THE SPIRITUAL SCIENTIST

1. Why do I need a personal Guru, if all the knowledge is available and all doubts get
resolved on websites like Vedabase or your website, thespiritualscientist.com?
a. Summary: Through several places we may get knowledge and understanding but
through Guru we get mercy and through rendering service to Him we get
realization of the knowledge and through realization we get attracted towards
Krsna. One of the important expressions of service is in following the
instructions of Krsna and His devotees and Krsna has instructed us to accept
spiritual master through examples. Service goes up, to Krsna, through the
disciplic succession and mercy and grace come down to us through the disciplic
succession.

b. Audio Transcription: Answer is to get mercy. Spiritual advancement is not just

about knowledge or getting understanding. It’s about getting mercy by which
our desires get attracted to Krsna. If we just have an intellectual conception of
spiritual life, wherein we think that once we know and understand; there’s
knowing and at that time, the knowledge enters the ears and then there’s
understanding when the knowledge enters into the head and then there’s
realization when the knowledge enters into the heart.
Only when there’s realization then our heart becomes attracted to Krsna. When
our heart becomes attracted to Krsna, then we can return back to Him. We can
develop our love for Him fully and return back to Him eventually. So we’ve to
render service to the Spiritual Master or to the Spiritual Master’s representative
and through the service we get the grace and through grace, we get mercy. That
mercy is not something mysterious. That mercy is actually attraction to Krsna.
So, we need a personal connection with the disciplic succession, with the
spiritual tradition – the sampradaya, which will connect us with Krsna. The
hierarchy or the flow is that knowledge comes down the disciplic succession and
the service goes up the disciplic succession. Knowledge comes from Krsna
through the Parampara, to the spiritual master and to us and then service goes
from us to the spiritual master up to Krsna. Then from Krsna through disciplic
succession, comes grace or mercy. And that mercy evokes our attraction towards
Krsna in our own hearts and enables us to develop our personal relationship with
Krsna.
We may think that I may serve different devotees at different places and I can
make spiritual advancement thereof also. That’s true. We can and we should
serve the devotees wherever we get the opportunity to do that. But the
 important point is that the essential expression of service is in following the
instructions of Krsna and His devotees. And Krsna Himself, through the example
of taking initiation from Sandipani Muni, through his example as Ram taking
instructions from Viswamitra and Vasista, He shows actually that He wants us to
take the shelter of our spiritual master. Therefore what we do is primarily we
take shelter of the spiritual master and it’s like entry into the university. Spiritual
master is the one who gets us into the university and then we can move forward,
take instructions from various places and serve various people. Unless we serve
under the guidance of a particular person or at least that person’s representative
and follow the process, make spiritual advancement in-terms of developing our
attraction towards Krsna, we can’t attain the fruit of spiritual knowledge. That’s
love for Krsna. So we can get knowledge and understanding, but we need
realization, we need attraction to Krsna and that comes through rendering
service to Krsna through spiritual master. One of the important services to Krsna
is following his instruction to accept a spiritual master and one of the most
important forms of service to the spiritual master is to serve wherever He wants
us to do through various opportunities we may get for services. So, it’s not that
the spiritual master is the only connection with Krsna for us, but He is like the
pivot around which all our connections with Krsna are established. That’s why
it’s important for us to take initiation. Initiation enables us to receive Krsna’s
Grace and become attracted to Him.

2. What does Einstein’s metaphor about science and religion mean?

a. Albert Einstein's full quote:

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly

imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of
feeling, however, springs from religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the
possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that
is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot imagine a scientist without that profound
faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is
lame, religion without science is blind."

b. Summary:
Einstein explains the symbiotic relationship between science and religion.
Religion gives us the faith that there’s an order in the universe and we
can understand that order which is the foundation and motivation to
move forward. Without this faith, science would be lame (or won’t be
able to move forward). This faith can then be confirmed by science which
 removes the blindness or lets us perceive that faith or what’s intuitively
thought.
c. Audio Transcription and Paraphrasing:
“Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly
imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of
feeling, however, springs from religion”.
People who study or do science are imbued with the aspiration toward truth and
understanding. They want to know what truth is and want to explore. Newton
observed the fruit falling and he wanted to know why it happened. Einstein says
that this source of feeling however springs from religion. What is the source of
feeling - the longing to know and understand things? Where does this come
from? Science doesn’t have an answer for that. If we’re just creatures evolved by
chance or natural selection, then natural selection predisposes one for survival;
not for metaphysical understanding of truth. Understanding scientific truth in
and of itself doesn’t provide any immediate survival advantage. So natural
selection won’t select that. So, there must be a dimension to us which enables us
to do this.

