Bhaktivedanta College

TH5447 Science and Religion

Student: Gustavo H.P. Moura
Tutor: Gopal Gupta
Date: March 16th 2015

Is science the only sure path to truth?

The tireless search for truth is one of the most universal features of humankind, one
which distinguishes it from all other species we know on Earth. This infinite thirst for

the unknown also constitutes a perpetual and powerful driving force sustaining human
endeavor and progress. In ancient Greece, those who were especially committed to this
investigation on the truth were called philosophers the lovers of wisdom. Great
philosophers like Plato and Aristoteles have inquired extensively about very diverse
subject matters, both natural and supernatural, laying an essential foundation for
subsequent Western thought (Shand, 1993). Another important scenario of profound
philosophical enquiry in the ancient world was India, whose legacy of knowledge
extends virtually to every field of human activity or interest, again including the
physical and the metaphysical1. A similarly unified or holistic approach to knowledge
was seen in Europe even up to recent times, as explained by scholar of Science and
Religion Peter Harrison:
Science, as the discipline is currently understood, emerged only during the nineteenth
century []. Prior to that, students of nature had thought of themselves as pursuing
natural philosophy or natural history disciplines with a somewhat different
orientation from that of twenty-first-century science. (Harrison, 2010, p. 23)

Harrison further elaborates in his article how the present division between science and
religion may be considered somewhat artificial and, in fact, constitutes a peculiar
phenomenon of the Western world. Thus, in some specific contexts, people of other
faith traditions have remained immune to the western concept religion and the
cultural authority of science. (Harrison, 2010, p. 41)
In addition to the problems generated by this unnecessary divorce of science and
religion, the over materialistic worldview shared by a considerable number of scientists
today drastically restricts the scope of science as a viable path to the truth.
Science, however, needs not be defined in such narrow terms, but can be taken in a
much broader sense, as suggested by Steven Gilbert (1991):

1 In this regard, Suhotra Swami writes: The word veda means "knowledge." In the modern world, we use the term
"science" to identify the kind of authoritative knowledge upon which human progress is based. To the ancient people
of Bharatavarsha (Greater India), the word veda had an even more profound import that the word science has for us
today. That is because in those days scientific inquiry was not restricted to the world perceived by the physical senses.
And the definition of human progress was not restricted to massive technological exploitation of material nature.
(Swami, 1997, p. 1)

One possibility is to define science as a process of constructing predictive conceptual

models. This definition unites both the processes and product of science, and identifies
model building as a superordinate process skill. Within this framework, the purpose of
research is to produce models which represent consistent, predictive relationships. []
In essence, the definition includes virtually all of the products of science, is
consistent with the expanded definition of models evident in the literature (see Kuhn,
1970; Lunetta & Hofstein, 1981; Miller, 1978; Stevens & Collins, 1980), and unifies
scientific fields which operate with diverse methodologies.

Taking into account this broader definition of science, I argue in this essay that proper
scientific investigation must encompass both material and immaterial phenomena while
also making room for the possibility of a supreme being who may be the source and
controller of both. Such inquiry must be based on reason but not restricted by it.
Science, in this broadest sense of the term, can be considered a reliable path to the truth.
Returning to our ancient sages view of ultimate reality and the means they conceived
for approaching it, Plato defined two main conditions that need to be met for acquiring
proper knowledge: the first is universality or objectivity, meaning that real knowledge
should be true from any point of view, not relative; the second condition is eternality or
immutability, which means that both knowledge and the object of knowledge should
remain constant in all phases of time. From this follows that sensible objects in this
world are unsuitable for knowledge in this highest sense, since these objects are
perceived subjectively by people and they are constantly changing. Ultimate knowledge
is thus possible only in a different realm, in a world of unchanging forms beyond space
and time of which this sensible world is merely a shadow. (Shand, 1993, p. 26)
A similar understanding of reality is presented in the Bhagavad-Gita, one of the most
important treatises of Indian thought, as follows:
Of the impermanent one finds no being; one finds no nonbeing of the permanent.
Indeed, the certainty of both of these has been perceived by seers of the truth 2.
(Schweig, 2007, p. 40)

2 Bhagavad-Gt 2.16 nsato vidyate bhvo nbhvo vidyate satah ubhayor api drs t o 'ntas tv anayos tattvadaribhih

In other words, an ephemeral manifestation which didnt exist before and will cease to
exist sometime in the future cannot be counted as a real object, for it is insubstantial as
the waves in the ocean. On the other hand, real objects are eternally unchanging.
Obviously, such transcendent reality can never be apprehended with our senses and their
extensions in the form of microscopes and telescopes.
This lack of empirical evidence has led several contemporary scientists to deny the
existence of such transcendent reality and to try to reduce all reality to gross matter,
ignoring the axiom that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
Contesting this reductionist outlook, theologian John Haught writes:
The belief system that Dennett and the other new atheists subscribe to is known as
"scientific naturalism." Its central dogma is that only nature, including humans and our
creations, is real; that God does not exist; and that science alone can give us complete
and reliable knowledge of reality. (Haught, 2008, p. 38)

