By Isvara Krishna das
As you probably know 2009 is a double Darwin anniversary: the British naturalist was born 200 years ago and his ‘The Origin of Species’ was published 150 years ago. The scientific establishment is making arrangements to increase the number of its “Darwin Day” events where it can defend and promote the evolutionary theory.
The Hungarian Society for Krishna-consciousness formulated a press release on this subject. Although it is not an official international ISKCON statement we suggest to use this text (or its modified version) in local languages all over the world.
The Darwin Day is on 12th of February. So it is the most practical to send the message to the media on 9th or 10th of February, so they can use this material in their articles on the “big day”.
Thank you very much.
Your servant: Isvara Krsna das
————————————————–
Statement by Krishna believers on Evolution Theory on the 200th Anniversary of Charles Darwin’s Birth
English naturalist Charles Darwin was born 200 years ago and his book “Origin of Species by natural selection” was published 150 years ago. In his book he put forward his theory of evolution, according to which the types of living beings gradually evolved from common ancestors, from the primitive to the more complex. Although the theory never gained universal acceptance, by now it has become a marked element of public thinking.
As we see it, however, the Darwinian hypothesis on the transformation of the living world is merely an arbitrary interpretation of facts and, in spite of its being widely known, it has never been scientifically proven.
Similarly to hundreds of millions of Hindus, the Krishna-conscious devotees consider the ancient Vedic scriptures in Sanskrit language as the reliable source of knowledge related to the origins and ultimate questions of existence. These scriptures belong to the most ancient heritage of mankind and their followers accept them as divine revelation. According to the Vedic literature, our world and the species in it emerged by a process of creation. Living beings are eternal spirit souls who spend a determinate amount of time in the various bodily forms of different species.
Our civilisation is greatly influenced by the ideas about the origin of life and our species. Because of the dominant evolutionary paradigm, many regard life and themselves a mere product of matter. This view has formed the basis for the emergence of the hedonist, greed driven, consumer attitude of modern society that has led to the present economic, environmental and food crisis looming over humankind. Darwin’s theory is thus not only unproven, but, to a large extent, also responsible for the moral decline of human culture.
According to a well-known approach the evolution theory should be integrated into religious teachings. Proponents of this idea say that, although the creation of the world was initiated by God, the species are not the products of His actions but of natural processes. We deem such a distortion of the tenets of monotheistic religions as unfounded, for, originally, all these religions professed the direct creation of both the living and inanimate worlds. We see no reason why the unproven, human ideology of Darwinism should be mixed with the wisdom of revelations – that would be a concession to appease the proponents of materialism. We are convinced that the role of religions in society is to consistently represent divine truth rather than to make unscrupulous compromises with the dominant (and ever changing) materialistic views of the day.
We find it important that those forming the opinion of society take steps to counterbalance the dominant, practically exclusive, evolutionist approach in education and mass communication. The Darwinian thought should not be presented as “The Explanation” but, true to the facts, as a hypothesis that has its own problems and limitations, and to which divine creation is a justified and rational alternative. By presenting the subject without bias, we should leave the way open to the possibility of considering and accepting spiritual explanations.
According to the Vedic model of society, its leaders – politicians, teachers, intellectuals – are not only supposed to look after the physical and cultural needs of the members of the society but it is also their responsibility to provide the possibility of spiritual advancement for the people. Favouring a strongly materialistic theory severely limits the way to understanding and attaining the final goal of life for the living beings who are longing for eternal bliss.
>
>
According to a well-known approach the evolution theory should be integrated into religious teachings. Proponents of this idea say that, although the creation of the world was initiated by God, the species are not the products of His actions but of natural processes.
>
>
Whatever Darwinian evolutionary theory may or may not be – and after all, all scientific theories are incomplete due to never having all the evidence, or never being certain if the current explanatory model is indeed the best of all possible explanations (if only based on never being certain if all the relevant evidence is currently available) – even Darwin could speculate that evolutionary theory may well be seen as manifestation of secondary causation of an all powerful Being.
In other words, natural causation is not something beyond the influence of an omnipotent omniscient Deity. Even the Vaisnava tradition sees Krsna as managing the material energy through secondary principles such as the demigods, the three modes of material nature, or possibly the Goddess Durga – who’s potency is beyond that of an ordinary celestial being, and so on. Rather, Krsna’s primary interests involve his unalloyed loving exchanges with his pure devotees. At the same time, He is completely in control, according to His desire, of all His potencies.
Nonetheless, Isvara Krsna’s Prabhus point, and sentiments, are well taken that modern evolutionary theory is often considered as a form of religious ideology by atheistic evangelicals, and that is just plain not good science, or even just plain science.
As for Charles Darwin’s happy birthday-not, one transcendental angle could be: just chant Hare Krsna, and it will all go away!
In conclusion, it is good to always remember that all scientific theories are by nature tentative, and it is impossible to predict with certainty what future scientists will deem to be the most credible explanatory model, assuming they may well have at their disposal natural scientific evidence about which we in the present currently know nothing about.
“Although it is not an official international ISKCON statement we suggest to use this text (or its modified version) in local languages all over the world.”
Don’t you think that it is a bit presumptuous to suggest that your personal approach to the issue should we made an Iskcon world-wide statement and translated into many languages? I was really shocked to read that.
I am a Krishna believer (and also a scientist, if that matters at all) but I would never sign that. Who was consulted by formulating this press release statement?
“Darwin’s theory is thus not only unproven, but, to a large extent, also responsible for the moral decline of human culture.”
I could not disagree more. Your statement is unproven – what evidence do you have for that? On the contrary, there is an evidence that Darwin’s view on evolution was actually influenced by moral issues. For instance, he was very concerned about the slavery, what is summarized in the book below:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Sacred-Cause-Slavery-Evolution/dp/0547055269
“This view has formed the basis for the emergence of the hedonist, greed driven, consumer attitude of modern society that has led to the present economic, environmental and food crisis looming over humankind”
What is the proof for that? Any book references would be appreciated. Blaming Darwin’s theory for all the problems of the world is really out of place. Reasons for each one of the problems you mention are inredibly complex, thus simplification just misleads and manipulates some of the less informed readers.
“According to a well-known approach the evolution theory should be integrated into religious teachings. Proponents of this idea say that, although the creation of the world was initiated by God, the species are not the products of His actions but of natural processes.”