Further he says, “To this (religion) there also belongs the faith in the possibility
that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is,
comprehensible to reason.” When we’re observing the universe, there’s some
order in the universe and the order is understandable by us rationally. This belief
on the rationality of the existence of the order and our capability to understand
the order is the foundation of any scientific endeavor.

Einstein further says, “I cannot imagine a scientist without that profound faith.”
It’s just not faith, but “profound” or deep faith. The foundational faith for the
scientist is that there’s the order in the universe which could be understood by
us. The faith in this order actually comes from religion. That means, an Intelligent
being has put order in the nature and gave us the intelligence by which we can
perceive that order. That faith comes from religion.

“The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame,

religion without science is blind."
When a person is lame, he’ll not be able to move at all. So, “science without
religion is lame” means, science won’t be able to move forward without the
foundational faith that there’s order in the universe. Science without that
religious faith in the existence of rationally accessible order will not function.
 Through the phrase “religion without science is blind”, he means that the idea
(the religious faith) that there’s an order in the universe can’t be verified without
science. A blind person can’t see anything. The same way, what’s intuitively
thought (the religious faith), will not be perceivable or confirmable without
science. In that sense, religion without science is blind.

Basically Einstein explains the symbiotic relationship between science and

religion. Religion gives us the faith that we can understand and gives us the
foundation and motivation to move forward. That’s how it removes the
lameness. Then science confirms the belief. Several scientists such as Pascal and
Einstein said that, the more one studies, the more one moves towards God.
Kelvin said, “If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you
to believe in God”. Regarding the blind part, if we can’t see then we can’t know
what’s out there. The faith that there’s a God and there’s a higher order in
nature can be confirmed through scientific research. In that sense, religion
without science is blind. Scientific endeavor can remove the blindness; can
provide the illumination and confirmation for the foundational faith of religion.

