Is scientific advancement driven by simple curiosity or by the controlling mentality

Question: Did naturalism come about or become prominent because of the mode of passion and the desire to control? Newton doesn’t seem to be a typical person in the mode of passion.
Answer: There are multiple points to consider here.

1. Distinguishing Individual Scientists from the Scientific Trajectory

We first need to differentiate between the character of individual scientists and the overall trajectory of the scientific enterprise.

Many pioneering scientists were deeply thoughtful and purposeful individuals. They were not driven by materialistic passion but by a genuine desire to understand the world—and often, to understand God’s design. For instance, Isaac Newton saw his scientific exploration as a way to understand how God had fashioned the universe. His science was rooted in theistic vision—God as both the creator and controller.

However, as the power and success of science grew, God’s role on the canvas of the cosmos gradually faded in public perception. The scientific worldview evolved from theism (God as creator and controller) to deism (God as creator, but not controller), and then eventually to atheism, where God was considered irrelevant or nonexistent.

2. Science and the Desire to Control

Alongside the rise of science came the rise of technology, which further shifted the focus. Consider Francis Bacon, one of the intellectual architects of modern science. He famously said, “Knowledge is power.” While that’s true in a general sense, Bacon meant specifically that scientific knowledge gives us power to control nature and bend it to human will.

Over time, as science became increasingly commercialized, its goal subtly shifted: from understanding nature to controlling it. Now, controlling nature isn’t inherently bad. For example:

• Building a house protects us from the elements.
• Constructing a dam prevents flooding.

These are ways of protecting ourselves from nature’s onslaught. But there’s a big difference between defending ourselves against nature and attacking or disrupting nature—especially when we don’t fully understand the systems we’re disrupting.

Today, pure science gets little attention or funding. What dominates is applied science, which is more about utility than curiosity. That’s not entirely wrong, but the popular belief that science is driven only by curiosity is idealistic and incomplete.

Most scientific work today is not just “knowledge for knowledge’s sake.” Instead, it is increasingly “knowledge for control’s sake”—to produce results, inventions, and innovations that can be marketed, monetized, or manipulated.

3. Naturalism, Rajas, and Leadership

So, is naturalism—the idea that everything can be explained by natural causes—rooted in the mode of passion (rajas)?

In many ways, yes. But we should be cautious not to demonize it.

To act in this world, some amount of control is required. Even Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita acknowledges the role of control:

• In 16.13–15, Krishna critiques the demoniac by quoting their words: “I am the controller, I am the enjoyer.” This is arrogant control in the mode of ignorance and passion.
• But in 18.43, while describing kshatriya qualities, Krishna again uses the word īśvara-bhāva—the disposition of leadership or control—as a positive trait.

So, control isn’t inherently bad; it depends on why and how it is used. When we translate īśvara-bhāva not as “controlling mentality” but as leadership, it takes on a more constructive meaning.

4. Science with or without Spiritual Vision

If control is guided by spiritual understanding—if it is used to channel material energy and technology toward spiritual purposes—then it can be healthy and elevating.

However, when methodological naturalism (the approach of excluding God from scientific inquiry) becomes entrenched, and God is removed from the picture, science gets hijacked by sensualism and materialism—a rajas that is unregulated by sattva (goodness).

Thus, we come to this progression:

• Theistic science → curiosity and reverence
• Commercialized science → curiosity turned into control
• Naturalistic science → God excluded as irrelevant
• Scientism → belief that science is the only way to know anything, and matter is all that exists

Scientism, though emerging from knowledge, can ironically lead to a deeper form of ignorance—because it denies the possibility of anything beyond matter, thus cutting people off from higher knowledge

In Summary:

• Individual scientists like Newton were often in sattva or even spiritually inclined.
• But the overall trajectory of science became more rajasik—driven by the desire to control.
• Control isn’t inherently bad; it’s about the purpose behind it.
• Without spiritual guidance, science can become dominated by rajas, and even slip into tamas, as in the case of scientism.

So, naturalism, as it is often practiced and promoted today, reflects a rajasik (passion-driven) impulse that needs to be balanced by sattva and transcendence for it to serve a higher human purpose.