Nope. This is not their belief! They usually say that God creates species THROUGH evolution. This issue is more complex than that, because theistic evolutionists do not represent just one religion, but we have ortodox, catholic, jewish etc. proponents of theological evolution.
These are some of the points that could, in brief, demonstrate that this statement requires much further thought and in my mind should not be by any means distributed worldwide.
I would like to know how other Iskcon devotees see this statement and whether they would sign their names under this – please do respond if you have an opinion.
ys, Rasasthali dd
Dear Rasasthali Mataji! Pamho, agtSP!
Our process is to repeat the words of our spiritual master and therefore not contradict his words.
My first contention is that you are contradicting Prabhupada’s words when you claim that Darwin’s theory is not “to a large extent” “responsible for the moral decline of human society.”
My second contention is that you’re wrong when you claim that it is “unproven” that Darwins theory is “to a large extent” the cause of the moral decline in our society.
The first contention
Prabhupāda: “Darwin is a rascal. What is his theory? We kick on your face. That’s all. That is our philosophy. The more we kick on Darwin’s face, the more advanced in spiritual consciousness. He has killed the whole civilization, rascal.”
Prabhupāda: “That is nonsense. Darwin was a number-one nonsense. Yes. Rascal. He has confused the whole world.”
Prabhupāda: “Full nonsense, this rascal. How much havoc he has done to the human society. A grand rascal, this Darwin. And he is taken as the basic principle of anthropology. The whole world has become…”
Prabhupada: “The Darwin’s theory, this theory, that theory, simply they are bewildered, thinking this body is the self.”
Prabhupada: “So the modern civilization, according to Darwin’s theory, they are advancing to become animal. That’s it. Therefore they are claiming their forefathers are coming from monkeys.”
Prabhupada: “Because they are standing on a wrong theory, all their calculations are wrong, and people are suffering. The rascal Darwin’s theory. So many, based on this foolish theory, wrong conception of life. So we have to challenge, protest. defeat. This will be our work. Our worshiping of Kṛṣṇa, that is our internal affair. The external affair—we need to establish this theory. Otherwise they’ll be leading this society. Misleading. They are misleading, not leading, misleading. So we have to stop this misleading.”
To sum up: According to Prabhupada Darwins theory has killed the whole civilization, that is has confused the whole world, that is has caused a lot of havoc in human society, that is bewilders people be making them identify the body as the self, that it makes people become animals, that it misleads people and makes them suffer. Darwins theory has created so much trouble that Prabhupada want us to stop it.
Thus I think it is proven that my first contention is correct: You are contradicting Prabhupada.
Arguments for my second contention is coming soon.
Ys, Ajit Krishna Dasa
Pranams
“Our process is to repeat the words of our spiritual master and therefore not contradict his words.”
I always had this question :
How much are we expected to follow the instructions ‘blindly’ ?
Are we expected to take the sastra/veda/words of sri guru without any rational questioning or reasoning?
This would mean there is no room to think. Such a blind faith becomes a process of NON – THINKING.
If we are supposed to take the vedic text as THE correct ones and we can not apply logic to reconcile them,then every religion is correct by itself.
A muslim will say his book in inerrant and a xtian will say Bible is inerrant and hence the earth is flat!
Are we supposed to think , it is ‘our’ fault if we find something contradicting in the scriptures?
I personally feel, we are expecting too much from scriptures.They are a guide.But not for all the things we expect it to be.
we have been giving intelligence to scrutinize based on the experience and decide what is correct and what is wrong.
Scripture helps us how to question and also provides answers for subjects that cant be reached my unsetled minds.
Dasan
I think we can also add Prabhupada’s talks at the University of Nairobi and before the Indo-American Society in Calcutta, where Prabhupada comparatively mildly expressed that Darwin was wrong for not recognizing the soul, and that real evolution involved consciousness.
Many of these more severe quotes were made during impromptu conversations with disciples and guests, many who felt that it could either be Darwin, or KC, but not both. For example, Prabhupda’s famous kicking quotation came after it had been stated how it appeared that Darwin contradicted everything Prabhupada was saying about the soul and its spiritual evolution. In such a case, Prabhupada would wholeheartedly defend a popular conception of the Vedic paradigm rooted in the philosophy of the Bhagavatam.
It could be useful to recall that when discussing these topics with his disciples and guests, Prabhupada was often arguing against popularized conceptions of Darwin and his theory, conceptions that was not always historically, or scientifically (for what that is worth) accurate.
It can also be remembered that the Vaisnava tradition has a well articulated conception of the self as being essentially independent of its current gross and subtle designation, while in contrast from our perspective, western theology confuses the soul with the human body and mind. Not only do we, as jiva-atmas, not come from the primates, but neither do we come from other human beings – we are part and parcel of Krsna, and eternally so. Vaisnavas do not have the same philosophical challenges when confronting evolutionary theory as other traditions, with their traditionally limited concepts of time and space and self.
Yes, Prabhupada could critique modern evolution, and why not? But then at other times he could appear almost accommodating, particularly before a sophisticated audience. And then what to speak of Bhaktinoda Thakur’s argumentative strategies….
Suffice to say, this is a deep and multilayered topic. Whatever the case may be with current dominant scientific paradigms, human life does appear to facilitate self realization beyond anything apparently afforded within other biological forms as exhibited on earth. Putting that to good use is undoubtedly our first order of business, especially as afforded within our current human form, however it may or may not have manifest over time.
Dear Ajjita Krishna Prabhu,
This is only a proof that Srila Prabhupada felt this way in this time. Prabhupada did not want us to be blind fanatics and just repeat things that we have completely no realization of.
Could you then please provide a factual, historical evidence ? We live in a modern world and other people do not accept Prabhupada’s authority, therefore to convince anybody else (other than Iskcon devotee, and even including some Iskcon devotees) you must have some solid proof.
Sincerely,
Rasasthali Dasi
quick note on Ajit Krishna Prabhus sellection of quotations – most of them came from impromptu conversations with disciples and other followers and guests who posed challenges that they viewed Darwinian evolution posed to the Vaisnava siddhanta. So it might be considered Prabhupada was also addressing the understandable concerns and doubts of the devotees reflected in such conversations.