3. When the design argument is so logical, why don’t most people and most scientists
accept God’s existence?
a. The design argument is no doubt quite persuasive but at the same time we have
to understand that it is not exactly a fully scientific argument, that’s how most
scientists think of it. Most scientists think that their job is to look at the natural
world and to find natural causes for natural phenomena and because of this they
assume that they cannot point to God for explaining these things. So when they
see design in the world they often think that it is their responsibility to find out
how this design could have come about by material causes. So there are two
different points over here that design argument is primarily a philosophical
argument not exactly a scientific argument. As I said science primarily focuses on
causes for material phenomena. That’s the way science is operationally used
although not always the case. There are cases, situations where science also
looks at not just material causes but intelligent causes. As i mentioned in earlier
answers that if a knife is in the belly of a victim, of a wounded person then by
looking at the way the knife has gone inside - the angle of penetration, the depth
of penetration, the method of penetration – one can find whether this knife
went in accidentally or it was intentional stabbing by someone. So whether there
was a natural cause or a conscious cause, intelligent cause – somebody did it
deliberately. So like that this is what is used in investigation of crimes. And many
fields of science also use this. But in general the problem is that science often
focuses on material mechanisms and when we focus on material mechanisms
then often the idea of, people get caught in understanding the material
mechanisms themselves and then they often don’t come talk to the point that
there has to be somebody behind the material mechanism. But there are a
significant number of scientists who have actually recognised that there may be
material mechanism but that mechanism itself is not enough. So initially the
design argument was proposed that we see so many complex things in the world
they must have come by some designer. And eventually science found that
things are working by laws, so when they found that things are working by laws
then the idea came about that the design in this world has come about from the
laws. So we often use the argument – design requires a designer and laws
require a lawmaker. Now we have used both arguments often in the same
breath when we talk about the existence of God but the two are distinct
arguments and often the second argument can make the first argument
redundant. That means that if laws do exist and if laws produce the design then
a designer is not required for the design. Now for example if I see a well-
designed pot then i may see a pot requires a potter but then if I have a machine
that works according to particular law, the machine puts this much quantity of
soil, this much quantity of water and moves the wheel at this speed for this
much time and a pot emerges from it. Now what has happened, the design has
not come from a designer, the design has come from a law. So the designer is
not required for the design. So that’s what happened in the history of science as
initially if we see Copernicus and others they pointed to, Galileo, all of them,
Newton also, they talked about God quite unreservedly when they saw the
science and in fact Newton said, “Oh God, I think thy thoughts after thee”. The
way your thoughts were in designing the world that’s how i am thinking now by
your mercy. So Newton was also quite devoted to God. Now subsequently as
science discovered the laws according to which things work so the idea came up
that laws are enough, laws can explain the design, we don’t need a designer. And
that’s how God’s role became more invisible. Now still we could say that the
laws require a lawmaker but then the point came up maybe the laws exists as it
is and they are like co-eternal with creation and laws don’t require any other
cause and various ideas came up and the whole concept of designer became
more invisible and intangible. Because the laws were thought of a source of
design and that’s what many mainstream scientists started believing. Now in
molecular biology something more significant has happened and that’s why the
design argument has come back more powerfully this time. So now what has
been found is that ok even if we assume that the design has come by laws so
now today the mainstream scientific understanding is that the design of the
body, the shape of my nose or the way my hand’s fingers are, everything in the
body, it comes from genes and within the genes are the DNA. So basically, i
won’t go into the whole structure of the DNA right now but the DNA is like a
program and this program is the cause of everything in the sense that all the
things that are there in my body they are designed as per what is given in the
genes, the DNA. Now subsequently scientists have found the DNA itself is so
complex – the components of the DNA ?? and all that they consider them to be
letters then one DNA is the single longest word, it is millions and millions of
letters long and the whole Empire State Building several times taller than that
would be filled just writing out that. So now the challenge has come up, Ok, the
design is coming from certain laws, those laws are written in the program which
is there in the DNA. Now whether the DNA determines the personality, the likes,
the dislikes, whether the DNA determines consciousness is an entirely different
issue. But even if we assume this the physical bodily design, even if that is
coming from the DNA still the question comes up, that is such a complex
program, where did it come from? So now what has happened is that the
complexity of not just the cells and the components of the cells because those
components themselves, all the components are more complex than factories
but within them at the very root of the laws are the DNA which are extremely
complex programs whose probability of emerging by chance is next to zero. So at
a molecular level the designer argument has emerged again very forcefully. And
this time there are no laws further to which things can be ascribed because the
DNA is considered the building block of life. According to current understanding
also of mainstream science and biology there is nothing before DNA which led to
the formation of the DNA in some particular way. So the design argument was
historically because of the conception that laws produce design it was
downplayed for some time but now it has emerged again very strongly and this
time it is slowly but surely gaining the upper hand, more and more people all
over the world as they come to know about the complexity of the DNA and the
complexity of not just that even at the root of the laws now there is fine-tuning
of the universe that is talked about. Now scientists don’t talk about how well the
things are designed even if we assume that the things designed have come by
laws but how precise the laws are. And how did the precision of the laws come
about. If f=gm1m2/r square why is it r square why is it not r cube? If it were r
cube everything would go haywire in the universe. So scientists have found out
 that if we were to tinker with the laws even a little bit things would go haywire.
In fact the balance between the nuclear strong force and the nuclear weak force
if that is changed slightly the whole universe would go haywire. So now the law
it’s not the design that is so precise, yes at the root of the design, the design of
the program which gives the law, which gives the design of the things which we
see that is very precise but even after than precision whatever laws that are
there, they are also so precise they cannot have come by chance. So in this way
at the level of molecular biology and at the level of design, at the level of the
precision of the laws the design argument can still be very respectably
postulated and intelligent people are being persuaded and transformed by this
re-presentation of the design argument in terms of cutting edge science.
b. http://www.thespiritualscientist.com/2014/05/when-the-design-argument-is-so-
logical-why-dont-most-people-and-most-scientists-accept-gods-existence/
i. Comment 1:
I've frequently utilized this website to clarify my doubts and have
found it an extremely useful place to find answers.

But regarding this particular question of why design argument

isn't good enough as far as the atheistic circles are concerned, I
think there's something bigger at hand.
What I've personally seen circling the some of the atheistic
forums is the question of design itself.

Their claim is that there's no intelligent design. Now, one may say
that there's order that's visible to us, such as the beautiful
mountains and how the environment is 'just right' for life to exist.
But their idea is that our existence is insignificant. So out of all the
possible configurations that the universe could be in, our current
universe is no different from the other possible configurations
(which can't sustain life) in terms of design. That we simply feel
our configuration to be special because it has enabled our
existence. In fact the whole "Anthropic Principle" idea is based on
this.

It seems to me that a way out of this will be to first understand

ourselves to be eternal souls in which case our existence is a
necessity. Then, it’s indeed fascinating that the world around us is
 molded in a way that we can exist. From there on, the design
argument seems to make perfect sense.

So could you kindly clarify if there is a way that the design

argument can stand on its own without the idea of accepting
ourselves to be eternal souls or is this idea so fundamental within
spirituality that we don't mention it explicitly?

Answer to Comment 1:

http://www.thespiritualscientist.com/2014/05/do-the-anthropic-principle-and-
the-multiverse-theory-make-the-design-argument-redundant/

http://www.thespiritualscientist.com/2014/05/do-we-need-to-posit-the-
existence-of-eternal-souls-to-make-the-design-argument-robust/

4. Does bringing God into science stop progress as does attributing plague to evil spirits?
Question- Is bringing God into science a progress stopper? Many scientists say
that whenever science brings any paranormal phenomena, any paranormal
explanation, then it stops progress. For example if medical researchers had
believed that the plague is caused by some evil spirits then they would not have
investigated and found germs and they would not have found the cure for the
plague. So same way if we talk, say that God has created everything, then we
will not investigate into how things have happened and that way progress will
stop. So how do we answer this question?

