By Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.
In one of his past postings Dr. Dr. Ádám Kun asked a question “I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?” and we have also sent reply for the same from one perspective.Serge Patlavskiy also said on the same thread “Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution may continue to be studied at schools and universities, however not as a theory, but as a hypothesis and together with other valid scientific hypotheses UNTILL a true theory of evolution is adopted by scientific community.” Here we want to emphasize that science is not sacrosanct and scientists should also answer the question: “Are scientific theories merely the collective opinions of scientists, or do such theories give us genuine knowledge of the real world?” In the same thread Professor Priyadarshi Jetli also wrote “As for needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it.” Among scientists we can often find a standard criticism of religion is that it leads to absurd consequences that no rational person would accept. Scientists claim that by surrendering to religious wisdom, we abandon any stable notion of reality and place ourselves at the mercy of cultural biases, fanatical social groups, and power hungry tyrants who are more than happy to twist our conceptual frameworks to their benefits. However, scientists never even analyze how science can be free from this same criticism. We are also highlighting in this message the point that science itself is dependent on tradition and authority. If we can see in an unbiased vision then we can easily recognize that science practice also becomes a matter of customs that are imposed on us. Therefore, claims in science on fundamental aspect of reality do not deserve any special respect as portrayed in modern society and educational system.
Even though the seed of modern science can be traced back to the ancient Greek philosophy, in the modern time empirical sciences have superficially tried to follow a process of independence from philosophy which has never been achieved. Science cannot be independent of philosophy because scientific method itself is hermeneutically conditioned and its dependence on philosophy becomes more apparent when one reflects upon the teleologically conditioned aim of modern science. Both hermeneutical and teleological conditionings come from a particular tradition. Scientists simply presume that they can arrive at truth because they erect their conclusions on data they obtain through sensory perception. On the basis of this premise scientists criticize different subtle philosophical and religious claims because they strongly believe that their information originates from real rather than imaginary things. This conviction of scientists is inherently based on another implicit presupposition that real things are only those that can be accessed through gross sensory perception assisted by technological advancement. This adherence of scientific epistemology to empirical (Greek word empeiria means experience) conditioning in turn comes from teleological and hermeneutical conditionings. The entire scientific enterprise is based on scientists’ implicit presupposition of what real means and the ideas come into science from the side of the hermeneutical conditions of scientific methodology.
Scientists will agree that they obtain information from two sources. The suggestions of previous studies help a new scientific research to identify a problem and a new scientific research cannot initiate itself by remaining completely independent of previous studies. This indicates that the progress of science is dependent on both empirical data and the suggestions of previous scientists. Thus scientific research is conditioned by both tradition and testing. Moreover, the ultimate goal (teleological conditioning) of modern science is to build a cosmology (an all comprehensive worldview) and this is exactly the goal of metaphysics and ontology that philosophy and religion try to address. Therefore, the difference between science, philosophy and religion is one of the method rather than aim. This common goal of science, philosophy and religion must be kept in mind when one deals with the questions on consciousness, origin of life, matter, biodiversity and universe.
In the course of time, a myth of scientific rationality was developed from a continual uneasy atmosphere and the conflicts between Western science and religion, where scientists have started claiming that their scientific methods can produce the absolute universal truth about reality which religion and traditional philosophy cannot produce. However, in recent time scientists have gradually started to realize that the scientific method can only produce partial approximations and that scientific method is inapt to produce any absolute infallible truth. The progress of science is helping us realize that by utilizing scientific methods scientists can proceed for ever to erect increasingly so called truer (although problematic and improvable) rebuilding of reality. As Mario Bunge concludes:
“Hence, science cannot have an ultimate goal, such as building a complete and flawless cosmology. The goal of science is rather the ceaseless perfecting of its chief products (theories) and means (techniques), as well as the subjection of more and more territory to its sway.”
Scientists dealing with studies on consciousness, origin of life, origin of matter (majority of scientist simply presume that matter is primitive), origin of biodiversity, origin of universe and so on, should first recognize the need to consider the content and scope of science. The goal (teleological conditioning) of science demands that scientists must test their hypotheses with the empirical source of information. Empirical science can only be applied to any theory that can be tested empirically. The study of origin (of life, matter, biodiversity and universe) and the subtle subjects like mind, consciousness, soul, God, fulfillment and so on, is beyond the scope of limited methodology that modern science has adopted.
Moreover, being influenced by scientific tradition, in science the conception, formulation, and advancement of hypotheses take place a priori and then scientists try to prove/disprove hypotheses by empirical testing. Previous scientific teaching helps scientists construct their hypotheses and thus the work of scientists is not solely a product of facts produced by nature but is also influenced by human reason. If we carefully analyze this scientific method then it appears that science take place within an orthodox tradition and this tradition subsumes (hermeneutical conditioning) all that scientists bring to scientific method.
Conditioned by this orthodox tradition scientists simply presume that things or events that can be observed in space and time exist and can be taken as evidence on which to build scientific knowledge. This orthodox tradition also bestows a primary revelatory status to natural phenomena and in this tradition historical phenomena only play an assisting role in the revelatory process. Thus, scientists use testing hypotheses as the ultimate ground of scientific truth and it renders the best results only when applied to the recurring cycles of nature.
This orthodox tradition also does not allow scientists to build their views on the basis of any divine revelation (scriptures) and thus scientific studies do not include any topics on soul, God and the eternal constitutional relationship between souls and God (devotion). On the other hand, all bonafide religions are based on divine revelation (Scriptures) and Scriptures reveal that both material (things or events within material space and time) and spiritual (reality beyond material space and time) realms exist. We observe the greatest incongruity between the religion and modern science because being influenced by orthodox tradition scientists embrace empiricist foundationalism and thus in science the divine revelation (Scriptures) is plainly rejected as mere fantasy.
Being conditioned by orthodox tradition, majority of scientists never seriously doubt the foundationalist role conferred in science to empirical testing. On the other hand, even an elementary education in religious tradition helps the individuals to clearly understand the limits of empiricist foundationalism. Thus, scientists have no rational justification to dismiss the wisdom of Scriptures because the methods of religion and modern science appear to be mutually exclusive of one another.
> Scientists simply presume that they can arrive at truth because they erect their conclusions on data they obtain through sensory perception. On the basis of this premise scientists criticize different subtle philosophical and religious claims because they strongly believe that their information originates from real rather than imaginary things.<
Also useful to note that not all scientists "presume" anything, particularly with concern to metaphysics. Scientists are people, too, who hold individual philosophical world views as suggested by a variety of sociological studies.
The methodology of science is empiricism. As such, "divine revelation" is not considered a part of that] methodology, since God can not be manipulated through conditional sense perception. Our philosophy is that God is beholden only by the love of His bhadra, which ultimately is beyond the influence of sensual, mental and intellectual conditional perception.
In any event, there is no sure metaphysical conclusion to be secured utilizing empirical methodology favored by the modern professional scientific disciplines. That is a basic philosophical assumption well established within western philosophy as well. I suspect Hume provides an excellent example of someone who offers numerous philosophically acknowledged arguments suggesting just that.
Professional science, by its own criteria, can only deal with what it deems credible empirical evidence (sensual, intellectual/mathematical), by the majority of practitioners within the discipline, in the present. Considered this way, it is always open to new data, and potentially new and more powerful explanatory hypotheses, in an attempt to make sense of it all. As such, it accepted, professionally, as tentatively time bound, relative and conditional knowledge – according to the scientists themselves. If at least in their sober moments.
Perhaps useful to take care not to empower an atheistic, reductionist view of the natural world, as an essential philosophical element of the practice. Historically, that has not been the case, nor is it presently the case now. There are all sorts of scientists, who evidence suggests are individual human beings who hold all sorts of metaphysical world views. All the same, there needs to be a genuine respect for the methods of natural science as a modern professional discipline – if one wishes to consider their own work relevant as modern professional science. Modern professional science is not a metaphysical philosophy, by its own definition.
This is a topic filled with delicious complexity. Perhaps also useful to keep in mind a provocative statement offered by Srila Prabhupada’s articulating one of his personal concerns on this topic:
“If they accept God, then we give them all credit. That’s all right. Otherwise zero. We don’t deprecate their intention of advancement in knowledge. But we simply protest against their defying the authority of God. That is our point.” (730419 – Morning Walk – Los Angeles)