Unity of Science & Religion
Krishna Keshava Dasa
 Captions are available for this video in many different languages. Just click: Settings (⚙️) > Subtitles/CC > Auto-translate > Choose your preferred languageDear friends of the Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute, Namaste🙏🏻. Please find our study of Chapters 4-5 of Idols of the Mind vs. True Reality (2020) by Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph. D., below. In Chapter 4, the importance of considering all four of Aristotle’s aspects of cause in a holistic scientific approach to comprehending the totality of reality is reiterated, with particular emphasis on the final cause. After distinguishing between mechanical, chemical, and teleological/biological systems to clearly articulate the difference between insentient nonliving machines and sentient living organisms in Chapter 1, Dr. Puri ultimately acknowledges the insufficiency of a systems approach for genuinely comprehending the truth of living entities: “When the unity of the whole is sentient or self-conscious, even a systems approach will not be sufficient to explain its existence. Systems are not self-conscious.” Comprehending the truth of sentient living entities requires inquiring into their final end or that for the sake of which they exist, into the ultimate reason and purpose of self-conscious human existence. Inquiry into such “how” and “why” questions about life leads sincere seekers into the domain of science, philosophy, and religion. The answers to “how” and “why” questions are not mutually exclusive; neither are science and religion. Chapter 5 explains that realizing the unity of science and religion requires considering the role that consciousness and thought play in knowing the truth. Modern science studies the phenomenal world. In Kantian philosophy, phenomena — the appearance or being-for-consciousness of things apprehended through the five senses — are distinguished from noumena — the truth or being-in-itself of things independent of sensuous apprehension. Scientists observe phenomena like organisms, cells, molecules, and atoms, and assume that there is a true noumenal reality corresponding to these observations. Typically scientists do not observe nature and think that their observations are only within consciousness, scientists believe that they are observing natural phenomena as they actually exist external to and independent from the act of observation. This is why modern science is sometimes called naive realism; scientists make the unjustified presumption that the world as it appears to the senses is the world in truth. But this has started to change in quantum physics. In Physics and Philosophy (1958), Nobel laureate and pioneering quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg acknowledged that:
When scientists observe and study the phenomenal world, presume their observations directly correspond to the real world i.e. noumenal reality, posit such reality as being intrinsically mechanistic, and then build a system of scientific knowledge defining the original phenomena based on the presumed mechanistic metaphysics, they commit the logical fallacy petitio principii or begging the question — presuming the validity of an unproved conclusion in the premise of the proof of that very conclusion. This is the naivety of naive realism. Dr. Puri advocates that scientists soberly recognize that empirical science necessarily begins with metaphysical principles, the activity of thought and consciousness, instead of dishonestly or unconsciously smuggling mechanistic metaphysics into the premise of contemporary scientific investigation. The world is an idea; it is the concept of the overarching unity or totality of all the objects and subjective experiences on this planet or in reality, depending on our angle of vision. No one ever empirically observes the world, we only observe aspects of the world depending on our localized conscious experience. This holds true even in outer space. When one sees planet Earth from space, they do not see the little boy playing with his dog in a field or the saintly person practicing devotion in an ashram. Thus, we never see the totality that is the world — we only think about it. While empirical science studies the phenomenal world (that which is for-consciousness), philosophical science studies the noumenal world (that which is in-itself). Thus, contemporary scientists must embrace philosophy in order to reflect upon themselves and carefully observe the movement of thought that underpins their empirical approach to studying nature. What we hear, see, touch, taste, and smell is influenced by our mental conditioning from past experiences. These mental impressions form a filter of expectations based on what we believe to be real, and all sensuous experience passes through this filter of bias. Good and honest scientists put conscious effort into drawing unbiased and rational conclusions from their observation of natural phenomena, but they may not be completely aware of how deep the roots of materialistic bias have penetrated into modern science. Heisenberg explained further that:
The “Cartesian partition” refers to the artificially imposed divide between mind and matter. Properly comprehending the deep roots of materialistic bias in modern science requires us to reflect on the history of the development of ideas and the philosophy of science to observe how such theories developed and where they went wrong. This has always been the approach advocated and practiced by Dr. Puri. In brief, it is well-known that Aristotle (384-322 BC) taught that a complete assessment of nature requires considering the four aspects of cause: material (what a thing is made of), formal (the blueprint, design, or formative principles of a thing), efficient (the agent that acts on a thing to form it), and final (the end or purpose that a thing ultimately serves). The so-called fathers of modern science like Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and Rene Descartes (1596-1650) consciously worked to overthrow Aristotle’s approach. Bacon taught that science is only concerned with the material and efficient cause (leaving the formal and final out of the picture). In The Great Instauration he also specifically encouraged scientists not to mention the self: “Of ourselves we say nothing” (Latin: de nobis ipsis silemus). Descartes seemed to advocate that mind (res cogitans) and matter (spatially extended bodies — res extensa) were two distinct and separate substances, thus scientists could focus on studying matter without being concerned with the influence of mind. He also promoted the study of space and time within a mathematical framework (the Cartesian plane). Galileo (1564-1642) seems to be the main contributor to this effort of mathematizing nature by advocating that “the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics.” He distinguished between quantitatively measurable “primary qualities” such as length, weight, mass, etc., and “secondary qualities” like color, taste, etc., what are called “qualia” today. The unexplainable existence of qualia (in terms of modern science) seems at the heart of what is popularly called “the hard problem of consciousness.” So, due to modern science’s historic disregard for formative principles and final ends, avoiding the role of the self in science, separating mind and matter, prioritizing quantifiable aspects of nature, and presuming that such quantified nature is ultimately understood only through mathematics, we are left with a mechanistic science that reduces organic nature to a machine where natural laws reign supreme without any intelligence enforcing them, and where sentient living entities are conceived as complex conglomerates of insentient material building blocks. So, after almost 500 years of being conditioned to disregard the intrinsic significance of thought/consciousness and the role that they play in modern science, pioneers of quantum physics like Heisenberg were revolutionary in calling attention to the “Cartesian partition” and its crippling effect on scientific progress. Diving deeper into a scientific study of thought and consciousness requires considering what has already been said by individuals with penetrating insight. G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) showed that consciousness is fundamentally a subject-object structure. So, it is important to consider the dynamic relation between (1) the observer/knower/subject, being-for-self, (2) the observed/known/object, being-in-itself, and (3) observing/knowing/consciousness (subject-object relationship), being-for-consciousness. Dr. Puri suggests that the study of knowing is epistemology, the study of the known is ontology, and the study of the knower is theology. Considering Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) unity of apperception is helpful for recognizing the concrete relationship between subjects/observers and objects/observed. The unity of apperception is what Kant called the essential role that the observer plays in unifying the otherwise diverse qualities of an observed object. The sensory data of sweetness, cubeness, hardness, whiteness, etc., seem different and opposed to one another, yet an observer knows these qualities to reside within a sugar cube. This unifying role that the subject plays when observing a multiplicity of qualities and recognizing a singular object is applicable to all natural phenomena.  Subjects and objects, like mind and matter, are irreducibly inseparable and interdependent. Dr. Puri sometimes says that “the object is what the subject knows it to be.” This does not mean that true reality lacks objectivity and is different for everyone based on their subjective disposition, as Bhakta Terese asked during our group discussion above. A thorough comprehension of the distinction and relation between Subjective, Objective, and Absolute is found in Hegel’s Encyclopedia of Spirit, but we will not get into that here. During the group discussion, we considered how a tree has an existence in-itself as a photosynthetic organism that consumes carbon dioxide and produces oxygen as it develops from a seed into a fully mature fruit-bearing tree. The tree also has an existence that is for-consciousness, an aspect of it that exists publicly for other sentient living entities to observe and interact with. Thus, humans can disregard the tree’s existence as a CO2-absorbing, oxygen-producing, fruit-bearing sentient