Answer- It is not at all that accepting God as the explanation of things has to stop
progress.

It’s not necessarily like that because this is a false comparison. For example to
say that diseases are caused by spirits, by some paranormal beings, and
comparing that with God’s own creation, biases the debate against the point, so
examples have to be always given in a proper context.

As far as diseases like plague are concerned, we have found adequate

explanation for the disease in material terms. Ok, this disease is caused by this
germ. And current main stream science has given an adequate explanation for
this. So is there adequate explanation available for all of creation, for everything
happens in creation without bringing God into the picture and is it that bringing
God in the picture will stop progress? Will that mean that people will just simply
petition God and not do anything practical?

Even if we look in the Vedic culture in which there was acceptance of God and
there was acceptance of role of higher agencies, which did not stop people from
developing medical science. So Ayurveda is in its own way a sophisticated branch
of medicine and it does not simplistically say that for all medical problems you
just pray to God or worship some invisible spirits. It actually has so many precise
medicines. Ok, this disease, take this jadibuti, take this herb. And there is even
surgery that is mentioned in Ayurveda. Let the historical evidence speak from
within the Vedic tradition. The belief in God has not stopped medical research.
And the two were not seen as contradictory.

In Ayurveda its understood that, if there are material diseases, physical

measures have to be taken up for curing it and researching for finding out the
physical measures and exerting to apply those physical measures was not
considered anti spiritual or anti devotional. One pray to God, as it is said that the
doctor treats, the Supreme Doctor heals. So ultimately the healing depends on
God, but that does not mean we don’t make endeavor.

So again the idea that belief in God, that belief in some paranormal explanation,
will make us abandon normal explanations is wrong. It is just not substantiated
by fact.

Another way to put it is that if we found that there is a car which works by a
particular mechanism and say Henry Ford designed the first car. Now at the
material level there are certain mechanisms by which the car has been produced
and learning about that mechanism is important if somebody wants to repair the
car or to operate it properly and know more about the car. But if we just goes
beyond the mechanism and recognize that ok, there is a person whose brain has
produced the mechanism then that is not considered wrong. In fact that is a
complete understanding. Yes, this car has a material mechanism but beyond that
there is an intelligent person who has made the car and acknowledging that the
person has made the car does not mean that we stop investigating how the car
has been made or how can we operate it. But when we also get the
understanding that this particular car’s mechanism is made by the brain of a
particular person. So our appreciation for that person also increases. In fact, if
we want to say there are natural causes and super natural causes. That’s how
the atheists would like to portray the conflict. But the conflict is not between
natural and super natural causes. The conflict is between natural and intelligent
causes.

When investigators are doing research and they find that a knife has penetrated
somebody’s stomach. By looking at the way the knife has penetrated the
stomach they will investigate whether the knife has being intentionally put
there, somebody stabbed the person or it just accidently went in. So now one
cause would be natural. Ok, the person just fell and the knife was just standing
upright and it went into the stomach. They will investigate that possibility. And
they will say that somebody has intentionally put it in. So here the natural
explanation is somebody has fell on the knife and other was not a paranormal or
super natural explanation, natural cause is an intelligent cause. So inferring an
intelligent cause is not necessarily contrary to science.

In investigations if the investigators ruled out the intelligent cause then they
would not progress in investigation. That means in advance ruling out an
intelligent cause could well be a progress stopper. So it’s not that referring to an
intelligent cause has to be a progress stopper, ruling out an intelligent cause can
also be a progress stopper.

Same way there is nothing in the acceptance of God that necessitates the
stopping of progress. If we look at the world around us, we see things having
complexity, delicacy, intricacy, artistry, and from that we observe and figure out
what are material mechanisms by which it came out. But along with we also
think that how did these material mechanisms come in place. If these are so
carefully arranged, so intricately done, they point at an intelligent cause then
that itself is an expansion of knowledge. And accepting that Ford is the brain
behind a car does not stop our investigation of the mechanism of the car. It just
simply gives a greater understanding of the car. So actually being open to
wherever the evidence leads, which apart from natural explanation, that will also
involves the intelligent explanation, apart from natural cause, involves intelligent
cause also, then that is not restriction of knowledge, that is actually the
expansion of knowledge. It will not be stopping, it will be spreading of
knowledge for us. And in advance rejecting intelligent explanations is not open
mindedness, it is narrow mindedness and that is what will stop progress. Thank
you.