Religion and Science (Dharma o Vijñāna)
Religion and Science (Dharma o Vijñāna)
Overview
The following article, ‘Religion and Science’ was first published in Sajjana Toṣaṇī (Vol.7, Issues 4-5) in 1895. Herein, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura discusses the position of religion and science, the defects of modern science and Evolution, the Christian concept of the soul, and how Naturalism, Progressivism, and Evolution ultimately arise from a demonic disposition.
by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura
(translated by Swami B.V. Giri)
A certain Christian scholar has written in an English newspaper as follows:
Nothing else has become such a serious matter of contemplation for those aspiring to a higher life as the harmony of religious thought with present scientific inquiry.
How can the discriminating intellect of truth and untruth coexist with man’s conclusions which are based on materialism – and how can man’s higher, or transcendental, life be simultaneously accepted alongside materialistic conclusions that establish man’s material basis? These two propositions will continue to keep the hearts of philosophical inquirers in a state of agitation. There exists a state of conflict between the spiritual intellect and the mundane scientific intellect – of this there is not the slightest doubt. In the realm of understanding life, this conflict is always present and arises from the desire to place the pursuit of knowledge alongside the pursuit of love.
It is not that no benefit will be attained by thoughtfully considering the fundamental nature of human life and determining its connection with the distinction between good and evil, and religious thought. On the contrary, this inquiry is absolutely necessary for all human beings. *At all times and in all places, every form of social system that has existed up to the present age rests upon a belief.*That belief is this – that man is a spiritual entity, and that he is capable of directing his mental and physical powers according to his independent will. Modern science wishes to eliminate this belief and, in its place, wishes to consciously establish a thoroughly different belief system.
Its proposal is this – man has been created from the forces of the mind and body, like a mechanical device. The extreme difference between these two views is evident. In accepting the latter view, it is not simply that the ancient temples of religion and reverence are to be demolished – but any belief in the enduring impressions of such baseless representations are simultaneously removed. Virtuous thoughts, discrimination, compassion, hope, and forgiveness, which presently appear as profound truth to us, would all suddenly become like akāśa-puṣpa (ethereal flowers in the sky).*(1) The distinction between good and evil completely disappears. It will be perceived that both a man-eating rākṣāsa and the altruistic Jesus Christ are products of matter according to their previous mundane disposition. They are like a stone slab, hurled from a mountain due to gravitational force – simply pieces of inert matter. Praise and blame, and any feelings of anger or hatred towards them become unnecessary. If one examines the texts of modern scientific men such as Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley, etc***(2)**, it seems that according to their opinion, one should not fear such misconceptions. In the realm of explaining the intrinsic mysteries of human life, by fully accepting the aforementioned materialistic perspective, there is no way to avoid the conclusions that were previously mentioned. Man must accept that he is simply a particular machine created by matter – if he does not accept this, one will not find a progressive path among materialists.
In this situation, the duty of sincere inquirers is to compel the materialists to examine their own conclusions properly, and to take from them a clear answer as to whether we have spoken the truth or not. A few years ago, Llewelyn Davies *(3) wrote in his essay as follows:
Let it be supposed that, even if there is no conflict between science and the theory of the soul, there is still a mutual rivalry between them. Now it should be seen which of them has a special claim to our respect. We would have been satisfied if we could give equal respect to both. However, we cannot do that. When the materialists acknowledge that science ought to be given greater respect, it is not presumptuous of us to ask this question. Their science gives no hint whatsoever of any concept concerning non-material life. They merely speak in terms of evolution, the transformation of energy, natural behaviour, and sequential order. They themselves give respect to all these concepts. They interpret all of these as profound aesthetic principles, yet they themselves cannot understand anything. In their efforts to put these theories into practice, they perform many actions. As followers of Christianity, we do not disregard the conclusions of particular individuals, but when faced with mundane science, we cannot show it any special respect. We clearly state that our devotion to the doctrine of the soul is greater than our admiration for scientific skill.