For example, the oft repeated exchange concerning the idea that the more we kick on the theory, the more we advance came in reply to a devotee’s blunt statement that Prabhupada’s point that life comes from life and the evolution of the soul is contracted by Darwinism. And that of course was a popular understanding dominant during modernity, and still influential. So if the choice is either Darwinism or Vaisnavism, then that would not be much of a choice.
So while it is true such ideas are consider a part of popular conceptions of Darwinism promoted by a number of celebrity scientists, the actual historical reality of Darwin, Darwinism, and the state of the current theory as a science is significantly more complex.
Thus included among the quotations that Ajit Krishna Prabhu has posted should be Prabhupudas presentation at the University of Nairobi and before the Indo-American Society in Calcutta, both relatively sophisticated and educated audiences. In these settings, Prabhupada specific claim was that Darwin had it wrong on the issue of not acknowledging the soul and its spiritual evolution, and left it at that. I would argue Prabhupada left much of the rest for his impromptu exchanges with his followers.
The point here being that discretion is often the better part of valor, something Prabhupada also taught his followers to engage. It appears Prabhupada’s consistent theme regarding evolution was that (1) life comes from life, (2) the importance of the evolution of the soul as compared to the idea of biological evolution, (3) that the “apartments” (apparently the Padma Purana uses the term jata) always exist – and from our paradigm such forms would not be limited to earth, or even our universe, and that (4) the human form has capacities beyond the animalistic – in fact, it is designed for self-realization.
I would add that the social and scientific phenomena of evolutionary theory is many layered, and quoting Prabhupada’s statements, especially from conversations and letters, without context, is not always entirely revealing.
As usual I sympathize with both Isvara Krishna Prabhu and with Rasasthali Prabhvi.
“The living antity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take another.
“The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects.
“The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this.”
[B.G. 15.8-10]
We do not have to be “hatin’ on” Charles Darwin as an individual. He was a product of his time, and if he had not published “Origin of the Species” someone else would have very soon popularized the theory of natural selection.
Darwin was well aware that natural selection would kick the legs out from under the last popular argument for Theism and against materialism that had survived the 18th century so-called “Enlightenment.” He had hit upon the theory years earlier but hesitated to publish until his friends persuaded him that he ought to take the credit before someone else did.
But I do agree with Isvara Krishna that this idea, which was part of a much greater sweep of atheistic materialistic thinking that had already started at least two centuries earlier and is very discernable, for example, in Descartes’ “Principia Philosophia”, did much to undermine the faith and morality of people in general.
It is an important part of Srila Prabhupada’s revolution that this dichotomy between “scientists” (or the thinking, intelligent class of people) and belief in God and the soul has to be crushed.
And yet the best strategy for crushing it is something that reasonable, sincere devotees can differ on.
Preaching to scientists should largely be done by scientist devotees. Biologists have their defenses up because they have been attacked by the “faithful” over Evolution for 150 years.
Devotees should not refrain from joining the attack, but uninformed, non-Biologist devotees might give the impression of being unscientific or unphilosophical, like many of their Christian, Jewish and Muslim colleagues.
And even devotees in BI do not always agree on the best strategy for dealing with Evolution. …
I recently heard Richard Dawkins (yuk) arguing on one talk show or another that the very idea of “Intelligent Design” does not qualify as a scientific idea.
He had a point.
The state of affairs right now, at this particular point in world “intellectual history”, is that in order to be accepted as “scientific” an idea has to meet certain criteria that more or less guarantee that science is atheistic and materialistic, if not mechanistic.
And the idea is still very prominent among certain leading intellectual currents within our culture that unless an idea is “scientific” in this sense then it really does not meet the standard of true knowledge.
Of course that is not the only cultural current, and people also love religion, the humanities, arts, poetry, politics, “entertainment” even. But the conception of “scientific knowledge” as the standard of truth has a powerful grip on people’s psyches, or on our collective cultural psyche if we can be permitted to speak of Hegelian “zeitgeists”.
The Hare Krishna movement has as one of its fundamental goals the mission of breaking the grip of this conception of “scientific knowledge” (which relegates devotion to the Deity to a lower level of personal “faith” which might or might not be emotionally important to some people).
Srila Prabhupada often used this phrase, that Krishna consciousness is “scientific,” that it is a “fact.” And yet it is not quite scientific in the way Richard Dawkins or even Karl Popper would demand a given proposition to be before it could be accepted as “scientific.”
How exactly this revolution in the history and philosophy of science will unfold is not clear to me, but I can see that it will unfold and there will be a glorious victory for Krishna consciousness.
Somehow a large enough segment of the world’s intellectual and cultural leaders will become “endeavoring transcendentalists” who can see how the living entities are enjoying different types of bodies under the spell of the three modes, that these will eventually be accepted as factual principles and not mere “faith” of personal, individual “belief”.
And the atheistic idea, that the world we see with all its regularity and purpose and evidence of intelligent design, is just a product of the blind operation of impersonal laws of nature (akin to Vedic karma mimamsa philosophy in the sense that phenomenal causes and effects are all that matter) will be defeated.
I guess my response to Rajagopal Prabhu would be to say that, of course, we do not follow “blindly” and we encourage thought and sincere inquiry. “Blind following and absurd inquiry are condemned.”
On the other hand, for an initiated disciple, we do not challenge or contradict the words of guru and Krishna. (We have enough experience of the guru’s transcendental wisdom to know that his words are never mistaken and it is simply our understanding of them that needs to be corrected.)
Arjuna displays this proper mood of an inquisitive disciple in Bhagavad Gita.
So I think it was quite appropriate for Ajita Krishna to say that we do not contradict the statements of Srila Prabhupada.
But I understand why scientist-devotees may feel put upon by attacks on scientific doctrines which can seem uninformed or even revolting to the scientific community.
Most of all I think it is unhelpful for the various faithful devotees to debate with one another unless they can do it in a way that is properly respectful and in the “Vaikuntha” mood. (I am sorry, I always come back to this point and I know I must sound awful, but I can’t help it.)
I sympathize with everything Rasasthali and Ajita Krishna said, but the way they said it caused me to feel that there was unnecessary friction between devotees that is not very palatable.
The task for devotees, especially our scientist and philosopher devotees, to actually revolutionize the mentality of the post-modern world and bring about a sincere appreciation for Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam among the greatest thinkers and cultural leaders of our time, is no easy thing. We should appreciate that different devotees will be struggling in different ways and strategizing differently on how to do it.
