What is the relationship between science and atheism?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So how many atheists are actually scientists? How many scientists are atheists? How many scientists are atheists? What is the relationship between atheism and science? Broadly speaking, because science is a very influential body of knowledge, various ideologies try to prove themselves as scientific. So many religions also try to prove that our philosophy, our beliefs are scientific.
And atheists also do that. So science is a body of knowledge which is largely value neutral. That means science can tell you that if you put arsenic in your grandmother’s breakfast, you can get your inheritance faster.
But science won’t tell you whether that is right or wrong. Science is what by definition it is called as amoral. It is not moral, it is not immoral.
It is not concerned with moral values. Similarly, with respect to spiritual truths, science in itself is non-spiritual. It is neither pro-spiritual nor is it anti-spiritual.
It just focuses on material explanations for material phenomena and doesn’t so much deal with spiritual. So, atheists often claim that science is true God, is true soul. And that’s how they claim that atheism is the only scientific system.
But actually if this is a legit technical argument, but I’ll use this and then I’ll come back to a more simple point. Atheism is mostly based on naturalism. Naturalism means that nature, material nature is all that exists.
And if we consider that nature is working on certain mechanisms and nature is evolving by natural selection or whatever else and if this whole thing is happening by entirely unguided mechanisms, then we can say that human brain is evolving even now and if the human brain is evolving even now then there is no possibility, then they are still in the process of evolution, still in the process of flux. So, we are, our brains are designed simply for survival and our brains are still evolving. So, we can never know what is the truth.
So, if naturalism is true, then atheism can’t be true. Because atheism is a truth claim that God doesn’t exist. But the human brain itself is an evolving mechanism and it just doesn’t, it can’t come to any definite knowledge.
So, the point is that atheism is by no means a necessary outgrowth of science. Atheism is the ideology which misappropriates the prestige of science for propagating itself. So, there are some scientists who by their study of science have become priests.
There are some scientists who by their study of science have become atheists. But more often than not, it is not their study of science per se, although they may use it as a reason while explaining things. It is primarily their experience.
Atheists grew up with certain conceptions of religion. They had certain experiences with religious people and that put them off. So, those who became theists had the experience with people who were religious and that attracted them.
So, we could say that science is like one circle, atheism is another circle, atheism is another circle. Now, both atheists and theists try to claim scientific credibility for their belief system. Now, what is the reality? The reality is that the spiritual realm is unachievable.
It is inconceivable. So, by material reasoning, through science, we can never come to know anything definitive about the spiritual realm. So, scientifically, it is said that it can make one think.
For one who has a disposition towards God or at least openness towards God, science provides enough pointers to reinforce one’s faith in God. But scientific reason alone is unlikely to make an atheist into a theist or a theist into an atheist. It is largely one’s own culture, one’s upbringing, one’s experiences, one’s level of consciousness.
All those play a major factor. But, later on, after one has made a particular decision about one’s belief system, one’s faith, whether one is going to believe in God or not, after that, to justify it, one uses science quite a bit. Science is largely value-neutral.
But it is frequently used by theists. So, there are theistic scientists. There is one particular scientist, Anthony Flug.
He wrote his autobiography when he was around 1885. There is no God, and no is crashed out, and oh, there is a God. So, he was one of the most prominent atheists in the world in the period from 1950 to 1970, 1980.
But later on, towards the last few years of his life, he actually became a theist. And he said that was because when I studied science, I found that many of the things which science has found, the most satisfactory explanation is some divine influence. He didn’t become exactly a theist, he became a deist.
Theists are those who believe that God is both the creator and the controller. Whereas deists are those who believe that God is the creator but not the controller. That means God set the world in motion, and the world is like a clock.
The clock is made obviously by a clockmaker, but the clockmaker has no control over the clock. The clock is now functioning as an activation mechanism. But at least he came to that idea.
So, the scientific evidence can strongly point towards a higher intelligence. But that’s about it. It cannot arrive at any strong, conclusive decision either way.
So, if we focus on giving people attractive, cultural, spiritual experience, attractive, social community support, then the intellectual substance is enough to persuade them and whatever scientific obstacles they may have, they can be dealt with. But we don’t have to conceive of science as a major obstacle for people to come to Krishna. Thank you.