The real question for our consideration is, will they follow the light transmitted from Vaikuṇṭha or not? The present matter is this – will you be subservient to science, or will you be subservient to ātma-jñāna (knowledge of the self)? Science focuses on phenomena that is past, and on phenomena which is inferior. However, ātma-tattva (the science of the self) directs its gaze towards the future concerns of the jīva and his progress. Science, by investigating all phenomena perceived by the senses, observes how things have undergone a gradual evolution. However, by imbibing the nectar of spiritual life, ātmā-jñāna makes one capable of composing poetry and art.
Although Llewelyn-Davies’s words are beautifully arranged, we find in them many points open to dispute. Such remarks are found throughout his work. Although ātma-jñāna – through poetry, art, social constructs, and religion – may make a greater claim to our reverence than science, nevertheless the scientific perspective of life also lays claim to some measure of our respect, because it is true.
We hold that scientific conclusions are far from deserving our reverence and are completely inferior. This is because that which is called a ‘scientific conclusion’ contains none of the characteristics of science. It contains several assertions that have neither been proven nor are capable of being proven.
Just see! What is the actual point of the modern scientists? Their point is this – that the spiritual reality of man does not exist, therefore, it has no function in the gradual development of his character or history. A devotee of Christ may state, “I act in this way through love of Christ,” but this is not in accordance with what the nineteenth-century evolutionary scientists assert – “O Christian! Your faith is purely delusional! Your love for Christ is simply trivial social work– comparable to an electronic telegraph. Happiness and sorrow, tears and laughter, faith, hope, ambition and love serve only as secondary regulators of social activities.”*(4)
According to logic, we can accept this statement as the conclusion of the scientists. Let us see the reason of such a claim on the beliefs of man. Today. the scientific world is so subservient to Darwin’s theory of evolution that it requires considerable courage to even suggest that Darwin’s conclusion is merely a hypothesis. From the very statements admitted by Darwin’s most ardent followers, it is clearly understood that even today they suffer from a notable lack of evidence. Not only this – the proof will always remain lacking.
Seeing that from a single kind of substance many types of forms and colours can be produced by artificial means, they have concluded that diversity of forms arises from some original basic source. Material nature never produces two objects that are identical in every respect. No leaf on a tree is like another leaf on that tree. No animal is equal to its mother or father in all respects. Observing such natural phenomena, gardeners, herdsmen, and many others like them have, through special effort and care, produced from a single species many varieties of forms – namely plants and animals. But up to the present, they have not been able to combine two distinct species and produce a separate new one. After the creation of mankind, no process of gradual evolution is observed. Even the experts in evolution cannot deny this point. They claim that a new species does not originate unless a long time has passed, therefore, one should not expect the emergence of a new species so soon. The point now is this – if one abandons belief and accepts the theory of chance for all the events of every day, every hour, and every moment, its nature cannot be accepted as a principle of cause and effect. Although all these obstacles exist for accepting materialism, there is still a more serious hindrance.
Even if evolution is accepted as true, in determining its proper scope, it must be recognised as merely a minor process. This theory is completely silent regarding the origin and nature of the force from which this process has begun. This theoretical process continues in regard to the layers of the earth, and the form and construction of plants and beings – but even then, the process shows no tendency to investigate its own origin. From this perspective, a systematic theorist will find it sufficient. But when enlightened persons see an inquirer investigating life which is replete with self-awareness, then various types of existence become apparent, whose related objects are not beyond the limits of self-awareness.
