Presented at Synthesis of Science and Religion, a conference sponsored by the Bhaktivedanta Institute, in Calcutta, India, January 9-12, 1997.
IF THERE IS TO BE a synthesis of science and religion, there must be a real desire and need for cooperation. And one area in which the need for cooperation between science and religion is most deeply felt is that of concern for the environment.
In 1995 I attended a conference on population, consumption, and the environment, sponsored by the Boston Theological Institute and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Coming together at the conference were scientists, politicians, religionists, and environmental activists. I was invited as an author of the book Divine Nature: A Spiritual Perspective on the Environmental Crisis, which looks at the environmental crisis from the standpoint of the Vedic teachings of India.
A keynote speaker at the conference was Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior for the United States. For a politician, Babbitt gave a remarkable speech. He told of growing up in Flagstaff, Arizona, from which can be seen a large mountain. The mountain inspired in Babbitt a sense of something wonderful in nature, something godlike. Raised in the Catholic faith, Babbitt asked a priest about the mountain, hoping to gain some clue as to its spiritual significance. But he received no satisfactory answer, perhaps because his priest was used to thinking of God as remote from nature.
Later, Babbitt approached a friend his own age. This friend, who happened to be a Native American of the Hopi tribe, took Babbitt up to the mountain and explained to him its sacred nature. And from this Babbitt said he developed a sense of God's presence in nature to a degree not possible for him previously.
When I heard this I was reminded of the Bhagavad-gita, wherein Lord Krsna says, "Of immovable things I am the Himalayas, of flowing rivers I am the Ganges, of seasons I am the flower-bearing spring." Such expressions of God's immanence in nature are found throughout the Gita and other Indian spiritual texts.
Babbitt went on to say he understood that overconsumption was the underlying cause of most environmental problems. A general consensus at the conference held that the real issue was not overpopulation in the developing world but overconsumption, in the developed countries and increasingly in the developing ones as well. Babbitt said that as a politician he could not present to the people a program that would really solve the environmental problem. It would require too much sacrifice from the voters, so much that they would vote against anyone or any party that told them what would really be needed.
Secretary Babbitt then turned to the religionists present and said that only they could bring about the large-scale changes of values needed to reverse the process of environmental degradation.
Also speaking at the conference was Dr. Henry Kendall, professor of physics at MIT and president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. Kendall said that science can point out the dimensions of the environmental problem but cannot solve the problem. Science, he said, has no silver bullet, no technological fix for the environmental crisis. Like Secretary Babbitt, he recognized overconsumption as the cause of environmental degradation, and he too appealed to religion as the only force in the world capable of generating the changes in values needed to restrain humanity's destructive urge to overproduce and overconsume.
This was not the first time such suggestions had been made. In 1990, at the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders, held in Moscow, thirty-two scientists signed a joint declaration appealing to the world's religions to use their immense influence to preserve the environment. The scientists declared that humanity was committing "crimes against Creation." They also said, "Efforts to safeguard and cherish the environment need to be infused with a vision of the sacred."
These statements are somewhat ironic, for it is science itself, or, should I say, a particular brand of science, that is largely responsible for eliminating the sacred from our vision of the universe. Among the signers of the declaration were Carl Sagan and Stephen J. Gould. And I must say it was intriguing to see them endorsing such language as "crimes against Creation." In their writings both of them are generally quite hostile to the wordcreation, as is most orthodox science. It is interesting, however, how science and religion God's immanence in nature are found throughout the Gita and other Indian spiritual texts.
Babbitt went on to say he understood that overconsumption was the underlying cause of most environmental problems. A general consensus at the conference held that the real issue was not overpopulation in the developing world but overconsumption, in the developed countries and increasingly in the developing ones as well. Babbitt said that as a politician he could not present to the people a program that would really solve the environmental problem. It would require too much sacrifice from the voters, so much that they would vote against anyone or any party that told them what would really be needed.
Secretary Babbitt then turned to the religionists present and said that only they could bring about the large-scale changes of values needed to reverse the process of environmental degradation.
Also speaking at the conference was Dr. Henry Kendall, professor of physics at MIT and president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. Kendall said that science can point out the dimensions of the environmental problem but cannot solve the problem. Science, he said, has no silver bullet, no technological fix for the environmental crisis. Like Secretary Babbitt, he recognized overconsumption as the cause of environmental degradation, and he too appealed to religion as the only force in the world capable of generating the changes in values needed to restrain humanity's destructive urge to overproduce and overconsume.
This was not the first time such suggestions had been made. In 1990, at the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders, held in Moscow, thirty-two scientists signed a joint declaration appealing to the world's religions to use their immense influence to preserve the environment. The scientists declared that humanity was committing "crimes against Creation." They also said, "Efforts to safeguard and cherish the environment need to be infused with a vision of the sacred."
These statements are somewhat ironic, for it is science itself, or, should I say, a particular brand of science, that is largely responsible for eliminating the sacred from our vision of the universe. Among the signers of the declaration were Carl Sagan and Stephen J. Gould. And I must say it was intriguing to see them endorsing such language as "crimes against Creation." In their writings both of them are generally quite hostile to the wordcreation, as is most orthodox science. It is interesting, however, how science and religion tend to adopt each other's terminology when it suits them, often redefining the terms in the process. One of the tasks before us is to find a common language for science and religion, and use it with integrity for constructive dialogue.
Metaphysical Assumptions
When I use the word science, I mean science as governed by a certain set of metaphysical assumptions. Today's science is governed by metaphysical assumptions that eliminate the sacred from our vision of the universe, if by sacred we mean things connected with a personal God and distinct individual souls. It is quite possible, however, to have a science governed by metaphysical assumptions that would incorporate a genuine vision of the sacred.
But for today's science, governed by its present materialistic assumptions, nature is an object to be not only understood but dominated, controlled, and exploited. And it is science itself that has provided us with the instruments for such domination, control, and exploitation. Of course, I am speaking of technology.
Let's consider the automobile. It is certainly a convenience, but it has its downside pollution, for example. And in the United States alone about fifty thousand people a year are killed in automobile accidents. (For comparison: fifty thousand American soldiers were killed in the entire eight years of the American military involvement in Vietnam.)
The connection between a materialistic conception of the universe and a materialistic way of life was noted thousands of years ago in the Bhagavad-gita. The Gita (16.8) describes materialist philosophers thus: "They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control." And what is the practical outcome for people who live in societies dominated by this world view, which denies the fundamental reality of God and the soul? The Gita (16.11) says, "They believe that to gratify the senses is the prime necessity of human civilization. Thus until the end of life their anxiety is immeasurable." Such people, says the Gita (16.12), are "bound by a network of hundreds of thousands of desires."
Is this not our situation today? Are we not bombarded daily with messages from films, radio, newspapers, magazines, computers, and television, all attempting to entangle us further in hundreds and thousands of desires that can only be satisfied by consuming products manufactured by our thriving industries? The Gita (16.19) warns us that people like ourselves will "engage in unbeneficial, horrible acts, meant to destroy the world." And are we not gradually destroying our world, polluting its air and land and water and driving hundreds of species into extinction?
This situation presents humanity with an ethical dilemma. Put simply, ethics is a process for determining what is good and how to make choices that will establish and preserve what is good. Given the assumptions of modern materialistic science, it is difficult to construct an ethic for preserving the environment or saving endangered species.
According to today's dominant views, our planet, indeed our very universe, is the result of a cosmic accident, a chance fluctuation of the quantum mechanical vacuum. Given this assumption it is difficult to say that any particular state of our planet's environment is inherently good.
Ultimately, there is no reason to say that our earth, with its teeming life forms, is any better than Jupiter or Uranus, which according to modern astronomy are frozen lifeless planets with atmospheres composed of elements poisonous to us. Or looking at the history of our own planet, we have no reason to say that the present state of the environment is any better than that of the early earth, which according to modern geoscience was a lifeless rock with a thin reducing atmosphere hostile to today's life forms.
Alternative Viewpoints
So if we cannot say, on the basis of modern scientific assumptions, that any particular state of the environment is intrinsically good, and thus worthy of preservation, then perhaps we can approach the matter in another way. We can look at nature, at the environment, as an instrumental good. In other words, nature is something that yields things of value to living beings.
Generally speaking, we adopt an anthropocentric view and consider nature instrumental to the happiness of our own human species. But according to the assumptions of modern evolutionary science, our human species is an accidental product of millions of random genetic mutations. So there is nothing special about the human species and its needs.
Of course, we might take a larger view and appeal to nature as an instrumental good for an entire ecosystem, made up of many species. But again, we have the same problem. Why is today's ecosystem any better than the ecosystem of the Precambrian era, when, scientists tell us, there was no life at all on land, and in the oceans only jellyfish and crustaceans?
Another way to proceed is to regard the environment as a constitutive good. An acquaintance of mine, Jack Weir, professor of philosophy at Morehead State University in Kentucky, has presented such an argument. Put briefly, given the evolutionary assumptions of modern science we are what we are largely because of our environment. According to this view, we are in a sense constituted by our environmental surroundings. If our environmental surroundings were different, we would not be able to stay as we are.
But here again: Given the evolutionary assumptions of modern science, what is so special about our current status as humans? Why should it, and the environment that constitutes it, be considered worthy of preservation? Why shouldn't we continue on our present course of overconsumption and environmental destruction? Let natural selection continue to operate, as it supposedly has in the past. Let old species perish and new ones come into existence. Or let them all perish. Given that life itself is an accident of chemical combination in the earth's early oceans, it is difficult to say why there is any particular preference for a planet with life or without life.
Jack Weir backed up his claim that nature was a constitutive good with appeals to "scientific holism and epistemic coherency." But he admitted, "Other appeals could be made," such as to "stories and myths, religious traditions, and metaphysical beliefs."
Of course, one could also appeal to a different science, founded upon a different set of metaphysical assumptions and perhaps arriving at different conclusions about the origin of life and the universe.
If we look at the history of science, from the time of Newton until the present, we find that scientists have accumulated a large body of evidence suggesting a vital force operating in living things, a force operating beyond the laws of physics and chemistry as currently understood. All around the world we find great interest in alternative systems of medicine, such as the Ayur Veda, which are based on understanding this vital force, or forces. At the UCLA medical school there is an institute devoted to integrating the insights of traditional Eastern medical systems with Western medicine.
There is also quite an accumulation of evidence pointing to a conscious self that can exist apart from the physical organism. This evidence comes from studies of phenomena ranging from out-of-body experiences to past-life memories. Much of this evidence does not easily fit the materialistic assumptions of modern science and is therefore regarded with suspicion. But this evidence is increasing daily, and it could be incorporated into the framework of a new science operating with an expanded set of metaphysical assumptions.
Aside from the Bhaktivedanta Institute, a number of scientific societies are attempting this, among them the Society for Scientific Exploration, the Scientific and Medical Network in England, the Institute for Noetic Sciences in the United States, and the International Society for the Study of Subtle Energy and Energy Medicine. Furthermore, as scientists carry their research into the biomolecular machinery within the cell, they encounter structures and systems of irreducible complexity, leading some of them once more to seriously entertain the idea of intelligent design rather than chance evolution. In this regard, I can recommend biochemist Michael Behe's various papers or his recent book Darwin's Black Box.
Studies of the Paranormal
Last November I spoke to a gathering of physicists at the department of nuclear physics at the ELTE science university in Budapest, Hungary. I shared the podium with Maurice Wilkins, a British Nobel laureate in physics, whose discoveries helped in the construction of the first atomic bomb. The topic was, as here, science and religion. I chose as my topic physics and the paranormal. I proposed that if there was to be any synthesis of science and religion it would have to be on the mysterious ground of reality that lies between them, and undoubtedly the views about this ground would have to be renegotiated.
In physics, that might involve a return to an understanding of reality that had a nonmaterial, nonmechanistic component. I pointed out that Newton wrote just as much about alchemy and spiritual topics as he did about physics, optics, and mathematics, and that for Newton these were all part of one system, from which modern science has abstracted only the part that suits it.
The idea of serious investigation into nonmaterial or paranormal components of physical reality is today taboo, but it has not always been so. In the last century, Sir William Crookes, Nobel laureate in physics, discoverer of thallium, inventor of the cathode ray tube, and president of the Royal Society, conducted extensive research into the paranormal. The French physiologist Charles Richet, another Nobel laureate, who himself conducted extensive research into paranormal phenomena, tells us in his book Thirty Years of Psychical Research that he was sometimes assisted by Pierre and Marie Curie, who shared the Nobel prize in physics for their discoveries of radioactive elements. For example, we find Marie Curie observing a famous medium, while Pierre Curie measured the movements of objects under apparent psychokinetic influence.
I bring up these incidents not to prove the reality of the phenomena but to illustrate the open-mindedness of these famous experimental physicists, their willingness to investigate difficult and troubling phenomena. Isn't that what science, at its best, is supposed to be about?
After I finished my talk in Budapest, I wondered, of course, how it had been received. I was surprised when the head of the physics department of a major European university approached me and disclosed that in his home he had been privately conducting telepathic experiments. To his extreme surprise, he had achieved some interesting results, and he asked me if I could put him in touch with Americans conducting similar investigations.
Forming an Environmental Ethic
Now, what does all this have to do with the environment, with nature? Everything, because if we are going to formulate an environmental ethic, we first should understand what our environment really is. And from the Vedic, and in particular Vaisnava, standpoint, we would have to say that it is a divine energy, an energy emanating from a transcendent God who is nevertheless immanent in nature. Nature is itself populated with conscious entities and structured in a definite way for a definite purpose, namely providing an opportunity for these conscious entities to return to their original pure state.
There is a body of scientific evidence consistent with several elements of this view. In other words, religion may be something more than a socially useful set of beliefs that can be harnessed by science to help solve certain problems, such as the environmental crisis. It just may be so that religion has crucial insights into the nature of reality that can be foundational for a true synthesis of science and religion for the benefit of mankind.
With these foundational assumptions, formulating an environmental ethic becomes easier. Given that according to Vaisnava teaching this world is a reflection of a variegated, and essentially gardenlike, spiritual reality, we could say that there is some intrinsic value in attempting to maintain a state of the environment that most closely matches the original. When children learn, they generally copy letters. If their attempt resembles the original it is said to be good; if it does not, it is said to be bad. In the same way, we can propose that there is some intrinsic goodness to a particular state of environmental affairs.
Furthermore, certain Vedic principles contribute to a viable environmental ethic. The first of these is athato brahma-jijnasa. This is the opening mantra of the Vedanta-sutra. It means that the purpose of human life is cultivation of consciousness, including cultivation of the loving relationship between the individual consciousness and the supreme consciousness.
I want to interject here that not every religious teaching leads to a viable environmental ethic. Many manifestations of religion, like modern materialistic science, encourage destructive domination, exploitation, and unending consumption. But the Vedic system emphasizes the study and development of consciousness over the study and development of matter. Matter is not ignored, but it is seen in its connection with the supreme consciousness. In any case the principle of brahma-jijnasa encourages an ethic of moderation, which contributes to reasonable levels of economic development and consumption that would help unburden the ecosystem.
The Vedanta-sutra also says anandamayo 'bhyasat. We are meant for happiness, and by cultivating consciousness by proper means we can attain nonmaterial satisfaction. And this also sustains an ethic of moderation. The Gita says, param drstva nivartate: When you get the higher taste of developed spiritual consciousness, you automatically refrain from excessive material gratification. A proper balance is achieved.
The Role of Nonviolence
The Vedic principle of ahimsa, or nonviolence, also has its application. Nonviolence can be understood in many ways. For example, to encourage people to devote their lives to unrestrained material production and consumption can be considered a kind of violence against the human spirit. We just have to look around us to see the effects of this violence. If we look at Americans at Christmastime crowding into their shiny malls, and instead of heeding the Vedic teaching athato brahma-jijnasa devoting themselves to the teaching of "athato shop until you drop," we see a kind of violence. When we see young Chinese workers crowded into dormitories around the factories that provide most of the Christmas goods found in the American malls, we might also sense violence to the human spirit.
The principle of ahimsa can also be applied to the earth itself. We have recently heard of the Gaia principle, the idea that the earth is in some sense an organism. This principle has long been recognized in Vedic philosophy, and we should try not to commit violence to our planet by unnecessarily poisoning her air, land, and water.
And nonviolence also applies to other living things. Accepting the Vedic teaching of ahimsa, we will not hunt species to extinction. I will also point out that the killing of animals for food, especially animals raised in factory farms and killed in huge mechanized slaughterhouses, is one of the most environmentally destructive practices in the world today. It is wasteful of precious natural resources. It poisons the land and water.
Voluntary Simplicity
So the Vedic philosophy provides numerous supports for an ethic of environmental preservation. Similar support can be derived from the teachings of other great religious traditions of the world. But putting this wisdom into practice is difficult.
In many areas of ethical concern we can adopt an objective stance. But when we speak of the environmental crisis, we find that almost all of us are directly implicated. And it is therefore difficult to speak about environmental ethics without seeming hypocritical. Nevertheless we must speak. And this engenders in us a sense of humility, and also a sense that even small steps toward the real solution, which must be a spiritual solution, are to be welcomed and appreciated.
Alan Durning, a senior researcher at the World Watch Institute, writes, "It would be hopelessly naive to believe that entire populations will suddenly experience a moral awakening, renouncing greed, envy, and avarice. The best that can be hoped for is a gradual widening of the circle of those practicing voluntary simplicity."
In this regard, I want to briefly mention that His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada started several rural communities for demonstrating a life of such voluntary simplicity. Since his departure from this world in 1977, the number of such communities has increased to forty on five continents, in locations ranging from the Atlantic rain forest of Brazil to the steppes of Russia.
After I spoke to the physicists in Budapest, I had a chance to visit one of these communities. I have to confess I was rather astonished to find such a rural community founded on Vedic principles in the plains of southwestern Hungary. The center of the community was a somewhat modernistic temple, but when I inquired I learned that it had been constructed using rammed earth walls and other traditional techniques. No electricity was used in the temple or anywhere else in the community. Along the temple walls I saw brass lamps, which burned oil pressed from locally grown rape seeds.
It was a rather cold day in November, and I saw that the building was heated with super-efficient wood-burning stoves, using wood sustainably harvested from a fifty-acre plot of forest owned by the community. I was then offered a vegetarian meal, which featured locally grown vegetables, cheese from the community's cows, and capatis made from wheat grown and ground in the community. I learned that oxen are being trained to do farm work and transport.
The people I met did not seem in any way deprived. I told some of them, "You're doing the right thing." And isn't that what environmental ethics is all about not just talking about the right thing, but doing it?
To summarize, from the standpoint of Vedic principles I would say that the following elements are necessary for a complete solution to the environmental crisis: (1) a science that recognizes distinct conscious selves, emanating from an original conscious self, as fundamental entities, (2) a religion that goes beyond dogma and ritual to provide actual sources of nonmaterial satisfaction by practice of yoga, meditation, and so on, (3) respect for all living things, seeing them as conscious selves like us, (4) an ecofriendly vegetarian diet, and (5) an economic system founded on villages and small cities, emphasizing local production and self-sufficiency. Anything short of this will simply not give the desired result.
Drutakarma Dasa is a member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, specializing in the history and philosophy of science. He has been an editor of Back to Godhead since 1977.
Bringing Together Science and Religion
The Bhaktivedanta Institute presents the ideas of Krsna consciousness within the world of science. In honor of the 1996 Srila Prabhupada Centennial, the Institute organized the Second World Congress for the Synthesis of Science and Religion. Here we summarize the proceedings of the Congress, held on January 9-12, 1997, in Calcutta.
CONGRESS THEME: Conceptual Foundations for a Synthesis of Science and Religion.
ATTENDANCE: Nineteen hundred registered delegates and fifty-one invited scholars, representing fields such as biology, theology, astrophysics, atomic physics, cognitive science, nuclear chemistry, ecological psychology, mind-body medicine, and philosophy of science.
Inaugural Address
Prof. C. H. Townes, co-inventor of laser technology, argued that science and religion must converge, since both involve acts of faith. Prof. Townes outlined many problems and enigmas in modern science, and he concluded that science by itself is unlikely ever to meet all of our needs for knowledge.
First Day, Afternoon Session
Title: Religion and Explanation of the Natural World.
Because science has achieved great technological successes, its larger claims about the nature of life are being increasingly accepted, even if materialistic and mechanistic. If religion is to succeed in promoting a spiritual outlook, it must present not only theology but also an understanding of matter with demonstrable empirical content.
This theme was addressed by four eminent theologians, representing Judaism (Dr. D. Matt), Christianity (Prof. D. Foster), Islam (Ayatollah Dr. M. M. Damad), and Hinduism (His Holiness Bhakti Caru Swami).
Second Day, Morning Session
Title: Conceptual Foundations in Physical Sciences.
Prof. E. C. G. Sudarshan, a theoretical physicist from the University of Texas, gave the keynote address on science and creativity. The rest of the session focused on quantum physics. Prof. Amit Gowami, a theoretical physicist from the University of Oregon, offered a consciousness-based interpretation of quantum theory from the viewpoint of monistic Vedanta. Prof. E. MacKinnon of California State University at Hayward spoke on extending the interpretive ideas of Neils Bohr. Next, Rasaraja Dasa (Ravi Gomatam) of the Bhaktivedanta Institute spoke on "The Pragmatic and Mystical Elements in Einstein's Philosophy of Science."
Second Day, Afternoon Session
Title: Conceptual Foundations in Science: Life Sciences and Mathematics.
R. B. Woodward is a Nobel Prize-winning chemist famous for having elevated to an art the synthesizing of organic compounds. He visualized compounds in complex three-dimensional models, which often remarkably mirrored art patterns from ancient cultures, such as Hindu mandalas. His daughter, Dr. Crystal Woodward, a Ph.D. in art, spoke on her father's work and the nexus between conceptual objects and reality in art, religion, and chemistry.
Prof. Joe Kamiya spoke on the biofeedback theory, which he originated. Prof. V. Krishnamurthy, an Indian mathematician, examined the status of realism in science. Dr. Bruce Mangan from the University of California at Berkeley spoke about the emerging field of consciousness studies within science. Science, he noted, is dominated by varieties of materialism, such as strong reductionism (mental processes are identical and therefore reducible to physical workings in the brain) and functionalism (mental processes are emergent properties of complex physical structures). Yet this materialism has been only a brief interlude; science prior to World War I concerned itself with consciousness in its subjective fullness.
Third Day, Morning Session
Title: Science and Consciousness.
During several parallel sessions, scholars presented more than 130 papers. The papers dealt with three themes: (1) Models of Mind and Life, (2) Ecology and Values, (3) Rationality, Science, and Religion.
One paper, by Greg Anderson (Grantharaja Dasa) of the Bhaktivedanta Institute brought up that in spite of so much knowledge about cell biochemistry, scientists are still unable to synthesize the most basic living cell.
Third Day, Afternoon Session
This special session honored Srila Prabhupada on the occasion of his Centennial.
His Holiness Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Swami (Dr. T. D. Singh), international director of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, spoke about Srila Prabhupada's contribution to contemporary scientific and religious thought.
Prof. S. P. Olivier, who had received Srila Prabhupada at the University of Natal at Durban, recalled the impact of Srila Prabhupada's visit.
Dr. Dora Bazan from South America characterized Srila Prabhupada as a savior from the East.
Dr. Gregory Benford recalled his discussions with Srila Prabhupada in the gardens of ISKCON's Los Angeles temple.
Dr. Paul Dossick, M.D. (Pusta Krsna Dasa) spoke on the role of transcendental knowledge in scientific inquiry. He presented Srila Prabhupada's teachings on the soul, consciousness, and reincarnation.
Dr. N. D. Desai (Srinathaji Dasa), a prominent businessman from Mumbai, described Srila Prabhupada's views on business ethics.
His Holiness Jayapataka Swami recalled several of Prabhupada's rational arguments that appealed to the mindset of Western youth in the '60s.
Fourth Day, Morning Session
Title: Contemporary Ethical Challenges.
Prof. Gregory Benford discussed ethical issues in molecular biology. Dr. T. K. K. Iyer, a professor of law at Singapore University, emphasized that science and religion must join hands to guide the developing field of bioethics. Prof. Jonathan Shear from England, editor of The Journal for Consciousness Studies, argued that without acknowledging the inner domain of consciousness, neither science nor religion can usefully cultivate morality in the modern age. Drutakarma Dasa's paper, reprinted here, was given at this session.
Fourth Day, Concluding Session
An open panel of the invited speakers convened to further examine issues raised in the conference.