Is criticizing science necessary for sharing Krishna-bhakti?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So many times in our classes in school we criticize science. So is that approach effective? Is that essential or can that be adjusted? Actually, Prabhupada, he was often strong in science.
But if you look at what he was criticizing, it was not science, you could say it was scientism. He was basically criticizing the atheism that was born from science. Even when he was criticizing evolution, for example, the scientific theory, he was criticizing it more for the atheism that it implied.
He was definitely not against science per se. He himself used science. He flew by airplanes.
He had printing presses. He was himself a pharmacist. So he knew what chemicals to use.
Obviously, he knew chemistry to that extent at least to make pharmaceutical medicines. So there is no question of Prabhupada rejecting science. He had a profession in science.
So Prabhupada was very concerned about the truth claims of science and that people have become atheistic because of that. So our concern right now is that we want to get people to come closer to Krishna. And if science is a factor which is taking people away from Krishna, then we want to challenge that.
But if you compare 1960s-70s to the times today, it is that today people don’t really take science seriously. People take technology very seriously in terms of that they love technology, they love gadgets. But people are not so infatuated with science as the source of gospel truth.
That means because of various reasons, especially because of some harmful effects of technology also becoming clear, some greater knowledge of quantum physics and relativity spreading, people have recognized that basically science was promised that science would provide knowledge, it was promised that technology would provide happiness. So now science, the knowledge that is provided, it is to a large extent confusing, especially when you go to the fundamental branches. So my point which I am making is that the people, if they are interested in something spiritual, in the spiritual substance, spirituality, they are interested in spirituality for spirituality’s sake.
They are not, for most people, become interested in spirituality. Science is not a major stumbling block. It is, it may be to some extent, but it is not a major stumbling block.
But today’s ethos is an ethos of, you could say, being non-judgmental, not criticizing anything. See every age has its mood. So the postmodern age which is there today, its predominating theme is social justice.
The modern age’s predominating theme was scientific reason. You could say the modern age started ending by 1990s, 2000s, basically the time when internet started getting widespread and with the spread of the internet, basically alternative perspectives started becoming known to people. Prior to the internet, whatever the media taught, whatever the TV taught, whatever the government taught, whatever the books taught, that’s what people thought was the truth.
People had no no access to alternative sources or alternative, what you could say, alternative ways of looking at the same things. So people who were, for example, portrayed as victim, as cruel in the past, started learning that they are also good people, they are not cruel people. It’s a different side of the story which we now don’t know.
So social justice is the prominent mood of today’s age. And in the age of social justice, anybody who becomes the object of criticism, becomes the object of sympathy. So at one level if you see Islam, Islam should not be conflated with Islamic terrorism.
But there’s a difference, it’s not that all Muslims are terrorists or even supporters of terrorists. But today it has become, although most terrorists are from Islamic background, they draw the justification from Islamic ideology. Although we can say that it’s a misunderstanding or misapplication of ideology, that’s different.
But the fact is although there is so much terrorism coming with definitely some connection with Islam, still criticism of Islam has become very politically incorrect. Criticism of Islam is immediately labelled as Islamophobia, at least in mainstream media circles. So what has happened, why is this? Because the mood of today’s world is social justice.
Social justice means nobody should be discriminated against, nobody should be criticized, people should be allowed to live the way they want to live. So that’s why if Islam is criticized, then the media comes to support Islam and calls it as Islamophobia. So if we criticize science, the only thing that happens is people who are themselves not particularly enamoured of science, they become averse to us thinking, why are you critical of science? It’s not that scientists are bad people, that’s what they feel.
Why are you so against science? And that way we become the bad guys. So for us, it’s only when science claims to be a source of truth and people believe it to be a source of absolute truth, then it becomes a problem. But if we see, broadly speaking, most people are functionally followers of science.
They are not, you can say, ideologically followers of science. We accept, we use the fruits of science, its technology, but that doesn’t mean that we necessarily believe all that the scientists say to us. So when there is no need for us to get people to practice bhakti yuga, to chant Hare Krishna, we don’t need to criticize science for that purpose.