One thing we all agree on is that we must keep going together on harinam sankirtan and book distribution and maintain a spirit of unity and mutual respect. We need to learn how to respectfully disagree while still appreciating what a wonderful thing it is to be dealing with a Vaisnava.
In a sense I think we will see how Krishna miraculously brings about this change of heart in people (i.e., destroying the impersonal, materialistic scientific illusion) as long as we are out there helping Srila Prabhupada proliferate the transcendental sound vibrations.
We need not criticise the achievements of materialistic science.
The discovery of Newton’s laws of universal gravitation, or of optics, or the compilation of the periodic table of elements, or the structure of DNA, all of these things are remarkable human achievements.
The insight that species in given ecosystems may change over time due to mutation and natural selection is another such achievement. It has its place, an important place, in advances of modern Biology.
The evil underlying all of these things is the sense some arrogant scientists have that, (1) the ancient sages who compiled literature full of the highest spiritual truths were less advanced in knowledge than we are today; and (2) there is no reason to believe in a personal God, an eternal soul, or a spiritual dimension of life that remains hidden to our material senses.
We cannot deny that this arrogant, materialistic outlook is very prevalent in modern civilization and has been at work for centuries, helping to eat away at the simple goodness and faith of innocent people.
To lay the blame exclusively on individuals like Galeleo, Descartes, Newton, Voltaire, Maxwell, Darwin, Ricardo, Weber, Marx, Freud or Sartre would be an oversimplification. These were just talented individuals who became spokesman for the intellectual currents of their times. Unfortunately all those currents have been under the sway of that real villain, Mr. Kali Yuga.
And we know how to banish Kali Yuga, don’t we? We just have to banish illicit sex, meat eating, intoxication, gambling, and hoarding of wealth. But even that seems to be a tall order, so we also know that Mr. Kali (and his henchmen lust, anger, greed, envy, illusion and madness) run away in terror whenever they hear the Sankirtan of Lord Caitanya.
I can imagine a golden age where scientists continue to advance in knowledge of how the atom works or how the human body works, but see such knowledge as subordinate to the science of Krishna consciousness and how the illusioned souls can be relieved from the suffering arising from their thinking themselves to be products of matter.
Maybe they will even rediscover some of the subtle material sciences of mantra that have been buried in history’s earlier chapters and have come to be doubted by skeptical moderns.
I think I can foresee such an age coming. If you listen closely, you can hear the mrdangas and karatals getting perceptively louder and louder. … :-)
Dear devotees! Pamho, agtSP!
I appreciate your views. Especially thanks to Akruranath Prabhu for his views on the matter!
I’ve said that I want to defend two contention. I’ve presented my case for my first contention. I will now present my case for the second.
The Social Impact of Darwinism
There’s a lot to be said about this subject matter. My intention is to write a longer articles presenting more detailed explanations and giving more evidence for the points I will give here.
I will argue that social evils follows logically and inescapably from Darwin’s theory. I’ll mention six things about Darwin’s theory which makes it an evil theory:
1. Leaving God out of the picture.
Darwin’s ideas made it possible, like it was never possible before, to explain the world without the need for God or any sort of supernatural phenomenon. Darwin was himself heavily influenced by materialistic philosophy from his very childhood and from earlier and contemporary philosophers like Hume and Combte. Even before he published his books he would lean towards the rejection of God. Evidence for this can be found in his earlier notebooks and manuscripts. At the end of his life Darwin would totally reject Christianity. His theory became a “scientific” justification for leaving God out of the picture – and Darwin knew this very well.
The social impact of leaving God out of the picture is that from that it follows that there can be no absolute standard for right and wrong. We are left with no spiritual guidance. This is common sense which I show in my version of “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. Prabhupada agrees fully with this view which I document in my “Prabhupada and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. These two texts can be found here:
http://vaisnavaapologetics.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-moral-argument/
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=d83tkq3_18gxzdzkc8
Making people think that we don’t have any need of God in order to explain the origin of and development of life leads naturally to disastrous moral consequences. It makes people identity the body with the self, for example.
To be continued…
Continued…
2. Moral relativism
This is of course related to the above. If we can explain everything without God it becomes irrational to believe in God. Darwin argued that all human traits including moral trait can be explained by his theory. This leaves us with moral relativism. The consequences of moral relativism can be seen in my article “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God” (see link in previous post). The consequences are that all actions are morally equal. There can be no true normative moral statements. Thus it becomes impossible to condemn things like rape, murder, oppression, child abuse etc. And we also can’t praise things we normally consider morally good like helping people in need, caring for our children, spreading spiritual knowledge etc. Everything become equal. Darwin himself arrived at the conclusion that morality was simply relative. If we want to do good, he said, we can do nothing more than listen to what we feel is good. This moral relativism was condemned by Prabhupada (see “Prabhupada and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God).
It should be obvious that such a view leads to disastrous moral consequences.
3. There is no progress in our evolution as a species without war, disease, famine and other sorts of pressures which eliminates the weak speciments and forces the strong to adapt and pass on their superior traits.
Darwin often praise war as a good thing and later thinkers and political leaders like Stalin, Lening and Hitler used this to justify their wars. Some, like Lenin (or was it Stalin, even created artificial famine in their countries to eliminate the weak.
How accountable was Darwin for this? Well, that’s between him and Krishna, but his ideas were evil. To say that there’s no progress without wars and that wars are therefore a good, and even necessary thing, is in itself an evil doctrine.
4. The use of eugenics.
Darwin favored the use of eugenics. Just like we can make better and stronger animals by not letting the weak speciments procreate and by letting the strong procreate so we can make better and stronger men by hindering the weak in body and mind to procreate and by helping to strong in body and mind to do so. There are quotes were Darwin says that the poor should not be allowed to procreate and were he says only humans, among other animals, were so stupid as to take care of their weak.
5. Racism
While some argue that Darwin was against slavery it’s still true that he was a racist. You’re not necessarily against racism because you are against slavery. Darwin’s book are filled with racism. He consistently wrote that the European white was the most superior race and that black were almost like apes. This view follows logically from evolution theory. Some must be more evolved than others. The weak dies and the string lives on. Thus Darwin predicted that soon the “savage races” would die in the struggle for survival, being eliminated by the stronger races (the white caucasians).
