God’s Will and is its expression in and through the contingent world. It is a
> dispensation of Providence ordained by the Ordainer, the All-Wise. Were anyone to
> affirm that it is the Will of God as manifested in the world of being, no one should
> question this assertion.
> (Tablets 142)
> 
> The relativity of religious truth
> While the consequences of the rich metaphors of ‘mind’, ‘emanation’, and related ideas for the
> conception of the essential unity of science and religion, as cast through the lens of the Bahá’í
> teachings, are far-reaching, the Bahá’í Writings nowhere propose that differing conceptions
> of the divine and its relationship with the world can somehow be reduced to a single correct
> dogmatic formulation. They rather acknowledge that diversity of viewpoint, even in matters of
> ultimate theological import, is a feature of the human condition, for religious truth is relative—
> in time, between one era of human civilization and the next, but also between different people
> at the same point in time:
> 
> [S]ince all do not possess the same degree of spiritual understanding, certain statements
> will inevitably be made, and there shall arise, as a consequence, as many differing
> opinions as there are human minds and as many divergent beliefs as there are created
> things. This is certain and settled, and can in no wise be averted. . . . Our aim is that
> thou shouldst urge all the believers to show forth kindness and mercy and to overlook
> certain shortcomings among them, that differences may be dispelled; true harmony be
> established; and the censure and reproach, the hatred and dissension, seen among the
> peoples of former times may not arise anew.
> (Bahá’u’lláh, Call 3.6–7)
> 
> Therefore, a diversity of views about science and religion can be expected to persist into the
> future, from those who, informed by metaphysical dualism, present science and religion as
> 
> Steven Phelps
> 
> essentially separate domains of knowledge to those who pursue more non-dualistic themes that
> stress the unity that lies behind the world of ever-changing appearances. These views are able
> to coexist within the community through a shared conviction that a greater harmony underlies
> its differences, through mutual love and respect, and through a consultative framework that
> ensures that action is taken in unity even when differences persist. The ultimate test of all such
> theories, for Bahá’ís, is whether they function as remedies: whether they serve the cause of
> actuating human potential and propelling forward an ever-advancing civilization consistently
> with established facts.
> 
> Religion and divine teachings are like unto a remedy. A remedy must produce the
> condition of health. If it occasions sickness, it is wiser and better to have no remedy
> whatever. This is the significance of the statement that if religion becomes the cause
> of warfare and bloodshed, irreligion and the absence of religion are preferable among
> mankind.
> (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation 298)
> 
> References and further reading
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. (1330AH/1912) Makátíb-i-‘Abdu’l-Bahá, vol. 2, Cairo: Matba‘at Kurdistan al-‘Ilmíyyah,
> https://reference.bahai.org/fa/t/ab/.
> ———. (1978) Auguste Forel and the Bahá’í Faith, Oxford: George Ronald, www.bahai.org/library/
> authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/tablet-august-forel/.
> ———. (1982) The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, www.bahai.org/
> library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/promulgation-universal-peace/.
> ———. (1985) Amr va Khalq, vol. 1, Hofheim: Bahá’í-Verlag, https://reference.bahai.org/fa/t/c/AK1/.
> ———. (1987) ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in London, Oxford: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, https://reference.bahai.org/
> en/t/ab/ABL/.
> ———. (1995) Paris Talks, Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, www.bahai.org/library/
> authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/paris-talks/.
> ———. (2009) Some Answered Questions, rev. trans., Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, www.bahai.
> org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/some-answered-questions/.
> Bahá’u’lláh. (1935) Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, www.
> bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/gleanings-writings-bahaullah/.
> ———. (129BE/1973) Má’idiy-i-Ásmáni, vol. 7, Iran: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, https://reference.bahai.
> org/fa/t/b/.
> ———. (1978) Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
> www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/tablets-bahaullah/.
> ———. (2018) The Call of the Divine Beloved, Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, www.bahai.org/library/
> authoritative-texts/bahaullah/call-divine-beloved/.
>
> — *The Harmony of Science and Religion (Used by permission of the curator)*