When we think about bliss and distress, pain and pleasure, speech and action, then we cannot know the original source of their origin – only when we accept the concept of a creative potency can we understand it. Audaciously, but without any proof, the evolutionists continue to declare that this potency arises from mundane mechanisms and has no connection whatsoever with the ātmā. The evolutionists do not wish to come to any conclusion as to how any kind of potency, produced by material mechanisms and devoid of any connection with the ātmā, can give rise to jīvas that are fully endowed with spiritual individuality. On the contrary, they acknowledge that this concept is unknowable and inconceivable. Nevertheless, while acknowledging the ineffectiveness of his materialism, they very unjustly go on to state that those who doubt the truth of evolution are ignorant in their understanding of science and prejudiced. The science devised by Herbert Spencer,*(5) Huxley, etc. is a particular fallacy stemming from incompetence**.** Just as an incompetent physician promises to cure all bodily ailments by the application of medicines alone, similarly, among us, excessively proud materialistic scholars continue to apply all the minor laws contained within materialism, with the intention of deducing all the hidden mysteries of organic life. Without understanding the afflictions arising from error, they believe in knowledge that is baseless and dream-like, and proceed to inquire into the truth of all things. By showing that materialism is thoroughly limited and full of bhrama, pramāda, vipralipsā and karaṇāpātava (illusion, error, deceit, and sensory imperfection), the instruction of those bewildered persons will not be able to function in opposition to spiritual life in the least.
Undoubtedly, this article (of the original author) originates from Christian writings. After rejecting materialism, the limited spiritualism the author establishes is merely a narrowly limited form of spiritualism appropriate to Christianity. In Christianity there is a word (‘soul’) – to establish that, one must necessarily begin by refuting the opinion of the materialists, because that soul exists by transcending all laws of material force. But the soul as conceived in the Christian doctrine is not the pure ātmā. The ātmā referred to in the Veda-śāstra, such as in the mantra, ātma vā āre draṣṭavya mantavya etc,*(6) is completely separate from pure materialism as well as from mixed materialism. The Christian ‘soul’ falls under mixed materialism. The mind and all the attributes of the mind constitute the Christian ātmā. However, the pure ātmā is exceedingly higher and purer than the mind. In reality, Christians believe the subtle body (liṅga-śarīra) to be the ātmā. Following that belief, they have imagined a heaven and a hell, and accordingly, they believe in a God and a Satan. However, even if Christians cannot perceive pure ātmā-tattva, they are worthy of respect above all types of materialists, because all forms of materialism completely lack any investigation into ātma-tattva. It is seen that the Christians show faith in the path of the ātmā, which is free from gross material bonds – this is the seed of their good fortune. This śraddhābhāsa (semblance of faith), through good association over many lifetimes, will eventually transform into śraddhā in ananya-bhakti (exclusive devotion).
The materialists are unfortunate. At death, their only result is material nature. Bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyāḥ – the statement of Bhagavān is proof of this. Yānti deva-vrataḥ devān – by this declaration, there is no doubt that the Christians will achieve Svargaloka of the Deva-conception. Through the statement, yānti mad-yājino ’pi mām it is understood that the Vaiṣṇavas, who know the meaning of the Vedas, gradually, through the worship of the pure ātmā, achieve service to Bhagavān, who is the Supreme Ātmā. *(7)
Materialists alone can be referred to as bhūtejya, because by the analysis of jaḍa-bhūta (inert substances) and the laws of material elements and material energy, they have deduced all kinds of laws of progressivism***(8)** and evolution, and have accepted them as the principal laws pertaining to the cycle of this world. At death, they are distanced from ātma-tattva and are cast into matter – in other words, the potency of their ātmā is almost annihilated, and the potency of matter becomes predominant, causing them to identify with matter (jaḍi-bhūta). Their condition is lamentable. They themselves are deprived, and in turn, they deprive the world. Due to this very offence, they become even more deprived to the extreme.
From time to time, such evolutionism has been accepted by many degraded persons among the Āryan men, who are proud of their scholarship. There is nothing new about this. In Western countries, the appearance of human civilisation and intellectual prowess has only been seen recently. In all those countries, therefore, Tyndall, Huxley, Darwin, etc. are counted amongst scholars. They can only claim scholarship by expressing old things in a new language.