6. Sexism
Darwin used his theory of evolution to explain that men must be more evolved than women because they were the ones who were out of the house struggling to get food. Thus they encountered more pressure and thus acquired superior survival traits. Some places Darwin would say that a woman, like a dog, was good to keep the man with company.
There is definitely a logical link between Darwin’s ideas and evil. When these six points combined together it gave a “scientific” justification for all sorts of social evils. How much Darwin will be held accountable for propagating such a view is, as I’ve said, between him and Krishna. But Darwin was warned about the consequences, even by his own mentor and friends. But he didn’t do anything to prevent them. Nor did he protest when his cousin Francis Galton insituted a eugenics society. He also didn’t object to the sick way in which many contemporary thinkers took his ideas.
Are there logical links between Darwin and all the socials evil performed in his name by other people, like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini and more? Well, I think in some areas there are. But in other ways it might be their interpretation of Darwin. However, without Darwin’s theory it’s hard to see how they would argue for their case and thus to see how their actions could have been performed without Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory was been used as the building block for many social evils. It has fueled, inspired and “scientifically” justified things like euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, racism, forced sterilization, sexism, liberalizing sex and criminal justice, experimentation with humans and animals, wars, artificial famine, elimination of the inferior, eugenics…and many other things.
Darwinism penetrates everywhere and makes people identify with their bodies and think that God is unnecessary.
My reference to Descartes’ “Principia Philosophia” should be explained. This is a remarkable book, even though (or partially *because*) the science contained therein is almost all totally different from how scientists think today. And yet, it held sway as the reigning theory of physics, astronomy, geology, even chemistry (if you could call it that, it was so undeveloped) for almost a century, until it was deposed by the Newtonian revolution.
In the beginning of this mid-17th century book, Descartes states (perhaps to satisfy the censors?) that we know God created the world as described in the Bible, and that Theology is he “queen of sciences” etc. etc. However, God’s magnificence is even further magnified when we consider that He created the world with specific natural laws of how matter interacts with other matter, and He created these natural laws such that the world would essentially “create itself” just as we see it today without any intervention if left to its own devices.
The natural laws he describes are, as I said, foreign to the world of modern scientists. Matter is basically understood as bits of three-dimensional space, grinding up against other bits (there being no emptiness anywhere), and forming more dense or less dense groupings by this grinding process.
But the salient point which has survived and animated science up until today is the fascination with the causes and effects that bits of matter have upon each other according to universal mechanical laws.
Later, LaPlace reportedly told Napoleon Bonaparte that if we had the dimensions and mass and vector of every particle of the universe and enough time for calculating, we could explain the entire history and future of the world. Napoleon supposedly asked, “What is the place of God in your Philosophy”, to which Laplace reportedly replied, “Your Majesty, we have no need of that hypothesis!”
I do not know so much as Ajita Krishna about the personal life of Charles Darwin. The few things I have read about him (including his youthful desire to become a minister of the Church of England) gave me a very different picture.
But it is plain to see that the revolution caused by Darwinism gave rise to other materialistic intellectual currents, including so-called “social-Darwinism” associated with Herbert Spencer, and even the materialistic, racial antisemitism (as opposed to the religious kind) that became popular after the Franco-Prussian war and inspired Nazis.
Haribol Prabhus!
Sorry for the two posts above. I didn’t realize the first post posted when I sent in the second.
Ajita Krishna dasa brings up many points popular among Darwin’s and evolution’s most severe critics. I might add that most of these understandable concerns were already dominant as ideas in English Victorian society by the time of Darwin’s publication of Origins. Still, as Akruranatha also points out, Darwin’s theory was already in the air throughout Europe as early as the early 1800s. Lamark published comparible ideas on progressive organic evolution nearly 50 years prior. Chambers also published a wildly popular work in England.
Meanwhile, Wallace was getting ready to publish an essay nearly mirroring Darwin’s treatise, unknown to anyone until Wallace sent a draft to Darwin for a prepublication opinion. At that point, Darwin presented both an abstract of his own then unfinished manuscript along with Wallace’s paper to the Linnean Society. Thus technically, the theory is called the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution, as it was simultaneously proposed by both scientists.
Besides that, Spencer had been publishing ideas later called Social Darwinism decades before Darwin printed anything on biological evolution. Social Darwinism is more reflective of Ajita Krishna’s concerns.
But it is true, Darwin was hardly an innocent. But neither did Darwin take an active lead in promoting these agendas. Rather, Darwin focused on his naturalistic theories in Origins. But the point is well taken that Darwin was not entirely aloof from the influence of the dominant intellectual paradigm of Victorian society, one now considered racist and sexist.
Meanwhile, Wallace was far the more active social progressive. In fact, Wallace published a number essays explaining how natural selection could not account for the higher faculties of human consciousness. Rather, Wallace argued for a theory of intelligent design to account for them.
Nonetheless, I sympathize with Ajita Krishna Prabhu’s concern about Darwin as a symbol for larger issues, as its something evangelical atheists frequently do when they utilize Darwin as a symbol for their own metaphysical agendas for modern biology, and beyond. Dawkins one such leading example of someone promoting personal opinions while using science as a crutch. Strictly speaking, this sort of activity is something other than science, and it was something Prabhupada could vehemently criticize.
>
>
But it is plain to see that the revolution caused by Darwinism gave rise to other materialistic intellectual currents, including so-called “social-Darwinism” associated with Herbert Spencer, and even the materialistic, racial antisemitism (as opposed to the religious kind) that became popular after the Franco-Prussian war and inspired Nazis.
>
>
As a point of historical reference, Herbert Spencer’s theories later known as Social Darwinism predated Darwin’s publications. Janet Browne’s recent two volume biography of Darwin offers a sophisticated portrayal.
It is a fact that the scientific and cultural influence of evolutionary theory is a complex topic offering many angles of analysis. Here’s a couple of interesting references from the Prabhupada database that are somewhat less non-accommodating:
Srimad Bhagavatam Purport 4.11.17 [excerpt]:
In Darwin’s theory there is no acceptance of the living entity as spirit soul, and therefore his explanation of evolution is incomplete. Varieties of phenomena occur within this universe on account of the actions and reactions of the three material modes, but the original creator, or the cause, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is mentioned here as nimitta-matram, the remote cause…. There are many causes and effects, but the original cause is Sri Krsna.
