If we leave the room for the supernatural in the scientific quest for knowledge, won’t we tend to look for easy lazy ways out?

Many countries today pride themselves on being beacons of scientific advancement. However, even in such nations, people are not immune to irrational thinking. There are still many individuals who are quite particular about seeking supernatural explanations for even the smallest of phenomena.

So, simply rejecting supernatural explanations will not eliminate irrationality or superstition. What is required is due caution and thoughtful discernment.

Yes, it takes thinkers—thoughtful people—to strike the right balance. There are different kinds of mental pitfalls:

• One form of empty-mindedness is when people immediately jump to supernatural explanations for everything. Srila Prabhupada himself did not support such blind tendencies. For example, once some devotees told Srila Prabhupada, “Prabhupada, I think I’m being haunted by a ghost.” Prabhupada simply replied, “It’s just your weakness.” He did not endorse the supernatural explanation, even though he accepted the philosophical possibility of ghosts. He evaluated the situation thoughtfully, not impulsively.

This brings up the question:
Can we have a clear test to determine when to seek natural explanations and when to consider supernatural ones?

I’m not sure if any universal test like that exists. But in general, if a society is guided by thoughtful and discerning people, they can help prevent the excessive or blind use of supernatural explanations.

As mentioned earlier, one kind of problem is jumping too quickly to supernatural causes. But there’s another extreme as well: narrow-mindedness—where people refuse to even consider the supernatural, not only ignoring it but denying its very possibility or reality.

Some argue, “That’s not what science says.” That’s true—but it’s also important to remember that this is not how science works either. Science, by its very method, remains neutral; it does not confirm or deny God or the supernatural.

Unfortunately, some atheists misuse science to further their anti-religious agendas. In today’s mainstream world, there’s a widespread notion that being rational automatically means being atheistic. But again, that’s a misrepresentation of science. Science does not say “Yes” or “No” to God.

So, what’s the danger?

• If we completely reject the supernatural, atheists may misuse science to discredit spiritual worldviews and push materialism.
• But if we blindly accept every supernatural explanation, we run the risk of encouraging superstition.

Therefore, the key is balance—and that requires intelligence and thoughtful leadership. If a society is led by wise, reflective individuals, such a balance is not only possible but essential for a healthy intellectual and spiritual culture.

Thank you.