In the Bhagavad-gītā, which was spoken four thousand years ago, it describes the demoniac disposition – jagad āhur anīśvaram aparaspara-sambhūtam etc.*(9) – naturalism, progressivism, and evolution all arise from āsura-pravṛtti (a demonic disposition). It Is the duty of a jīva who seeks his true welfare to abandon all these doctrines and enter into ātma-tattva. Accepting the diversity of the material world, one should deliberate upon the pastimes of the Supreme Executor within it, and seek out divine love for Bhagavān (bhāgavat-prema*)*. It is not the duty of an intelligent man to be remain confined to trivial ideologies.
For those practitioners concerned with methodology, each respective science is worthy of great respect. Their duty is to advance the technical arts and sciences and thereby serve those who are conversant with the truth. Ātma-tattva is extremely profound. Those who are engaged in such deliberation are not at leisure to be bound by ordinary technical arts or sciences. Therefore, others should strive to take care of all the practical matters required for maintaining their bodily necessities.
O brother, advocate of progressivism! O brother, proponent of evolution! Perform your own respective duties, and in doing so, both your welfare and the world’s welfare will be achieved. Do not endeavour to explain the merits and demerits of ātma-tattva without due qualification. If you act as good men by performing your duty, we will continually bless you.
*********
NOTES
(1) Akāśa-puṣpa – ‘flowers in the sky.’ In Indian philosophy, akāśa-puṣpa refers to a phantasmagoria, something imaginary.
(2) Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was a ground-breaking English naturalist and biologist famous for his theory of evolution by natural selection, proposing that all species descend from common ancestors, a concept explained in his book On the Origin of Species.
John Tyndall (1820–1893) was a pioneering 19th-century Irish physicist and naturalist, known for his crucial discoveries about infrared radiation and atmospheric absorption
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) was a prominent English biologist, anatomist, and staunch supporter of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, earning him the nickname “Darwin’s Bulldog.”
(3) John Llewelyn Davies (1826-1916) was an English preacher and theologian in the Anglican church.
(4) In other words, the evolutionist considers the Christian’s love for Christ as unscientific. Human actions are determined by biology, evolution, and material processes – not by love and other spiritual feelings. A telegraph machine receives signals and sends messages mechanically. There is no consciousness or personal intention involved in the machine – it simply transmits what it was built to transmit. Therefore, the scientist is essentially saying that a Christian’s love for Christ is like a mechanical signal, not a genuine cause. Emotions such as love, faith, hope, happiness, sorrow etc. are secondary effects, not primary drivers. They are not something that actually cause an action to happen. They are just feelings that happen to appear alongside it.
(5) Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) was a prolific English philosopher, biologist, sociologist, and political theorist known for coining “survival of the fittest,” applying evolutionary theory to society (Social Darwinism), and developing a grand “synthetic philosophy” linking science, ethics, and society,
(6) This verse is from Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.5.6:
ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyi
Indeed, this ātmā should be seen, it should be heard about it, it should be reflected upon, and it should be meditated upon, O Maitreyī.
(7) This section is referring to the verse from Bhagavad-gītā (9.25)
yānti deva-vratā devān pitṛn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ
bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā yānti mad yājino’pi mām
The worshippers of the Devas attain the realm of the Devas. The worshippers of the ancestors reach the domain of the ancestors. The worshippers of ghosts and spirits go to the world of the ghosts and spirits. But those who worship Me come to Me.
In this article, it appears that Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura offers a distinct interpretation of bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā. While the word bhūta can mean ‘ghosts,’ it also refers to ‘gross material elements.’ Accordingly, he explains bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā as, “Those who are absorbed in material elements go to the material elements.”
(8) Progressivism – a political and social philosophy advocating for societal improvement through reform, using government and science to address problems like inequality, corruption, and corporate power, often emphasizing collective responsibility, social justice, and adapting to modern industrial challenges.
(9) This is from Bhagavad-gītā (16.8):
asatyam apratiṣṭhaṁ te jagad āhur anīśvaram
aparaspara-sambhūtaṁ kim anyat kāma-haitukam
They claim that the world is false, without any basis and without any divinity. They believe that the source of everything is the union between male and female and that life has no purpose besides lust.