Morning Walk and Room Conversation — December 26, 1976, Bombay
“That is the main point with the modern science and our Vedic knowledge. That is the main difference. They have no idea of the existence of the soul”.
It can easily be argued that the emergence of the hippie culture in 1960’s USA contributed to the moral decline of human society. The ideas of free love (read: unrestricted sex), mind expansion (read: drug abuse), and contempt for the established values and authorities (read: do whatever you feel like) certainly alarmed many religious people. Yet at the same time we can also say that this very same hippie culture created a fertile ground for Srila Prabhupada to plant the seed of Krishna Consciousness. Almost all of his early disciples came from that environment so this culture must have had some positive aspect as well. Free thinking was perhaps a big part of that positive element.
In a similar fashion it can also be argued that while perhaps contributing to the moral decline of society, Darwin’s ideas paved the ground for rejection of the simplistic religious views in which for example Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Oppressive religionism is rarely good for true spirituality. Personally, I am very happy that the ‘decadent’ Age of Enlightenment put an end to the Age of Inquisition. This is again free thinking in action.
Srila Prabhupada often emphasized the scientific nature of Krishna Consciousness. Science is based on empirical proof and logic, not on rigid dogma. We know that the world was created by God (our thesis), but precisely HOW it was created is something the true science of Krishna Consciousness can (and should) address. It is quite obvious from the fossil record that in previous geological periods life on Earth did not look like it does today. Dinosaurs no longer roam the earth (aren’t we all glad?). Free thinking people looked towards the theory of evolution to explain such changes. Can you really blame them?
Our focus should be on explaining the process of creation in a theistic but scientific way. We have the Vedic scriptures with their elaborate description of Creation to help us in this task. Replacing one type of oppressive religious thinking with another simply will not do.
Very well said, Kulapavana Prabhu!
“Our focus should be on explaining the process of creation in a theistic but scientific way. We have the Vedic scriptures with their elaborate description of Creation to help us in this task. Replacing one type of oppressive religious thinking with another simply will not do.”
Yes, one thing that distinguishes Lord Caitanya’s movement from many dogmatic, reactionary religionists or fundamentalists, is that Lord Caitanya’s movement is based on real enlightenment and understanding.
Such enlightenment does not necessarily have to be based on emperical data (some people hear about the soul as amazing, some look on the soul as amazing, while others cannot understand the soul at all), but there should be a class of truly enlightened people who actually know and understand the spiritual science and can explain it to others in a persuasive way.
“Fundamentalists” often come accross as insecure, angry, prone to blind following, unable to defend their beliefs through rational discourse, sopmetimes given to acts of violence, etc. I hope the world can distinguish ISKCON’s enlightened theism based on the fabulous Vedic scriptures from the kind of “fundamentalism” associated with different Christian, Jewish, muslim and even Hindu groups.
I feel very grateful to Isvara Krishna and Rasasthali for fomenting this interesting discussion.
Dear Kulapavana Prabhu,
“Darwin’s ideas paved the ground for rejection of the simplistic religious views…”
As we say in Denmark (and probably in many other places): “Nothing is so bad that it isn’t also good for some things. Darwin does not go karma-free because his ideas freed us from certain negative things. His ideas are filled with morally unacceptable things.
“Free thinking people looked towards the theory of evolution to explain such changes. Can you really blame them?”
Prabhupada blamed them. We are all to be blamed for our spiritual ignorance. Atheistic people are looking for a theory to suit their views. Darwin’s theory was used like that.
Ys, AKD
Regarding Kulapavana Prabhu’s assertion of positive elements of Age of Enlightenment, hippie culture or Darwin’s theory of evolution, they could be understood not as positive in themselves, but as problems or challenges that might inspire an enlightened response of an enlightened person. As we have seen they very often inspired just the opposite. Therefore I propose to look for the positive in our response, and not that the challenge itself assures the positive outcome. Its was not the hippie culture’s credit that Prabhupada came to the West at the time. He just took advantage of it and the challenge.
Therefore, I appreciate Kulapavana’s suggestions how those challenges could be met by the devotees, requiring qualified explanations of the Vedic truths. It is not enough to just throw some derogatory statements. We need to face the challenge on the ground chosen by the opponent and to expose his own weaknesses. If we can’t do that we need to drag him to our own ground. It is possible and quite often experienced though, that the opponent wouldn’t buckle under any argument.
In any circumstance we should recognize the important truth that the challenge is indeed good (‘problems are opportunities in work clothes’), but it is our presence of mind, maturity and willingness to take the challenge that the true success, or the positive, depends upon.
Darwin’s theory was a part of an enormous program to create a huge crisis of human society and of the Earth planet that took beginning also in Sabbathai Zevi’s and later Jacob Frank’s movements. Today frankists are prevailing in the higher strata of the society. They create the crisis by breaking all rules to evoke the appropriate response and coming of the Messiah (‘Ordo ab chao’).
A lot of promoted ideas were part of it. Genetic determinism, ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith, game theory, together with famous (‘Beautiful Mind’), John Nash, a Nobel laureate mathematician, who authored the awarded theory of non-cooperative equilibria, which he later recanted (Adam Curtis ‘The Trap. What Happened to Our Dreams of Freedom.”) All these ideas were basically promoting the same idea of evolution based on egoistic, rational struggle for life, instead of cooperation principle put forth by first evolutionist, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck in the year of Darwin’s birth.
As John Nash said: “Human beings are much more complicated than a human being as businessman. Human behaviour is not entirely motivated by self-interest of each human. Game theory works in terms of self-interest. But some concept of game theory can be unsound. There is overdependence on rationality. That is my Enlightenment.” Just like Darwin expressed later his dissatisfaction with not sufficient attention paid by him to the environmental influences, which in today’s epigenetics support original Lamarckian ideas of cooperation. We should be able to differentiate between the science and mythology of science.
Therefore, devotees should not lose the bigger picture of the Vedic context, but should also recognize the true challenge and be able to prove that love is higher than hate, by proper, non-sectarian display of the essence of bhakti, which can be found in the six kinds of exchange of love (sharing of resources, of sanctified food and of wisdom), as the highest principle of life, that can be seen even between the cells, sharing perceptions, genes and resources by creating cooperative communities of single cell organisms and multicellular societies of higher order.
