How do we reconcile science and spirituality when they are contradictory?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Now, we talk about seeing both design and purpose together. But then there is a process for reconciling the two. And spirituality offers us a world view, which has a process.
And science offers us a different world view. So, how do we reconcile it? Sometimes, when we cannot reconcile, we just call them as inconceivable. So, first of all, when it comes to trying to reconcile science and spirituality, we need to recognize every branch of knowledge has a particular purpose, which defines its methodology.
So, for example, there is allopathy and there is Ayurveda. Are most of you familiar with Ayurveda, basically? So, in Ayurveda, if you are familiar, then Ayurveda, there is a concept of heat in the body. Now, there is some reason, this is a cause because heat is increased.
Now, in allopathy, there is no such conception of heat. There may be gases in the body or gastric acids in the body, whatever. So, now, it is the same body that is being talked about.
But they are two different models. And we cannot directly interpret the two models. So, Ayurveda is based on the whole idea balance between Kapha Vatamitra.
Now, some of them can be correlated. You can say that, sometimes when we have running nose, we can say you have excess mucus in the body, that we may correlate with Kapha. But you cannot really correlate the two directly on a one-to-one basis because there are different models.
So, like that, science and scripture have different models for analyzing the water. And that is why, now, if we do not understand this basic principle, we may end up thinking that to accept science, I have to reject scripture or to accept scripture, I have to reject science. It is not necessary.
Science is not inherently atheistic or theistic. Science is simply a tool for looking at the world. And that tool can be used by theists to demonstrate evidence of design.
That tool can be used by atheists to try to demonstrate evidence of lack of design. So, the point is, now, is this difference inconceivable? I would say that Achaitya may not be the exact word for this because Achaitya is used in a particular philosophical sense in our philosophy. But in principle, it is true that there are two, even in physics, it is a little technical, but if you know a little bit of advanced physics, there are two primary models, there is quantum physics and there is relativity, Einstein’s relativity.
And these two are just not reconciled. There is no way that they can be reconciled. So, now, what do scientists do? The two fundamental pillars of science are not reconciled.
So, what scientists do is, they use whichever works. And in different areas, different theories work and they work very well. So, for most of the technology that we use, it is largely derivative from quantum physics.
But when scientists want to send spacecrafts and other things into space, they use relativity largely. So, the point is that even from science, if we learn anything, we learn humility. That means we learn that the existence is so complex that we cannot understand it.
Scientists try to make theories to explain it, but they also can’t. So, now, the important point is that these two examples I gave, the Allopathy and Ayurveda, these are two models within the same field of knowledge only, medicine. And similar to, for example, quantum physics and relativity, they are again two models within same branch or some branch of science, that is physics.
And if even within two branches of the same field of knowledge, there can be such huge differences that something just cannot be reconciled. Then what to speak of two different categories of knowledge itself, like science and literature. So, definitely there are going to be differences.
And we don’t have to necessarily choose one or the other. So, it is not that science is itself atheistic. So, if you look at Srila Prabhupada, there are several conversations of his.
One conversation, he says, we are not against the scientist’s spirit of acquiring knowledge. We are against the atheist’s spirit for acquiring knowledge naturally. Sat, chit, ananda.
Atma is chit, is conscious. Atma naturally wants to know more and more. So, with respect to specific theories, I think it will be a technical discussion that we can have separately.
But in principle, we have to know that because these two branches of knowledge operate from different paradigms, operate with different models of reality. So, there are going to be inevitably differences. And rather than getting too bogged up in those differences, we use the approach of Yukta Vinaya.
Scripture is what guides us for our ultimate purpose in life, for deciding what are the values based on which we are going to live. Science in general is silent about three things. Origin, value, and purpose.
Origin, where did everything come from? Science cannot give a satisfactory answer. Value, what is right and what is wrong? Science cannot tell us that. Science can tell us that if you inject this chemical into a person, that person will die.
But science cannot tell us whether you do it or not. So, about origin, value, and purpose. Purpose is what are we living for ultimately? For this, science is silent.
So, these are the fundamental questions that scripture answers. And with respect to why we live, for what purpose we live, on what values we live, that we learn from scripture. But the practicalities of living in this world, we will use technology.
We will use many of the facilities provided by science, because that is just for a functional perspective. So, in general, by recognizing that the two operate from different paradigms, we can avoid a confrontationalist approach, which creates unnecessary conflicts and controversies. Does this answer your question? Thank you.