The article would have been an excellent piece if he had covered the perspectives of the major world religions towards science. It is a shame that the arguments are largely based on Abrahamic religions of a monotheist god and single creator theory.

One major religion which is largely misunderstood is perhaps Buddhism and its attitude towards science.

Buddhism does not believe in the existence of a supreme being or a single creator theory.

Indeed, it teaches that sentient beings are generally ignorant and need to gain knowledge constantly to seek the truth and not through blind faith.

You do not need to believe any of the teachings of the Buddha until you are convinced of it yourself. Strictly speaking, there is no conflict between science, modern discoveries and the teachings of the Buddha.

Moreover, the article would have been more objective and insightful if Dr Ho had brought in the perspective of some established scientists in the debate.

One such remarkable person that comes to my mind would have been Albert Einstein. He had made many interesting quotes on this religion versus science issue. Let me quote one of his better known ones below:

'The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.' (Albert Einstein)

I am not advocating any beliefs as being right or wrong here but would have expected an article written by a senior writer on a national newspaper in a multi-religious Singapore to carry respectable degree of sensitivity, objectivity and insight.

Chan Chun Meng