As John Nash said: “Human beings are much more complicated than a human being as businessman. Human behaviour is not entirely motivated by self-interest of each human. Game theory works in terms of self-interest. But some concept of game theory can be unsound. There is overdependence on rationality. That is my Enlightenment.” Just like Darwin expressed later his dissatisfaction with not sufficient attention paid by him to the environmental influences, which in today’s epigenetics support original Lamarckian ideas of cooperation.
Therefore, devotees should not lose the bigger picture of the Vedic context, but should also recognize the true challenge and be able to prove that love is higher than hate, by proper, non-sectarian display of the essence of bhakti, which can be found in the six kinds of exchange of love (sharing of resources, of sanctified food and of wisdom), as the highest principle of life.
Dear Bhaktivinode Td,
I appreciate both your and Kulapavana Prabhu’s point. We should always see things in a positive light and use them as preaching opportunities. But this, at least to me, doesn’t really change the situation. Darwin’s theory still is what it is and has the consequences it has. It must be addressed in the same way. Or, there might be different ways to address it, but to attack it seems inevitable to me since that is the instruction we got from Srila Prabhupada.
Your servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa
The essential philosophy of the demons is that the world is unreal, there is no foundation, there is no God in control, everything is produced of sex desire and there is no cause other than lust. [B.G. 16.8]
This philosophy is very prevalent in the modern era, and the conception that all the magnificent organization of the bodies of living things and the variety of different types of bodies and how they interact so perfectly with nature and clearly appear to have so much purpose and careful design could come about by the operation of simple impersonal laws of chemistry and physics applied randomly or by “chance,” is a deeply demonic idea.
It seems inpossible that anyone could believe such a thing, but the theory of evolution as accepted by modern scientists has amazingly (brilliantly) been able to make such a demonic theory acceptable to otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people. Thus it is helping to drag the entire human civilization to hell.
Following such atheistic conclusions the demoniac are lost to themselves and engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world. They believe that to gratify the senses to the very end of life is the prime necessity for human civilization. They give up the idea of regulating one’s activities according to received scriptures, which they take as mere primitive superstitions. (That’s right Bill Maher, I’m talking to you!) :-) They become envious of Lord Caitanya and take no interest in His sankirtan movement.
So, the work of devotee intellectuals and scientists in the Bhaktivedanta Institute is very important. The intellectual leaders have to be captured and attracted to bhakti yoga, Krishna consciousness.
If they hear from simple devotees who have no training in their own fields, those scientists who have too little sukriti might make the mistake of lumping Krishna in with other religious ideas which they think are simply dogmatic, primitive, not philosophically defensible or even logically consistent. If we cannot approach them as respectable peers, they may mistake us as enemies and keep their defenses up. Then they will not get Lord Caitanya’s mercy.
So Srila Prabhupada established a special section of his movement for cooperative preaching by qualified Ph.D. devotees.
We have to be able to make the Prabhodananda Sarasvati pitch, “Oh you highly intelligent, paragon of philosophers, please just forget everything but the lotus feet of Lord Caitanya!”
Many people find something teleological in Darwin’s theory of natural selection, and this certainly comes across in Spencer (who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest). There is a sense in which “evolution” is moving toward perfection, constantly improving the species by weeding out those who are less perfect.
In fact, the true thrust of Darwinian evolutionary theory, like that of the basic scientific assumption (i.e., that the world we see is a product of the operation of impersonal laws of matter and energy), does away with all teleology. There are no more Aristotelian “final causes”.
What makes one species better able to propogate its gene pool and “maximize inclusive fitness” has nothing to do with whether that species more resembles celestial beings or God’s idea of perfection. Some virus could come along and wipe out the entire human species and then all of human culture, art, poetry, philosophy and religion would be finished. To use Spencer’s terminology, the virus would be more “fit” for survival in the particular environment than human beings.
Evolution in the Darwinian sense does not presuppose any direction toward perfection. It just explains how more complex, semingly well-designed beings could have come to exist without any plan or purpose or design, through the “random” application of natural laws.
At least Descartes seemed to believe that when Philosophy (which was still synonomous wit science) was properly applied, we could deduce not only the workings of physical nature (“mechanics”) and the human body (“medicine”) but also proper human values and behavior (“morals”).
By the 19th century, the “modern project” had advanced so far that a clear fact/value distinction was evident. Science dealt with the facts of a valueless world. Concerns about ethics, about the possibility of perfecting human character or what such perfection would be, were not and could not be the subject matter of science.
Ajita Krishna is quite right that this elevation of essentially mechanics (mere craftsmen, sudras) over ethicists and theologians resulted in a weakening of moral thought. Philosophers began to think of themselves as “handmaidens of science”.
Twentieth Century ethical philosophy lost its moorings (was proud to discard what it considered to be the foundations of a false metaphysics), and “emotivism” — the idea that moral claims were essentialy based on matters or arbitrary personal taste — became prominent.
How odd it will seem to modern intellectuals that the real way out of this modernist dead end alley is to be found, not in some new idea, but in a true appreciation of that which was scoffed at as old, Medieval and Classical.
In particular, the sages and yogis of ancient India had already explained that which is essential to ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy and to Christianity and Islam.
The true laws of nature, including laws of psychology and morality (of how different actions lead to different evolutions or devolutions of consciousness and the acquiring of different kinds of bodies and fates accordingly), are already described in the Vedas, as is the true God who created these laws, who is always above these laws, and who intervenes through Divine Grace on behalf of His sincere devotees.
The life of devotion and the kingdom of God are thoroughly described in the pages of Srimad Bhagavatam, and now they have been revealed and made accessible by Lord Caitanya and His powerful servant Srila Prabhupada.
Mundane scientists can go on learning about how to manipulate material things (but they should avoid committing immoral acts like committing violence against defenseless laboratory animals), about the mechanical workings of that portion of the world (gross matter) that is perceptible to their blunt senses.
However, human culture is now ready to wake up to the fact that there is much more to the world than this gross matter and that which moves it (which scientists call “energy”). There is subtle matter (psyche) which is another covering of the soul, and there is eternal, transcendental spirit (that which is conscious), and there is He who is the origin of both spiritual and material substances or energies (using the word “energy” in a different sense).
