Ask Osho!
Osho on Is modern man showing signs of coming of age regarding the concept of certainty in science?

Is modern man showing signs of coming of age regarding the concept of certainty in science?

Science is evolving from rigid certainties to a dance of possibilities, embracing the beauty of 'perhaps' in the face of life's ever-changing nature.

— Osho
According to Osho, yes—signs are emerging: thinkers like Stephen Jay Gould embody a new maturity that abandons absolutist certainty for an honest 'perhaps.' Science, he says, is moving from rigid yes/no dogmas to a fluid, dialectical awareness that life is change. Though only a few have come of age so far, it’s a vital beginning and more will follow.

Science is growing up by learning to say “maybe” because life keeps changing, even if only a few people see it yet.

In His Own Words

From the Discourses

Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.

The Transmission Of The Lamp · Discourse 28Question 3 1986-06-09 Punta Del Este, Uruguay. English

Beloved Osho, in a recent article by stephen jay gould, he said, "certainty is unattainable in science." Osho, is modern man at last showing signs of coming of age?

There is an ancient proverb: Camels don't like to go to the mountains. I don't know what the camels think about it, but it is certain they don't go to the mountains. They go to the deserts where there are no mountains. But the people who formed the proverb knew better. Camels don't like to go to the mountains because as they come close to the mountains they feel very inferior, they have an inferiority complex. Freud discovered it just recently, and camels have known it since the beginning -- that it is better not to go to the mountains; there you will get an inferiority complex, and then it is very difficult to get rid of it. It is better to be in the desert where you are the highest, tallest, biggest thing. So why not enjoy a superiority complex? Why unnecessarily go to the mountains? Everything that we…
Tao Upanishad · Discourse 6Question 1 1971-06-24 Bombay Hindi

Osho, modern science has taken humankind away from nature and developed many dimensions of life. Please tell us: given the complexity of the scientific way of living, how can a balance be established today with the Taoist era’s effortless, natural way of life?

There is no question of establishing a balance. It is not a matter of balancing Lao Tzu and modern science. If Lao Tzu’s vision truly comes into view, an entirely new science will be born—utterly new. A science founded on Lao Tzu’s vision would be born, because the whole perspective on life would be different. The science that has evolved on Aristotle’s foundations is very incomplete, ignorant. It has tried to understand such a tiny fragment of life and has left the whole. One should say it is childish. It has made no attempt to see the totality. But until now it could not have. Now it will have to. After the discovery of atomic weapons and the development of atomic energy, science has been compelled to reconsider all its basic premises. Why? Because if science keeps moving as it has till now—if it says, “We will go on this…
We are close to some new stage in man's evolution. Man will be different from what he has been before. Those who have eyes to see, can see what is coming; those who have ears to hear, can hear what is coming. When seeds break apart and the tiny sprouts poke through the ground in search of the sun there is a feeling of agitation, a kind of anxiousness. And there is a similar sense of expectancy within us, a restlessness. It is nothing to worry about. This state of confusion is part of the period of transition. To turn back in fear now is suicide. Life only moves forward; it is not possible to go back. As darkness is deepest before dawn, the pain and confusion are worse, at their most intense, just before birth.
Be Still And Know · Discourse 1Question 1 1979-09-01 Buddha Hall English

Osho, meditativeness and science are difficult to reconcile. Yet painting a picture, writing a poem, and solving a scientific problem all bring the same joy. The same joy! Why is it so difficult to be meditative and a scientist? Why has there never been a society in which the inner and the outer sciences, the science of gentleness and love and the science of aggression and death, live in harmony?

Mahavira, twenty-five centuries ago, used to make each of his statements with a 'perhaps'. If you asked him, "Is there a God?" he would say, "Perhaps." In those days it was not understood at all -- because how can you say, "Perhaps"? Either God is or is not. It seems so simple and so logical: "If God is, God is; if he is not, he is not. What do you mean by 'perhaps'?" Now it can be understood. Mahavira was using the same language in religion that is being used by Albert Einstein in physics. Albert Einstein calls it the theory of relativity. Mahavira has called his philosophy exactly the same: SAPEKSHAWAD -- the theory of relativity. Nothing is certain, everything is flexible, fluid. The moment you have said something, it is no longer the same. Things don't exist, Mahavira says, but only events. That's what modern science is saying,…
The Way Of Tao Volume 1 · Discourse 6Question 2 1971-06-24 Immortal Study Circle English

Question: modern science has taken the human race away from the nature and developed very many dimensions of life. Please explain how the intricate pattern of the scientific system of life can be balanced with the natural life of the tao-age?

If the tree happens to come in the sitting Room, he would so design it that the whole room is in harmony with the tree. So the houses this man builds become a part of nature. Viewed from afar, these houses cannot be seen as such. Lao Tzu feels that houses that stand out are violent. They are violent, like this building 'Woodlands'. If a house goes up to 26 floors, where will the trees be, where will the mountains be and where man? They are all lost! Only the bare building remains. This is unharmonius, grotesque. for there is no co-existence, no harmony with the surroundings. Such a building stands lone and forlorn, in its own arrogance. A house should be such that it is covered with trees, it is touched by the hills and riders go racing by its compound walls. When someone passes this house, it should…
Keep Exploring

Related Questions on Certainty