Why is scientific knowledge like gravity not present in scripture?

Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
We talked about Newton and theory of gravity. Why is that kind of expression not there in scripture? See, each book has its particular purpose. And, if we look at the book itself, it is telling its purpose.
Say, for example, Arjun, when he is asked, at the start of the Bhagavad Gita, he is asking a particular question. Say, if you come for a class, and it’s a question-answer session. And you came after the question was asked.
And you are hearing the answer, and you may understand each point, but what is the whole point we discuss? You are not able to understand that, isn’t it? So, to understand the Bhagavad Gita, we have to understand what is the question to which the Gita is the answer. And that question is, pracchamitvam dharmasamudachetaha I am asking you, what is dharma? Dharma means, what is the right way to live? What is the right course of action? So, the Bhagavad Gita is not a book talking about the physical nature of the universe. The Bhagavad Gita is a book talking about the right course of action.
Srimad Bhagavatam, if we consider, it is spoken to a king who is about to die, Parasharath Maharaj, and the thrust of the Bhagavatam is what? How to prepare your consciousness when you are going to die? How to remember the eternal when we are ending our stay in the temporal? So now, the whole Bhagavatam is centered on that purpose. No book can have all knowledge about everything. And, if somebody is reading, say, a book about English grammar, and then you ask, why is there no knowledge of physics in this? It’s a book about English grammar.
If you want to study physics, go to some other branch. Galileo famously said that, that science tells us how the heavens go Religion tells us how to go to the heavens. How the heavens go means, how do the planets move? That’s what science tells us.
How to go to the heavens means, how to raise your consciousness and go to a higher level of existence. So, these are two distinct bodies of knowledge. Now, some people may say that, oh, scripture also contains the scientific knowledge.
Yeah, it may contain. But, if we position scripture and science as competitors, by doing that, we devalue scripture. Scripture is not here to give us scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is a very powerful way of acquiring knowledge, a powerful tool for acquiring knowledge. But, science gives us knowledge about a particular portion of reality. What is the portion of reality? That is, science tells us, science operates based on a phenomenon we call as methodological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism means, science provides us material explanations for material phenomena or natural explanations for natural phenomena. That means that Newton saw the fruit falling and now he could have said, what made the fruit fall? God made the fruit fall. Now, he accepted the existence of God.
He also famously said that, the orderly nature of the solar system, this could not have come without a great intelligent being behind that. But, when he is looking for an explanation, he is not looking, when he is studying it as a scientist, he is not looking for God as an explanation. He is not rejecting God as an explanation.
But, he is looking for the material mechanism. So, a material mechanism and an intelligent agent, these two are not contradictory, they are complementary. It’s like, suppose, so, did all of you have lunch or you are going to have some food after this? Okay.
So, suppose you had, suppose there is going to be prasad after this. Though suppose prasad is there now. But, now, if something is cooked very nicely, now, somebody may want to know, okay, who cooked this? And that is a valid question.
And somebody may want to know, what is the recipe for this? What are the ingredients? What is the process? Now, knowing the recipe and knowing the cook, they are two complementary knowledges. Isn’t it? They are not contradictory. Just because I have a recipe, doesn’t mean I don’t need a cook.
And just because I have a cook, doesn’t mean I don’t need a recipe. Both are valid. So, if I want to develop a personal relationship with the person who made that, then I will ask about that.
And ask about the cook. I also want to cook, I just need the recipe then. So, science basically asks for the recipe.
Science doesn’t ask about the cook. So, at least Newton did not deny the existence of cook. He accepted there is a cook, but I want to know the recipe.
But what happens, subsequent generations of scientists, or more you could say, in the subsequent generations, atheists started taking over science. And then, they started saying, if you just have the ingredients, why do you need a cook? So, that’s how science started becoming atheistic. Or rather, atheists started taking over science.
Even now, in America, a survey done, about 50% of scientists are theists, 50% are atheists. Now, you can define theism in a loose way. Specifically, you can say personal god, or just some kind of organizing intelligence.
The point is that, we don’t go to scripture to seek scientific knowledge. We go to scripture to learn about how to raise our consciousness. These are two different branches of knowledge.
And if you understand their domains, then the conflict can be significantly avoided. There might be some areas of conflict, and there has to be some intelligent resolution of that. But overall, they are two different domains of knowledge.
One way I put it is that, science can make things better. Spirituality can make people better. Science can transform the outer world.
And spirituality can transform our inner world. Did I answer your question? Thank you.