living entity and exploit it for the utility of its raw material; the wooden body of the tree is used to make paper, fuel, tools, utensils, weapons, furniture, and construction materials. Whether a person decides to leave a tree alone in fulfilling its ecological role within an ecosystem or chop it down and use it as a source of raw material for human society is determined by the particular content of their consciousness. This may be seen as one example of the object being what the subject knows it to be. Studying the dynamic interpenetrating relationship between subject and object is important for a comprehensive knowledge of reality. We find a systematic study of this in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), where the development of the experience of consciousness from Sensuous Apprehension, to Perception, and Understanding, then into the higher regions beyond consciousness, of Self-consciousness, Reason, and Spirit. In Idols of the Mind vs. True Reality, Dr. Puri introduces us to the three elementary forms or stages of consciousness described by Kant — Sensuous Apprehension, Perception, and Comprehension. Learning about these helps to recognize the direction of conscious development and how the content of consciousness changes through such development. This is the evolution of consciousness. Less developed consciousness tends to be stuck in polarizing, dualistic, or divisive understanding, where it is thought that reality can only be known by reducing it to its most basic parts. More developed consciousness utilizes holistic reason and recognizes an irreducible overarching unity/totality/whole that sublates the parts within it for the whole’s own purposes. In nature, this is the difference between mechanical and biological objects. The “being-for-other” of an organism refers to the necessarily interdependent relationship of each part (cell, tissue, organ, etc), each relying on (1) themself, (2) each other, and (3) the totality of the organism as a whole. This is not found in machines, which are systems that are created by an external agent and for external purposes as opposed to biological systems which develop through internal agency and serve their own internal purposes. A comprehensive knowledge of living entities transcends a systems approach though, as Dr. Puri explained in Chapter 4, since “[s]ystems are not self-conscious.”  During the above dialogue with long-time friend and Hegelian scholar Dr. Robert Wallace, Dr. Puri inquired about the reason behind Hegel discussing the category of Life initially in Logic and then again in Nature. What is the difference between the logical idea of life and the natural phenomena of living organisms?
Dr. Puri expressed that the point of union between science and religion is the scientific study of life. Our recent article “The Law of Biogenesis: Life & Matter come from Life” explores this topic. When studying cells and organisms, scientists must change the categories of thought that they employ to account for and describe the sentient behavior of living entities. This has given rise to the emerging field of cognitive biology pioneered by the groundbreaking work of individuals like Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock (1902-1992), molecular biologist James Shapiro, and others. Dr. Puri explained that the Hegelian concept of the True Infinite — discussed by individuals like Alper Turken and Dr. Robert Wallace — is important for comprehending what life is and why it does what it does. After Dr. Wallace acknowledged that “Your book is so full of rich ideas [...] it’s a lovely introduction to all sorts of major concepts,” Dr. Puri offered that Idols of the Mind vs. True Reality is intended to be a general outline of important concepts to consider at the intersection of science, philosophy, and religion so that people who go deeper into these studies have a general direction to move in, in order to put together a more detailed account of the subject matter. We extend our sincere gratitude to everyone who participated and contributed to this study.
Humbly in service, Krishna Keshava Das Serving Assistant to Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph. D. Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture and Science Princeton, New Jersey, USA ww.bviscs.org // linktr.ee/bviscs We are appending a portion of the dialogue between Dr. Wallace and Dr. Puri that sparked an interesting exchange with one of the admins of the Hegel Study Group on Facebook. We will not get into the details of the exchange here, since it is more relevant to IMvTRstudy Chapter 3 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, but readers are welcome to check it out on their own.
We are 100% funded by well-wishers. To support us in expanding our capacity to fulfill our mission through local and online community programs that encourage spiritual culture, and educational programs that consider spiritual science among students and professionals in scientific and academic communities, kindly consider making a donation — a devotional contribution. We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit educational organization — all donations are tax deductible. EIN# 20-8332347
© 2023 Bhakti Vedanta Institute
|
