Can science never prove the existence of God?
Doing the externals at all. Pratap, what was your question? Hare Krishna. Question, can science never prove the existence of God, as I heard in one of your classes? Answer, not exactly.
In that class long ago that I gave a Bhagavatam class in Pune, the point I was making is that today's science operates under certain assumptions. And one of those assumptions is methodological naturalism. So, methodological naturalism means, naturalism is that nature, the study of nature is naturalism or more specifically we could say that nature is all that exists.
Now, nature is all that exists is metaphysical naturalism. It is a philosophical claim that nature, that means what we observe at the material level, that is all that exists. The science has adopted as an operational principle, methodological naturalism.
That means that as a matter of methodology, science will try to look for natural explanation for natural phenomena. So, now this, what does this mean? Natural explanation for natural phenomena means, say, at the time, you know, science will be 14th, 15th, 16th centuries. So, say the Black Plague happens.
Now, if the Black Plague is ascribed to some ghost or to some devil or some other entity like that, then there's nothing that can be done to cure it at a scientific level. But if the Black Plague is found to be caused by not a supernatural or paranormal phenomena, but by a natural cause, there is a germ which is there and that germ can be isolated, that germ can be countered and some medicine can be discovered to cure as well as medicine to prevent. So, some antibiotics and vaccine can be developed that way.
So, the idea is that when science looks for natural explanations for natural phenomena, science progresses. If science starts accepting supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, then science cannot progress. And if we accepted that ghosts were causing the plagues or evil spirits were causing plague, then we could not have found a medicine for it.
So, this is the standard point or standard justification, standard reason why science adopts methodological naturalism as an operational strategy. Now, there are some atheists use this strategy as a means for rejecting the existence of God. But this is a categorical misconception.
That means when science, if science takes as an assumption, as an assumption that we will not look for supernatural causes, then naturally as conclusion it will not find supernatural causes. So, this is not a proof at all. It is a matter of methodological choice.
It's just like, suppose I close my eyes and start trying to smell, okay, what is there? Is there a gulab jamun here? Is there a pakora here? And want to smell that. But then I say that I can't see the wall next to me. Well, if I'm closing my eyes, the methodology that I'm using, smelling, will never show me the wall.
Because the methodology I'm using, intentionally the methodology I'm using is different. The methodology rules out the sight of the wall. Now, I may even somehow, some other way, if I touch, I may can see the wall.
But the point is with the nose, I can't smell the wall. Sorry, even if I can smell it, I can't see the wall. Because the nose is not the faculty, not the tool for seeing.
So, when science as a matter of methodology uses, as a matter of principle, as a method of methodology, if it uses the point that we will not look at supernatural causes, then science can make no statements about God, either about his existence or non-existence. So, that's why scientific, the methodology of naturalism puts science and God separate from each other. So, now, the atheists themselves are not faithful to the methodology, although it is convenient to them.
But what they do is, this methodology begins with the assumption that there is no God, or not that there is no God. That is the assumption of metaphysical naturalism. The metaphysical means there is nothing except nature and there is nothing, God is also not there naturally.
But then metaphysical naturalism doesn't prove the non-existence of God, it assumes the non-existence of God. So, therefore, the point is that this cannot, then atheists also cannot use science to disprove God. And yet, many atheists write books proving, saying that how science has proven the non-existence of God, the failed hypothesis and books like that they write.
So, then they are themselves not adopting metaphysical naturalism as a tool for searching knowledge about God, because they are just saying that God is outside the scope of knowledge. So, God is outside the scope of science. So, then we have to be clear, are we going to put God in the scope of science, or rather we are going to open science to investigate about God, or are we going to close science so that we don't even investigate about God at all.
So, there has to be a clear definition of terms over here. So, now, when Prabhupada uses Bhakti Yoga, Krishna Consciousness is also a science. What he means is not that a science which uses methodological naturalism or which assumes metaphysical naturalism, not at all.
He is saying that science in terms of it is a systematic, repeatable, well-defined process. There are nine stages of Bhakti. We can move from Shraddha to Prema.
And what happens at these different stages is also documented. So, it's a well-defined process. It's a repeatable process.
Whoever practices it can have similar experiences of purification and gradually higher vision, higher realization and higher vision. This will come gradually. So, it is in that sense of the clear delineation of the experiential verification of the repeatability.
It is in that sense that spirituality is a science. So, but Prabhupada uses, so, in that sense, if we use the broad sense of the word science, then definitely Krishna Consciousness is a science. And by this, we can get the experience of God.
Bhakti gives us. So. Thank you.