The above tenets can be classified in two categories: an ontological claim, that reality
consists only of quantifiable things; and an epistemological claim, that Science is the
only legitimate path to knowledge. However, there are no scientific experiments
demonstrating that nothing exists beyond matter nor that all true knowledge has to be
based on empirical evidence, and thus scientific naturalism is an incoherent and selfsubverting belief system (ibid, p.79).
This is not to deny the importance of the scientific method, which certainly has
contributed to remarkable progress in numerous fields. However, it should be clarified
that science too is tied to paradigms, perspectives and personal preferences, and hence
is not as objective and universal as it seems. (Drees, 2010, p. 18). Moreover, there are
extensive areas of human knowledge that do not fit well into the present scientific
paradigm, including much of the humanities music, art and literature.
Then, how to re-integrate these two major fields of human enquiry, the phenomenal and
the numinous, in order to achieve an expanded scientific model capable of dealing with
the full spectrum of reality?

A good start would be the frank acknowledgement of the true scientific value of the
various disciplines and how they can complement each other to bring about a fuller
picture of reality. As an example of such appreciative discourse, Willem Drees quotes an
eloquent pronouncement by His Holiness the Pope John Paul II:
The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life
with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of
transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which
nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs
indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical
knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or
again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of
philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning
according to the Creators plans. (Drees, 2010, p. 16)

Another important step in reconciling science and religion would be the attempt to
minimize the negative facets each one has displayed in history.
The darkest side of religion has been the propensity of religious institutions to place
themselves in an absolute position, as if enthroning themselves in the place of the
infinite mystery into which they are supposed to initiate us. (Haught, 2008, p. 957).
This is tantamount to idolatry, in that people worship an idol instead of their real objet
of worship. But as Haught continues in his analysis, the antidote for idolatry is not
atheism, but faith. Otherwise, if the Absolute is disposed of as nonexistent, then the
human proclivity is to immediately create other idols in the form of so many isms,
such as Capitalism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and for that matter, Scientism. Each
of these isms is potentially as deadly as all the others and can only be suppressed by
redirecting the human heart where it really belongs.
Regarding the reductionist account of science, its darkest facet consists of its
unscientific denial of God, of its unjustified assumption that consciousness is merely an
illusion somehow created by the brains electrochemical signals, and of its
misconstruction that there is no overall purpose in the universe. The consequences of
such paradigm can be devastating:
4

Atheism makes it harder to believe in the real possibility of the highest good, and so
tends toward a kind of despair, and thus a corruption of moral character, both
individually and socially. (Hare, 2005, p. 208)

Based on Kants ideas, John Hare explains the rational instability of atheism, which
reduces human beings to a bag of chemicals while trying to maintain that ones life can
still be moral and purposeful. He claims that although it may be possible, it is certainly
incoherent for a person to be moral without being a theist (ibid, p. 206).
Finally, for all scientific branches to develop healthily, each has to avail of a specific
methodology suitable for the particular nature of its investigation. It goes against all
common sense that the standard principles relative to one scientific branch should apply
indiscriminately to all others. Thus, it may be endorsed that in the research of a subtle
phenomenon such as consciousness, appropriate instruments and methodology should
be applied3 and, why not, perhaps consciousness itself might be metaphorically taken as
a kind of scientific laboratory in which the nature of the self can be examined.
In any case, the significance of reestablishing a symbiotic relationship between religion
and science is to alleviate much of the perplexity of our modern age, which is due to the
dissociation of science from the religious values that once shaped it. Thus, in summary,
a thorough reform is necessary on both sides, removing the useless layers of dogma and
superstition that often characterizes religion, and the absurd skepticism typical of
modern science. Thus, imbued with true scientific spirit, humanity shall be able to
traverse a sure and progressive path leading to the deepest and most comprehensive type
of knowledge.

Works Cited
3 In this connection, appropriate instruments could comprise, for instance, the usage of subtle technologies like
mantras, yantras, etc., whereas the methodology could include yogic techniques such as meditation.

Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chignell, A., & Dole, A. (2005). The Ethics of Religious Belief: A Recent
History. In A. Chignell, & A. Dole (Eds.), God and the Ethics of Belief:
New Essays in Philosophy of Religion (pp. 1-21). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Drees, W. B. (2010). Religion and Science in Context: A Guide to Debates.
London: Routledge.
Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model Building and a Definition of Science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, Vol 28; No 1, pp. 73-79.
Hare, J. (2005). Kant on the Rational Instability of Atheism. In A. Dole, & A.
Chignell (Eds.), God and the ethics of belief (pp. 202-218). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Harrison, P. (2010). 'Science and religion: constructing the boundaries. In
T. Dixon , G. Cantor, & S. Pumfrey (Eds.), SCIENCE AND RELIGION:
New Historical Perspectives (pp. 23-42). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haught, J. F. (2008). God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press (Kindle edition).
Schweig, G. M. (2007). Bhagavad Gita - The Beloved Lord's Secret Love
Song. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.
Shand, J. (1993). Philosophy and Philosophers:An Introduction to Western
Philosophy. London: UCL Press.
Swami, S. (1997). a-daranam: The Six Systems of Vedic Philosophies.
Kolkata: Bhaktivedanta Academy.