As spiritual souls trapped in gross and subtle matter by our attachment to gratification of the senses, misidentifying ourselves with our minds and bodies, we suffer in darkness. Real enlightenment comes through control of the mind and senses in yoga practice. But even that is too difficult for us, so Lord Caitanya has brought the method of Sri Krishna Sankirtan, which is at once simple and sublime. “Wake up slkeeping souls!”
In Classical Vedic civilization the science of manipulating subtle matter through carefully pronounced mantras to produce gross material effects was known. This would impress our modern materialistic scientists.
The Hare Krishna mantra is more powerful.
To answer Rasasthali’s question directly, I do not have a particular problem with the Hungarian press release. Perhaps because I am not a scientist and I do not care very much what people think of me, I would sign my name to it if it was agreed upon as a strategy by a group of devotees I was working with. It probably would not be something I would initiate.
I can see why a scientist who depends professionally on the respect of other scientists would want to distance herself from it.
On the other hand, this was presented just as a press release from a Krishna temple, and not as a petition to be signed by a number of leading opinion-makers.
And on yet the other hand (I always need so many hands) I am glad that a scientist like Rasasthali is concerned about the reputation of the ISKCON temples enough to be stirred to respond as she did. It is obvious she cares very deeply about ISKCON and how it might be viewed by her colleagues.
I hope everybody has not decided to drop this thread and move on. I feel we are hardly getting warmed up. Yet I am the only one who posted in the last week.
What I would love to see is some further discussion by Rasasthali dd about how she would approach scientific preaching in this field of evolutionary biology in particular or in science generally. It is nice we have scientist-devotees, but the rest of us are eager to see them defeat materialism and atheism.
I suppose it is unfair to expect every scientist-devotee to single-handedly demolish the entire edifice of modern philosophy or scientific thought.
[One time around 1991 I told Hrdayananda Maharaja how favorable I found my professors at Berkeley when I explained Krishna consciousness to them one-on-one. He swears he doesn’t remember this, but he replied, “I don’t care about preaching to a few professors. I just need to aquire some tools for a few years, and then I will explode!”]
I believed it, too. If anyone could do it it would have been him. And I get excited when I hear Rasaraj Prabhu or Drutakarma tell me how they will help overthrow the whole atheistic system. But mainly I think it will take a gradual approach and a massive infiltration of society at all levels by many devotees.
Yet, since Rasasthali raised the subject, I think it fair to ask her to elaborate on any ideas and strategies for making the world of science safe for Caitanya-ism.
We promise to be respectful. Please share your thoughts on this important subject.
When I was an undergraduate at University of Maryland there was one young Philosophy Professor [Allen Stairs] who was popular with the students and who was interested in defeating religion as irrational. He was charming and friendly and I have to say I liked his personality though I disagreed with him about the existence of God. He tought sybolic logic and also was an expert on philosophy of time and modern Physics (collapose of the wave function, yada yada yada)
Anyway, he engaged some president of the Humanist Society to come give a talk against Creationism (which is what the organized Christian reaction to evolution was in those days). This fellow was a staunch supporter of materialist dogma (the assumption that there is nothing but impersonal laws of nature and our own personalities are just higher order manifestations of physical processes such as the chemical and mechanical interactions of our bodies.)
For him, consciousness and sensations are supposedly just “causally emergent” properties of the matter of our bodies, in the sense that they have no independence from that matter and its movements. In that sense, all thoughts, sensations, experiences, knowledge, moral judgments, feelings and motivations of any kind, are really identical to body and brain functions. They could be more thoroughly and basically explained in terms of chemistry and physics. When people are arguing, or hapily dancing together, it is just that the chemistry of their bodies is compelling them to do so.
[Strange as it sounds, we also understand that the modes of nature are conducting the interactions of conditioned beings, under the direction of Krishna, according to the desires of the illusioned living entities. We do have free will, but the soul’s true freedom is checked and thwarted by material nature at every step. We don’t want to die or get old or diseased, but we are being forced by nature.]
Anyway, I remember complaining to Trivikram Maharaja, who was our University Hare Krishna Chaplain, and he told me he would debate these people. He was fearless. (I was fearful and I regret that I never set up the debate).
Later, Sadaputa came to speak on evolution and information theory. Prof. Stairs and his friends were surprised. He was not what they expected. Stairs was a mathemetician and so was Sadaputa. He spoke their language. They did not accept his arguments, but they were impressed with him.
We should be fearless like Trivikram Swami.
We should not be over impressed with the erudition and technical achievements of the mayayapahrta-jnanas. They are also suffering and we need to be compassionate. For misleading the entire civilization, they will have to suffer greatly, and we need to bring them Prabhupada’s message in a spirit of friendship. We can respect their talents and intellectual skills and encourage them to use such things in Krishna’s service.
Some of them may have had bad experiences with Christians or fundamentalists from other religions. We have a more intricate philosophy based on detailed scriptures with which they may not be familiar and they may have some interest. We should not identify ourselves with anti-intellectuals.
I often tell people on book distribution how J. Robert Oppenheimer (father of the atom bomb) studied Bhagavad Gita. He even learned Sanskrt to read the Gita in the original language.
Indian scientists who revere the Vedas (to some degree or another) are emigrating to brain drain countries in great numbers and are interacting with their colleagues in other countries more than ever. I hear scientists from India explaining Vedic or Vedanta philosophy in their own way on radio programs and TV programs about science and religion.
Scientists and intellectuals should be receptive to Lord Caitanya’s mercy. We need to feed them a steady diet of Krishna prasadam and induce them somehow or other to practice meditation on the Maha Mantra. This will help them find creative ways to reveal the truth disclosed in Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam (and in the vast body of Vedic literature) in ways that their colleages can understand.
They should feel friendship from Krishna devotees. We don’t want to turn them off. They may be predisposed to consider us unfriendly (especially because, for the sake of the people in general, we often point out their views as demonic). Somehow we have to show them there are no hard feelings, even though we disagree with some of the assumptions that modern science has traditionally accepted. They may also disagree with those assumptions or be looking for other ways to see things. They are a very important demographic.
Generally, businessmen preach well to businessmen, students to students, hippie yoga people to hippie yoga people, etc. Scientist devotees can make friends with scientists and feed them delicious prasadam and encourage them to think about Krishna’s instructions in Bhagavad Gita.