How does science explain the presence of God?

 Science seeks to explain material nature and also life and consciousness. It treats life and consciousness as if they were material phenomena because those are the rules. Since neither of them are, this is causing problems. Because the origins of both matter and consciousness remain unresolved, science continues searching for breakthroughs with promises of “in the future.”

Some interpret the discovery of natural laws and processes as reducing the need for God, while others see their existence as evidence of God. The same data can support different philosophical conclusions. Both views can be held by individual scientists, but only the first is allowed in ‘science’.

From the evidence, one could reasonably infer that the universe is designed, since inference is a recognized scientific method. Yet science, by its own rules, does not permit appeals to design or intelligence as explanations. So, even when notable scientists admit the universe appears designed, acts as if it’s designed they tell us that it’s not. Then they propose naturalistic alternatives. These alternatives are speculative, reflecting not the evidence but the philosophical commitment to keep science away from design. In other words it’s not evidentiary based but philosophically based.

Modern science often claims neutrality, but it cannot escape its cultural background. In the West, “design” was historically tied to the Judeo‑Christian God, so science’s rejection of design is less about evidence and more about distancing itself from religion. This bias goes unnoticed in mainstream discourse, but a Vaishnava perspective has a different take. Design need not mean the supernatural and a supreme God, it can also point to subordinate beings like Brahma, who is mortal and part of the cosmic order. Science’s assumptions are obviously not purely impartial, but shaped by its cultural background where design implies the supernatural. If it were not for this religious baggage that still haunts and influences science, then some form of natural design could readily be inferred.

When the Antikythera mechanism was discovered, no one said “We don't know who made this, therefore we cannot infer that anyone made it.” Nor did they say ““If we infer a designer, we have accepted the existence of God.” Examining the mechanism we can confidently infer design without knowing the designer's name, nationality, religious beliefs, which workshop produced it or even what tools were used.

“We don't know the designer” is not the same as “there was no designer.”

Science assumes the only alternative to blind natural processes is the Christian God. If it’s impartial and neutral why does it do that?

What’s the problem with inferring natural design and a natural designer? That doesn’t get us to God, but it gets us closer to the First cause. Isn’t that what science would like to do?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does Lord Krishna says about death in the Bhagavad Gita?

Lord Krishna says death both exists and doesn’t exist. Bhagavad Gita straddles the two worlds of the absolute and the relative. Krishna speaks transcendent truths but applies them in the temporal, mundane world. This is the role of a guru. He must reveal what is beyond sense perception but through the medium of sense perception. He must explain what reality is, using what is not reality. Krishna says that for the soul there is neither birth nor death. (BG. 2.20) Obviously, for matter, there is no death because it’s not alive. So the soul doesn’t die, and matter doesn’t die, and there are only these two energies in the material world (BG 7.4–5), so what is death?
Read more

Action in Inaction and Inaction in Action as per Bhagavad Gita

Under the laws of karma, every action carries a reaction. Only by having zero personal attachments and desires can one avoid reactions Theoretically, if we don’t perform any action there won’t be any reaction which is what we want right? But it’s not possible to live in this world and not perform any activity. People may sit silently in meditation trying to control and empty the mind, but this is still activity. They must eat something, breath, move around a little, so even though they may appear to be inactive, there are still reactions being chalked up, so they are not ‘inactive’ because reactions are accumulating. So actually they are performing actions even though aiming for inaction. This is the meaning of seeing action in inaction. Another person may be active, but their consciousness is completely devoid of any personal desires or interest in their activity so there will be no reaction. It’s as if they were inactive.
Read more

Difference between Shrimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita

Bhagavad Gita is mainly philosophical. It was spoken by Krishna Himself and is the conclusion of all the Upanisadas. In this unparalleled dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna everything that is important in life is mentioned. In itself it is complete but it is very concise and Krishna deals with one point after another without elaborating. It serves to orient a person so that they know who they are and what they should be doing. While Bhagavad Gita is only 700 verses, Srimad Bhagavatam is 18,000 verses, but the conclusion is the same. The difference between Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita is in the detail. For example, in Bhagavad Gita Krishna says: This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kunti, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again. Bg 9.10
Read more

What is human fallibility and redemption as per Bhagavad Gita?

A human is a spirit soul in a human body. The spirit soul or jivatma is always pure, but due to its tiny size it can fall into illusion and think it is its body. In its embodied state the jivatma is fallible. Once we are under the illusion that we are our ‘human’ body, we are restricted by the limitations of the body. We have imperfect senses, we make mistakes, we fall into deeper illusion, and we cheat. These are the basic failings of humans and the result of them is that we make errors. The theological concept of redemption is to be forgiven and freed from the consequences of these errors. It’s more commonly used in Abrahamic religions. In Christianity I believe Christ is understood to be the redeemer of all mankind by his death. Judaism and Islam don’t agree with that understanding but the core principle of being forgiven and freed from bondage is still present and dependent on the Lord’s mercy. The understanding in Sanatan Dharma is that the Lord can forgive and free the living ent...
Read more