If we consider our purpose is to get people to learn to love Krishna, is science a major obstacle? I would say no. Because there is, broadly speaking, there are two approaches. There is the functional approach to knowledge and there is the ontological approach to knowledge.
Ontology means the nature of reality. So ontological approach means what is it really? Actually, that’s what I want. Functional approach means how does it work? If I know enough for how it works, that’s enough for me.
So, for example, we may use cell phones. Out of millions of people who use cell phones, how many people actually know what is the technology by which cell phones work? They don’t know and they don’t care. They care enough so that my cell phone should work properly.
So, broadly, people today are concerned with functionality. What works? If science works by providing me technology by which I can do things, I’m happy to use that. If spirituality provides me some methodology by which I can get some peace, I can get some sense of meaning, sense of purpose for my life, I want to do that.
Now, what the nature of reality is, that people are not so concerned about. So, science as a source of technology, technological gadgets and technological wizardry, people are appreciative of that. But science as a source of absolute knowledge, people are not really into that zone so much.
So, when our goal is to get people to practice bhakti and thereby experience the potency of bhakti, we don’t need to antagonize people by making them think that in order to practice bhakti, they have to give up science. We ourselves don’t give up science. What we give up is some of the truth claims which are going on in the name of science.
So, if we keep our purpose in mind, our purpose is to inspire people to come closer to Krishna, and is science a big obstacle? I don’t see it that way. Scientism is, and Prabhupada criticized scientism, and we will definitely criticize scientism. If somebody says that consciousness comes from the brain, it doesn’t come from anything non-material, well, we’ll challenge that.
Science proves there is no God, we’ll challenge that. Science doesn’t make any statement about God. Scientific inference can point towards God and God, away from God.
But science itself doesn’t say anything about God. So, when there is need to fight battles, we will fight battles. But there is no need to create battles.
So, if somebody makes some claims in the name of science which go against the fundamental tenets of spirituality, we can counter them. I’ll give you a simple example. It’s like, say, somebody wants to enter a temple, and there is a wall in the path of that person to come to the temple.
Now, for helping that person to come to the temple, there is a wall, there is an obstacle, you may want to break that obstacle. But, if somebody wants to come to the temple, and there is a path from there to the temple, and nearby there is a wall, but that wall is not in the temple, in the path. Now, we get that person to wait and watch while we break that wall and then tell him to come by that way.
Why do we need to do that? So, the misconceptions that are stopping people from coming to Krishna, we need to break those misconceptions. We don’t need to get into other rules also. We have very limited time in people.
We have limited time ourselves to share these conversations. So, we have to find out what is the most effective way in which we can be attractive, that in present Krishna, people will get attracted. And, if instead we get thrown off telling science, science especially in the form of its own claims, scientists can be criticized.
But, it has to be done intelligently. A big difference between now and even that is very widely available, that because of any argument which we make, people get Googled and find a counter for that. Mystic arguments and people find counter to those arguments.
And, they will say that we are not sound in our reasoning. But, the weak argument is something which is actually peripheral to Krishna Bhakti. So, we are necessarily linear in people.
There is one boy, he has answered a few scientists and he wrote a comment to me once saying that, whenever I hear your answers, while hearing your answers, I am on Google checking whether your answers are correct or not. So, of course, I can’t say that everything that I say is 100% actually correct. But, overall, in the past, we could use certain arguments which would seem persuasive to some people.
People would accept it. But, now with people having access to counters to all arguments, and atheists have also become quite aggressive now. So, there are many aggressive atheistic websites which counter arguments that we use.
So, it’s best not to get into that zone where we seem to be positioning ourselves as against science. So, we are not for science, we are not against science, we are for Krishna. And, if science somehow positions itself as against Krishna, or some people feel that science is positioned against Krishna, then we have to clarify, we have to counter.
But, when there is no conflict, why create a conflict?