Three Issues With The “I Trust Science” Philosophy

[Krishna's lotus feet]“The unalloyed devotees of the Lord know the glories of the Lord in the sense that they can understand how great the Lord is and how great is His expansion of diverse energy. Those who are attached to the perishable body can hardly enter into the realm of the science of Godhead. The whole materialistic world, based on the conception of the material body as the self, is ignorant of the science of God.” (Shrila Prabhupada, Shrimad Bhagavatam, 2.7.42 Purport)

Download this episode (right click and save)

The true believers in God have likely run into such an argument. Challenged about their beliefs, they are asked to show indisputable truths. Facts. Visual evidence. Until such can be produced, the challengers cling steadfastly to their faith in science.

“Listen, I think it’s interesting to compare the different philosophies and religious views. The Christians have their idea. The Hindus another. I like the concept of soul, but there are still so many questions left unanswered. I agree that science has yet to perceive the soul, but it doesn’t mean that one day we won’t be able to. You have your answers to life’s most challenging questions, but those are beliefs, I would say. Science is truth. Science is evidence. That is why I always trust science.”

There are several issues when travelling down this road. Not that science is worthless and religion the only way, but the human being has the enhanced potential in intelligence for a reason. They are meant to question the meaning of life and the purpose to the creation. They are meant to bring doubts to the table, even with respect to the supposedly airtight principles set forth by modern science.

1. Which science do you trust?

With the proclamation of, “I trust science,” comes an implied jab at religion. The idea is that science is more reliable than some ancient book written thousands of years ago. People didn’t know as much about the natural world back then. They attributed the larger workings of nature to myths and legends. Science has since debunked so many of those myths and continues to do so.

The issue is that science is always changing. Namely, the conclusions don’t remain the same. A new study reverses a previously held truth. It was a belief in fact, because truth cannot be reversed. For instance, no one will be able to invalidate the mathematical equation of, “two plus two equals four.” There is no progressing from that point, so the idea is a truth and not a belief.

One day the scientific community says the earth is flat. People who raise doubts are taken to task, sometimes violently so. One day science says that there is a certain number of planets, only to have the finding upgraded later on. There is an ice age coming, but wait, now it is a warming of the earth. We cannot produce life from matter right now, but give us time. Indeed, as science is based on progress, it is in its very nature to be defective. You can only progress from something when that place is flawed to some degree.

2. It is impossible to observe everything and conduct experiments

Science says they have definitive proof that the earth is a certain number of years old. Supposedly this method is way more reliable than consulting ancient texts, even those written in the Sanskrit language. Yet the actual truth is that there is no way to prove. There is no way to travel back millions of years and see with the eyes whether the earth existed. Moreover, someone alive from that time recording their observations and passing it on to future generations is more reliable than any extrapolation based on scientific equations.

[science]If science is the only authority relied upon, then the knowledgebase will always be imperfect. Events continue to unfold. Time moves forward, sparing no person. There is no way to observe everything that goes on and then conduct experiments to study the results.

3. There is a spiritual science

The simplest experiment that would disprove the concept of religion is to revive a dead body. That is to say provide some chemicals or manipulation of matter such that a person who is pronounced dead returns to life, with the same identity. No such experiment exists, and nor will it ever.

There is something known as the spiritual science. Religion mixed with philosophy; otherwise there is only sentiment or speculation. Not blindly following a particular book or teacher, and not merely speculating on what the reason for life might be. Take both the sentiment and the philosophy and actually realize the truths presented.

Those truths descend through a chain of teachers. There is an original person who creates the laws. He gives the calculation to the size of the soul, where it travels, how it assumes different bodies, the duration of life, where it will end up going forward, and so forth. There is no way to make scientific studies into the fact since the soul is not perceived by blunt instruments. The soul emanates from the Supreme Soul, who is also known as Adhokshaja. This name references a person whose features cannot be measured by blunt instruments.

That is not to say that only blind faith should be extended. Use logic and reasoning. Make a sober assessment. Does it make sense that a soul accepts a certain kind of body? Is that body always changing? Is there a stark difference between a living person and a dead one? Might it be possible that it was the soul animating the body the entire time and that its exit defined the state known as death?

[Krishna's lotus feet]These truths and more are presented in the spiritual science known as the Vedas, which are nicely summarized in the Sanskrit work known as the Bhagavad-gita and described in more detail in the Shrimad Bhagavatam. The same truths can be experienced through real life, through work and analysis, through question and answer, and through belief and affirmation from deep immersion into the genuine spiritual life, which is timeless and eternal.

In Closing:

To consult religion a must,

Other side in science to trust.

Since for qualification to believe,

Something tangible to perceive.

Evidence with experiments done,

Not just through blind faith some.

Idea that spiritual science also to exist,

Truths of matter and soul to persist.

Advertisements


Categories: the three

Tags: , , , , , , ,

1 reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: