We must be very clear: there is no intelligence or plan implied by the concept of evolution. There is no purpose or guide behind it.
Where does the idea that "evolution = atheism" come from?
The quote above is not from an atheist pushing his "God does not exist agenda". This is not someone using empirical science to push a metaphysical attack on religion. Rather it comes from a Hare Krishna, a fundamentalist, seeking to prove, or at least make a case for the existence of God through empirical arguments [source].
However, a quote like that would not be out of place coming out of the mouth of Professor Richard Dawkins.
How has this evolution=atheism agenda become so entrenched that evangelists on both sides of the "God exists/doesn't exist" divide unquestioningly accept it?
Can we question this sacred cow dogma? Or do we risk being attacked by faithful fundamentalists on both sides if we dare to raise this question?
Argumentum Ad Hominem
One commenter on this site had the following to say:
All the so-called evidence has been manipulated to fool people because they have an social agenda. The only people that support evolution either have a social agenda, or they are not very well educated with the reality of the problems of evolutionary theory.
According to this narrative, evolutionary theory originates from people who generated it for the purpose of fulfilling a social agenda, rather than from the empirical scientific method of generating a hypothesis and testing its strength against previously observed phenomena, and its strength in making testable predictions.
Since that time it has been propagated by people who either have a social agenda, or else have been fooled.
Here's my problem with that:
Science means successive approximation. If there is another coherent theory that explains the observed phenomena (dinosaurs, multiple strata of lifeforms of different but related species over millions of years, etc...), and makes useful and testable predictions, and does so better than evolution does, then what is it?
Scientists in general do not "believe in evolution" because of a social agenda. They accept it as the current best working theory in the absence of another more powerful one.
Religious creation narratives simply do not cut it. The Jewish/Christian narrative does not account for dinosaurs, and does not account for the age of the Earth.
An early attempt by the Church to censure evolution because it contradicted that empirical model, and thus threatened the empirical underpinnings of their religion, pushed evolution to an atheistic conclusion.
Since "belief in God" was predicated on the Bible in Western countries, and evolution undercut the empirical model of the Bible, it also undercut the metaphysical conclusions. The more the Church tried to hold on to the empirical narrative, the more they lost ground on the metaphysical narrative.
Attacking evolution on the grounds that it has a social agenda, coming from people who are launching this attack precisely because they have a social agenda, is kind of ironic - and hypocritical.
If there is a better empirical explanation, then let's hear it: a coherent narrative that explains the observed phenomena and makes testable predictions.
Otherwise, evolution wins as the current scientific model.
However, it's not at all intrinsically atheistic. Religionists like to cast it as atheistic in order to use their metaphysical authority to make up for their lack of an empirical narrative to counter it with.
Evolution is an explanation of a mechanism. It talks about how things happen. It can't explain why in terms of an ultimate cause. However, it has become linked with materialism - a metaphysical idea that matter is a self-sufficient ultimate causal agent.
How did that happen? Because, as I mentioned above, religionists forced it into that position in order to protect their empirical models of creation. Atheists were then happy to co-opt it as their own "creation narrative".
So Christians have 6 day creation and a 6000 year old Earth. Hindus have flying mountains and oceans of milk, and the atheists get handed evolution (and science) on a golden platter.
Good one.
Beware the Believers
Is evolution true? Do I believe?
As Richard Dawkins says: "Beware the believers", and that goes for both sides of the fence.
Evolution is a theory. Every theory has holes, because it's not perfect. As an explanation of observed phenomena and ability to make testable predictions it's the current best fit model. If you have a better one, feel free to spell it out and I'll take a look at it - I am not a believer.
Maybe it is wrong and it just looks like it accounts for all the things it does. However, and here is the rub: there is as yet no other coherent narrative that accounts for things as much as evolution does.
When a better one comes along, it will take over as the dominant scientific paradigm.
The only reason that evolution = atheism is because religionists insist that their creation narrative must be true otherwise God doesn't exist.
Protecting the creation stories at the expense of science
In order to hold onto the empirical aspects of their narrative religionists have fought and demonized science and scientists at every stage.
If the Church had their way, we would be living on a flat earth at the center of the universe.
Galileo, who discovered and taught that the Earth rotates around the Sun, and not vice versa, was found guilty of heresy and placed under permanent house arrest. His books were banned for nearly 100 years. I'm sure that at the time the Church characterized him as "having a social agenda".
What was happening was that the empirical model promoted by the Church was being undercut by observation and the scientific method. The response? Demonize the scientist and suppress the science.
But don't take my word for it - read for yourself the Church of England's official apology to Darwin, published this year, where they admit that this is what happened.
If not Evolution, then what?
I have to be honest with you - I can't even find a coherent alternative empirical model being promoted by people who opposed evolution.
On this blog Shiva das has been strongly arguing against evolution, but for whatever reason he seems reticent to share an alternative narrative for me to consider.
Apparently, I am miseducated or ill-motivated in accepting evolution as the current best fit, and I should instead think.... [this part is missing]
This doesn't leave me with anything to evaluate, and just turns into an unfounded attack, as most religious attacks on evolution these days seem to be.
For the fundamentalist, evolution is not true because, for them, it "can't be true". For me, evolution could be true, and I have an open mind and am prepared to evaluate different coherent narratives of physical mechanisms.
Krishna Consciousness is meant to be "the positive alternative". Krishna says that param drstva nivartate - by experiencing a higher taste you automatically give up the lower taste. OK, so where is that alternative narrative to evolution? The compelling coherent explanation that explains the observed phenomena and makes useful and testable predictions?
Without presenting this, simply making the equation that if you accept evolution as the best fit working model of empirical science you are an atheist just doesn't work for me.
Conclusion
My observation is that religionists oppose evolution because the social authority of their metaphysical narrative (about the existence and nature of God) relies on their ability to also deliver empirical explanations about the physical universe.
Because evolution contradicts these empirical explanations, they oppose it. However, due to the limited amount of data covered by religious empirical explanations religionists are unable to present an opposing empirical explanation of the same scope as evolution.
Evolution could be wrong. But it doesn't have to be atheistic. Trying to make it out to be so is not just an attack on a scientific theory, it's an attack on the scientific method.
Last word to Srila Prabhupada:
"The scientific discoveries of the material world can also be equally engaged in carrying out His order. "
- Srila Prabhupada, Srimad Bhagavatam 1.5.36
evolution
Hare Krsna Sitapati prabhu, all glories to Srila Prabhupada
I was surprised to read your comments following a quote from an excerpt of a book I am currently writing. You may know that I recently sent you a very brief e-mail asking a couple of questions. In essence, I wanted to understand more about your position before further commenting or engaging in dialog with you. Evidently, you felt no compunction to do likewise, but seem to be satisfied with your immediate impressions, assumptions and interpretations ... not only content with your own 'reality,' but instantly willing to be not merely critical or judgmental, but somewhat rude.
So first of all, I must address that. Regardless of whatever one's point of view might be, whether it really is superior or right, I suggest that since the real purpose of our discourse is to encourage deeper consideration regarding life in general, then we engage in such a way as to invite the other to listen. I did not find your opening response (beginning with 'Hare Krishna fundamentalist) to the quote of mine to be at all respectful or objective, and my personal reaction to exchanges you have had with others on your blog (that I only tuned in to very recently) is that aside from the question as to whether or not your points are accurate, and in keeping both with logic and with the philosophical siddhantas and express instructions of our guru, Srila Prabhupada, was the sense that for you, this is primarily a sport, where it is at least as important for you to feel that you are the winner as to advance a goal of respectful dialog that can indeed nurture inner growth, even enlightenment.
In other words, you may wish to consider that one of the greatest banes our movement has experienced since Srila Prabhupada gifted us with this philosophy is that our purification, our transcending our own egos, has not necessarily kept pace with our increased intellectual and philosophical understanding and dexterity. So that in the name of 'preaching,' which properly requires tremendous sensitivity and awareness for where the other is coming from, and for how our words might land on them, along with affectionate concern and humility, and so many other Vaisnava qualities that are not usually second-nature for persons of our background and rajasic/tamasic conditioning ... well, we can instead fall victim to our ego's desires for recognition and distinction and superiority, and so engage in 'preaching' in order to pander to such very motives.
Just a thought prabhu - I write this not to single you out, to suggest that you are guilty of something I of course would never do! Rather, I am very intimately aware of such behavior and motivation, having indeed been guilty of it for most of my life, and trying to watch out for my inner wolf (egotism) trying to slip on the mask of the sheep (devotee), as it were. And I encourage you to re-read the various exchanges you've had with other devotees on this blog, as if you were just the observer, rather than identifying your own words and position and enjoying what you perceive to be your powerfully asserting your position above theirs.
So, none of the above has anything to do with the actual topic of evolution. And I will make some very few responses to what seems to be your general gist.
First and foremost is that regardless of what any of us think, we are all immeasurably fortunate to have come under the guidance of a genuine transcendentalist, and as we surrender our own conditioned thoughts and perceptions to his teachings, we become liberated from illusion.
So let us be absolutely clear about one thing: Darwin's ideas, regardless of how appealing they may appear to be to anyone's conditioned vision, were utterly rejected by Srila Prabhupada, who also said that whoever is kicking on Darwin's face is directly engaged in serving the deities. So then what should our position be? Do we think that we see better than Srila Prabhupada, that somehow or other our vision has gone beyond the unimaginably thick layers of material energy that is surrounding us, surrounding the entire universe, and has directly perceived reality in another way? That perhaps Srila Prabhupada's opinion is not based in transcendental realization, but merely in the limited understanding/awareness of the period when he was educated?
Philosophically, it is not hard to understand how Darwinian evolution and transmigration of the soul are incompatible - karma demands that all possible material situations are already existing for the soul to enter whatever body type is appropriate. Not that the soul has to wait for one body-type or another to randomly appear after so many millennia. Not only this, but if you wish to say that evolution is not at all identified with atheism, so that it is in fact merely God's way of fulfilling His purposes (which many Christians, though not usually of the re-born denominations, also believe- see the recent book "Thank God For Evolution"), then we have to talk about what evolution actually is, because your idea is not in accord with all the scientific 'fundamentalists' (I think you would refer to them as, since they are committed to non-cooperation between evolution and theism) from Darwin and Huxley on through to Gould and Dawkins.
Evolution implies random and accidental developments, spontaneous responses to the environmental stimuli in the moment, all under the aegis of 'survival.' This means that there is no clear plan being followed, where what species may be appearing is a pre-determined series of events. Sometimes we may talk about a building-project 'evolving.' But such use of the word 'evolve' has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. The building-project is the step-by-step manifestation of an exact plan, wherein is already listed the exact form and number of all the composite parts and how to connect them in what order. In other words, there is a very specific, planned and managed progression from one step to the next, which has nothing to do with evolution.
I think the essential conflict has been best expressed by Chicago genetecist Jerry Coyne in a letter to Playboy that Dawkins happily reproduced in his "The God Delusion": "To scientists like Dawkins and Wilson (celebrated Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson), the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition." You might claim, oh, but they're all fundamentalists - and I would agree, but for different reasons to you, I suspect.
Anyway, this leaves you in an interesting position: you seem to disagree both with the position of the majority of accepted scientific authorities on the subject of evolution, as well as with the viewpoint of the transcendental acaryas, all of which you hope to dismiss with the demeaning term 'fundamentalist.' However, that term is not a proof of anything, it's merely a judgmental assertion of one's own prejudice and pre-conception, until and unless you properly substantiate your use of the word.
There is so much more that can be said on this subject ... but before I present anything more substantial for your further consideration, I will wait to see if you are indeed interested to engage in a form of exchange that I would also like to engage in.
Meanwhile you request a 'better empirical explanation ... that is a coherent narrative, explains observed phenomena, offers testable predictions' ... otherwise, you suggest, evolutionary theory wins by default." Have you heard the old series of lectures given by our recently passed mahatma, Sadaputa das, called "Origins," that offered details of the actual process of creation of various species by the prajapatis? Aside from anything else, I present many arguments to show that evolutionary theory utterly fails in those very regards, there has been zero observation of evolution actually occurring (only assertions that different phenomena are linked by such a process), zero testable predictions, and an utterly incoherent narrative. Moreover, regardless of whether all known alternative ideas are wrong, scientific truth is not established by default - rather, there must be clear observation, theory and experiment, giving specific laws that allow us to produce testable results, etc. And evo. theory hopelessly fails in these criteria.
Meanwhile I might mention that the book I am writing is not in fact a book on evolution. It is rather intended to address institutional dogmas and disconnects in general, in the name of both science and religion, for the sake of developing an interest in non-sectarian spirituality. Evolution is but one portion of my book, and since I have in fact completed that portion, I am thinking to publish it ahead of time as an excerpt from the whole book.
I wish you well,
Narasingha Gurudas
Secondly:
Secondly:
Could you please quote something to establish the philosophical assertion as being sastric.
Empirically, this idea seems to be contradicted by the existence of fossil forms that are no longer visibly active - such as T.Rex, etc. All possible material situations are not always active, at least on this planet, according to the fossil record.
Dear Narasingha Gurudas,
Dear Narasingha Gurudas,
I will separate my reply to this comment into two parts, because your comment addresses two different things.
First:
You might notice that while I frequently address what people say on my blog, I am very careful about talking about their internal states or imputing motives to them.
We can say things with some certainty about our own internal state, but about others, not so much. And one of the reasons I am careful about talking about the internal states of others is precisely because it reveals more about me than anything else. atmavan manyate jagat.
The quote that you are referring to was not intended to be about you personally - which is why your name is not attached to it (you might notice that I frequently attribute quotes to persons). I am sorry to be the cause of any misunderstanding in this case. I took your statement as representative of a particular approach. I am pointing out that people on opposite sides of the "belief in evolution" divide both accept that evolution is atheistic. Personally I do not either "believe" or "disbelieve" in evolution, which are two sides of the same coin. I approach it with an open mind understanding that it is a model that is imperfect, but may have some insights to offer. I also do not accept the metaphysical atheism that has become wedded to the empirical explanation, and I have explained in length why these two things are quite separate.
I don't think that "Hare Krishna fundamentalist" is disrespectful. You seem to be quite proud of adopting that intellectual approach. Not in the Hare Krishna fundamentalist sense of proud as an anartha, but in the sense of feeling that it is a worthy approach for you to take. I have no problem with that and do not denigrate you for it. I think this is an objective analysis, and the quote below demonstrates what I am talking about:
Ahem, Hare Krishna fundamentalist. QED.
Nothing wrong with that, but yes, this is pretty much the definition. I don't see how that is disrespectful. To me it seems quite objective. Your approach begins and ends with "Prabhupada said it, I believe it, that settles it".
I also accept what Srila Prabhupada said - along with my own responsibility (I'm talking about me here, not anyone else) to think about it, consider it, attempt to defeat it with every argument I can put together, and to successfully defend it.
I don't accept the dichotomy between "Either we take everything Prabhupada said literally or we relativize him".
A recent story on Planet ISKCON, ironically literally about "kicking in their faces", illustrates the dilemma. I can't find the link right now (maybe someone else can?). Prabhupada said to kick in the face of someone who rolls around in kirtan in ecstasy. So in Krishna Balarama mandir one local rolled around in ecstasy and a brahmacari kicked him in the head a few times and threw him out of the temple. The locals were incensed. When Srila Prabhupada heard about this he became angry, as well as incredulous, and sent that devotee out of Vrndavan.
The author of the story says that the brahmacari did not understand that Srila Prabhupada was not speaking literally, but was being sarcastic when he said that. He was being overstating his point for effect (a technique I also used with your quote).
My point here is not to establish that "Srila Prabhupada was being sarcastic when he said X", but rather that every take on what Srila Prabhupada said and how to apply it is an interpretation - even the so-called "literal interpretation". I don't deny you the right to have yours.
At the end of the day we are all individuals, not clones, either of each other, or of Srila Prabhupada.
Re-phrased Response, with more "structure."
1) RE: YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU PREFER TO CONSIDER THINGS 'ONE AT A TIME'
Be that is it may, you have in fact made a number of comments regarding quite a few separate, though related, issues, that I would like to 'briefly' respond to.
2) RE: YOUR JUDGMENT OF 'FUNDAMENTALISM'
To be precise, "ahem, Hare Krsna fundamentalism, QED." You do not believe you are being disrespectful - but when you pass a demeaning judgment, and more as a quick political dismissal rather than as a well-worked out philosophical rebuttal, it indeed comes across as disrespectful, condescending, etc. As does the somewhat mocking tone in your statement "Prabupada said it, I believe it, that settles it" which you expand so as to necessarily imply the dichotomy between "taking everything Prabhupada said literally or relativizing him."
I say 'mocking,' or 'superior,' because you simultaneously point out an alternative and more enlightened way of seeing that is beyond such a dichotomy, which I certainly appreciate and try to engage in myself, re. thinking about, considering, trying to defeat and then defending - but you've already implied views and opinions other than your own to clearly be stuck in the lower and limited 'fundamentalist' dichotomy.
And I say that (your use of) the term fundamentalist is demeaning, in accordance with the popular usage of the term even though it more accurately means one who rigidly adheres to fundamental principles ... because you apply it to both sides of the evolution or atheism argument, which are both, in your opinion, wrong.
3) RE: THE UNDERLYING ERROR IN YOUR DICHOTOMY REGARDING HOW WE CAN ATTEND TO SRILA PRABHUPADA'S TEACHINGS
I think you are confusing apples and oranges here. Of course many things that Srila Prabhupada said were in regard to specific circumstances, and therefore not intended to be applied carte blanche to every circumstance. But that does not mean that therefore we are free to accept or reject everything he said. Especially in regard to very clear and very definite points of siddhanta. In these regards we are not at liberty, as students and disciples of the self-realized acarya, to imagine that our hopelessly conditioned thinking is of equal or even greater relevance than his teachings.
The question for devotees in the current reference must be what does Srila Prabhupada say regarding Darwinism, does he make merely some casual passing comment that we may consider has but very limited application relative to specific circumstances only ... or has he in fact said many things about this subject, that are entirely consistent with each other, and expressed with both clarity and vehemence?
Before I answer this (ALONG WITH YOUR CHALLENGE TO PROVIDE SHASTRIC EVIDENCE FOR MY PREVIOUS CLAIM), I must refer to what I find to be the most surprising statement you have made, in the style of 'the kettle calling the pot black.'
4) RE: YOUR JUDGMENT THAT "OTHERWISE WE WILL HAVE TO DOWNGRADE (your, i.e. Narasingha Gurudas' statements) TO OPINION
I really never imagined that my statements would stand out in this regard in your blog, which is a mix of your own somewhat original opinions( although these are for the most part, I would argue, misinformed, faulty and at loggerheads with our guiding teachings) along with a peppering of various quotes from Srila Prabhupada by which it seems that you hope to lend credibility to your opinions by association, although you quite fail at showing how the quotes actually apply to your words.
For Example: You previously wrote: "EVOLUTION COULD BE WRONG. BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ATHEISTIC. TRYING TO MAKE IT OUT TO BE SO IS NOT JUST AN ATTCK ON SCIENTIFIC THEORY, IT IS AN ATTACK ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD." And you follow this with Srila Prabhupada's statement that "The scientific discoveries of the material world can also be equally engaged in carrying out His order."
There is so much wrong, so much utterly unwarranted and erroneous assumption in these few lines, it is hard to know where to begin. For someone who 'prefers to consider things one at a time, this is one heck of a complex jumble of separate points/assumptions.
a) "EVOLUTION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ATHEISTIC"
Not only is this simply your opinion, but you have not provided any reasonable argument to support this conclusion. You provide a very abridged and romanticized pseudo-history of how evolution was pushed into being aligned with atheism because of the church's response ... but that is nonsense.
Darwin turned towards atheism because, like so many persons who are raised in a faith sadly lacking in much philosophical substance, he could not accept that there could be a God who allowed/endorsed/cultivated so much suffering in His creation, much of it directly attributable to religion itself! His motives were clear; and he was attended to by Huxley, who was actually more responsible for Darwin's message becoming known than Darwin ever was - it was his mission in life, to free the human intellect from the chokehold of God and religion.
And so has it been the evolutionists' agenda all the way down to Gould and Dawkins, who are absolutely committed to explaining existence without any reference to a supernatural designer.
Moreover, soon after Darwin's glorification of the survival of the fittest as being the only reason behind and for our existence as well as for the actual mechanics behind our supposed evolution, came Herbert Spencer and William Sumner and their theory of social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was the philosophical force behind the ruthlessness of the robber barons and the new German militarism, both of which inspired William Jennings Bryan to prosecute the banning of evolution at school in the Scopes trial - but that is another story. Suffice it to say that Darwinism provided the justification for the most materialistic and callous of social philosophies, which is partly why it has ever been uncritically embraced and promoted by the media and the public education system.
b) ... AN ATTACK ON SCIENTIFIC THEORY
and c) ... AN ATTACK ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
What, in your opinion, constitutes "scientific theory" and "scientific method"?
According to Wikipedia, "a theory originates from or is supported by experimental evidence ... that is predictive, logical and testable." And Stephen Hawking has also written that "for a theory to be deemed scientific, it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."
Science means definite knowledge, as confirmed by Theory (explaining what happens and how, not in terms of sweeping generalizations, but via specific descriptions of different steps and how they link to one another - as in how a scale actually evolves into a feather, or how a human eye actually evolved step-by-step from simpler but fully-functioning prototypes), Observation (as in, oh, look, a totally new species appeared ... as opposed to merely variants within the species ... or a totally new feature, like an opposing thumb for example, just evolved in an existing species, and we saw it happen) and Experiment (as in, look, let's demonstrate, let's reproduce what we claim happens). Evolutionary theory utterly fails on all these points. There are no predictive qualities to the theory, none that can be tested! The reason why it's still referred to as a theory is because the Observation and Experiment parts are absolutely unworkable. All that is left is the possibility of theory ... and I would strongly encourage you to avail yourself of writings by some of Srila Prabhupada's legitimate scientist disciples who were in fact fulfilling the quote of his you cited by powerfully exposing the utter nonsense that is evolutionary 'theory.' Which leads me to:
d) SRILA PRABHUPA'S QUOTE:
That SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES can be engaged ...is not a validation of your claims! Unless you have first proven that evolution is a scientific discovery! And you are actually using Srila Prabhupada's words to claim endorsement of something that he over and over and over and over again utterly repudiated. So for you to try to claim some kind of 'shastric validation' that elevates your own opinions to something far more enlightened appears to be somewhat deluded.
5) SHASTRIC EVIDENCE FOR MY CLAIM
Although I have very poor recall as to where exactly I read Srila Prabhupada's exact words on this or that subject, I am very confident as to Srila Prabhupada's oft spoken and written statements in regards to Darwinism and the claim I made regarding all species of life existing simultaneously from the beginning of creation - and since the different species exist to facilitate karmas generated in the human form of life, for anyone who accepts the doctrine of karma, reincarnation and transmigration, it is simply ridiculous to imagine that the first bodily vehicles were in fact not human, but very low ...
Anyway, I did recall a transcript from one of Srila Prabhupada's many morning walks on Venice Beach, which was reproduced in BTG many years ago, and herein are more than enough authoritative statements of His Divine Grace to put this entire subject to rest for any devotee:
Dr. Singh (Swarupa Damodar Maharaj) " "Your Divine Grace, ARE ALL THE SPECIES OF LIFE CREATED SIMULTANEOUSLY?"
Srila Prabhupada: "YES. THE SPECIES ALREADY EXIST, AND THE LIVING ENTITY SIMPLY TRANSFERS HIMSELF FROM ONE WOMB TO THE NEXT, just as a man transfers himself from one apartment to another ... EVOLUTION DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT DEVELOPMENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS. DO YOU FOLLOW? ... Similarly, as your consciousness develops, you move up to a higher species of life. THE SPECIES ALREADY EXIST HOWEVER. IT IS NOT THAT THE LOWER SPECIES BECOME HIGHER SPECIES - THAT IS DARWIN'S NONSENSICAL THEORY .... God knows the various desires of all the living entities in the material world. therefore to accomodate all the conditioned souls, HE CREATES THE 8,400,000 SPECIES OF LIFE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING."
Dr. Singh: "What you have been saying completely contradicts Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin and his supporters say that life started from matter and evolved from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms. THEY BELIEVE HIGHER SPECIES LIKE ANIMALS AND MEN DIDN'T EXIST AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION."
Srila Prabhupada: "DARWIN AND HIS FOLLOWERS ARE RASCALS... THE DARWINISTS' THEORY THAT LIFE BEAGN IN SUCH-AND-SUCH AN ERA IS NONSENSE ...Sometimes I travel to America, sometimes to Australia, the countries already exist; I am simply traveling through them. IT IS NOT THAT BECAUSE I HAVE COME TO AMERICA I HAVE CREATED OR BECOME AMERICA. AND THERE ARE MANY COUNTRIES I HAVE NOT YET SEEN. DOES THAT MEAN THEY DO NOT EXIST? ANY SCIENTIST WHO SUPPORTS DARWIN IS UNINTELLIGENT. THE BHAGAVAD-GITA CLEARLY SAYS THAT ALL THE SPECIES OF LIFE EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND THAT YOU CAN GO TO ANY OF THEM..."
6) Conclusion: Hare Krishna Fundamentalism
Our intelligence can be directed by our minds or by Guru. Srila Prabhupada wanted that we use our intelligence to understand how what he was telling us is true, so that we can put it into our own language and explain to others, not as a matter of dogma or fundamentalist fanaticism. It requires intelligence, as you say, to think about, consider, argue against, and defend ... but it is all predicated on first accepting the guidance of Guru, not on fantasizing that maybe this or that. To be useful disciples, servants or tools of His Divine Grace, we must indeed first become fundamentalists, and rigidly adhere to the clear teachings he has given us.
Hare Krsna,
Narasingha Gurudas
Thanks for taking the time
Thanks for taking the time to write that.
Please let me know if you find something to back up your idea that "karma demands that all possible material situations are already existing for the soul to enter whatever body type is appropriate."
?!?
Prabhu
I think you are now just being stubborn - your accompanying 'by-line' states that you write this blog for your self-purification.
Self-purification is not achieved as a result of self-endeavor, but means that we are purified by submitting our self to the purifying words of the guru. It seems that you have not properly read Srila Prabhupada's many words regarding evolution and Darwinism, or you would not have propounded so much of what you have written regarding evolution not being an atheistic philosophy, and actually being an empirical and scientific statement.
So please re-read the quotes from Srila Prabhupada clearly and repeatedly stating that 'all 8,400,000 species already exist,' 'from the very beginning,' 'in order to accomodate all the conditioned souls,' whose 'various desires are all known by God,' so that 'you can directly transmigrate to any species of life, according to your karma.'
What I have said is clearly in accord with the basic philosophy Srila Prabhupada has provided us - as you say, we are not clones! In other words, our exact choice of words and phrases is not a parroted repetition of some already recorded shastric observation, but should reflect our understanding of what we have been taught, and which is still in accordance with the actual direct meaning rather than a novel and contradictory interpretation, 'muni'- style (you may recall that Srila Prabhupada described munis as being motivated to come up with something new).
If you do not understand how what I have said is in accord with Srila Prabhupada's teachings, please explain how so, and provide some alternative interpretation of his statements (as given in my previous post), or show how your own opinions are remotely supported by his teachings ...
Hare Krishna
I won't say what I think
I won't say what I think about what you are doing and why, because in reality it would be: "What *I* would be doing if I did that". Atmavan manyate jagat. Statements imputing motives and speculating about others' internal states frequently say more about us than they do about them.
Please keep it to the points. If you want to know me personally, come over for lunch in the weekend and spend some time with me.
Please see this article:
Please see this article: Extinction, Creation, and Transmigration.
Even if all bodies are required at the same material time, you will also need to show that they are all required on the same planet at the same time, since there are infinite planets in the universe and the living entities are sarva-gatha.
Also, in order to construct an argument for external use (in other words for a non-"Prabhupada is as good as God") audience, you need stronger pramana than "Prabhupada said".
Why did Prabhupada say that? Is he repeating a point made in scripture, or is it something from his own realization that is not backed up by scripture? If it is the latter than that is fine for your own understanding, but to make it into an apologetic argument you need to find stronger support, either scriptural (if you want to present it as a requirement of the tradition) or empirical (if you want to prove it as reality).
Defenders of the tradition need to take the time to back up with scriptural reference everything that is said by the acarya (if he hasn't already done that, which Prabhupada frequently did, and encouraged his followers to do - "quoting like a lawyer" as he described it).
nana-sastra vicarinaika nipuno sad-dharma samsthapakau
The Vrndavan Goswamis scrutinizingly studied the scriptures to show that whatever Caitanya Mahaprabhu had spoken was in line with it. This is defense of the tradition. What He had said was good enough for them, but they realized that to propagate it as a bona-fide interpretation of a pre-existing tradition, rather than a charismatic cult, they needed to show that it had support beyond "Mahaprabhu uvaca".
A last comment
Hare Krishna Prabhu
For this discussion to have any value we have to at least determine what we are discussing, and then engage in honest exchanges.
You asked me to shastrically validate what I said. I provided Srila Prabhupada's direct statements - if you were honest, you would accept the correction and retract your own utterly unvalidated (whether by shastra, our guru's precepts, logic or common sense) opinion re, evolution as not necessarily being atheism, and in fact being a bona fide example of the scientific method. That is utter nonsense, and for you, as a devotee, Srila Prabhupada's clear, unequivocal and emphatic statements in this specific regard should be more than enough.
But instead of simply acknowledging the error of your own opinions, which is what this blog re. evolution and atheism basically is, you seek to somehow justify your sticking to them (which is why I called you stubborn) with so much irrelevant (to this conversation ) and tangential direction about how to preach to the public, etc.
I am not preaching to the public here, I'm challenging you, a devotee, for whom Srila Prabhupada's instructions should be evidence enough. Of course such is insufficient when speaking to the public, as are all manner of shastric quotations - hence so many devotees are trying to present our philosophy in terms of logic and argument that can be appreciated without any prior need to accept the authority of shastra. BUT WHAT WE ARE MEANT TO BE PRESENTING IS THE REALIZED KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACARYA, TO THE BEST OF OUR UNDERSTANDING, AND NOT OUR OWN INDEPENDENT AND CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS! Otherwise, what is the meaning to being in a parampara? We may as well go off and try to establish our own sampradaya!
Again, your demand that I prove my point from shastra is the pot calling the kettle back - since your entire premise regarding evolution not being necessarily aligned with atheism, and moreover being a proper example of scientific knowledge, is based on your own opinion.
So, you have claimed that you like to consider but one thing at a time (although I have not noticed that to be the case). So here's the one thing, the main thing - on what basis do you continue to make this claim that evolutionary theory is not by nature atheistic, and that it is a proper representative of scientific knowledge and method, especially in light of, again, the clear and emphatic teachings of the maha-bhagavat to the contrary? And why do you not accept his teachings in this regard, but insist on maintaining your position and trying to make so many other points and arguments from such a faulty place?
The onus is on you - you have presented a nonsense new philosophy in the name of some kind of enlightened new understanding of Krsna consciousness. What is your shastric evidence, what does Srila Prabhupada say to support your claim? Without clearly responding to this, everything else you say is smoke-and-mirrors, diversion, bluff, call it what you will. Just like the beginning of your previous post, where you write that I would have to prove all types of bodies are present on the same planet at the same time ... why on earth would I have to do such a silly thing? Certainly I do not claim such an absurdity to be true ... but I digress, I fall victim to your strategy whereby the best form of defense is offense.
And this is the actual key-issue here - you are going on the offense against, for example, 'Hare Krishna fundamentalists,' against what you perceive to be the mere 'opinions' of others that are unsupported by shastra - meanwhile your own basic position is untenable and in direct contradiction to Srila Prabhupada's teachings, which of course are entirely in accord with shastra. We already know this, as Vaisnavas ... we may have to study and reflect to discover and learn how this is so, but it is our fundamental faith that it is so. We can question as to whether the guru is telling the truth before we accept him, but once we have accepted, then it is done, no more challenging.
Anyway, the challenge remains, for you to defend your own position on the basis of Srila Prabhupada's teachings. I am confident that your position is utterly indefensible, and so I expect you will continue to raise this or that argument or question to try to discredit something of the overall position or presentation of whoever is pointing this out. Or will you indeed fulfill your blog's stated purpose of self-purification by abandoning your faulty position and fully embracing Srila Prabhupada's teachings in regards to Darwin, evolution et al?
With regards to the present
With regards to the present discussion, you have the right to your realization, and you have the right to present that as you see fit. I don't think that getting angry at others and frustrated because they don't think like you is a productive way to convince others of the validity of that realization.
I would like to see your case presented with more references to scripture and more thought on your part, both about the subject matter and about communicating it in a respectful way. Hopefully your book gives you the space to do that. I hope your consideration about what I have written has stimulated your thinking and caused you to reflect deeper on your own understanding of Srila Prabhupada's teachings.
A sincere student should not neglect the discussion of such conclusions, considering them controversial, for such discussions strengthen the mind. Thus one's mind becomes attached to Sri Krishna.
- Caitanya-caritamrita Adi 2.117
Evolution
Hare Krsna Sitapati-prabhu, all glories to Srila prabhupada
Re. use of the word 'fundamentalist' - it is usually used in a demeaning or critical way, and popularly has negative connotations, as seem to be implied when you refer to fundamentalists on both sides of the evolution vs. theism divide. If, however, you simply mean the standard definition re. ' rigid adherence to fundamental principles,' then that would seem to indicate you acknowledge that the fundamental principles of evolution and of theism are at loggerheads, although this seems to be the very point you are taking issue with.
You have asked for 'shastric' confirmation of my statement regarding the karmic necessity for all material situations to be immediately available... I am surprised by such a request, since this is not some profound esoteric principle transcendental to any possibility of rational or philosophical comprehension. Aside from anything else, we know that the eternal soul enters the material world first in the body of a demigod, if not Brahma ... and it is only in the higher, or human, births, that karma is created so as to result in lower births. In other words, the lower forms of life have no reason to appear before the higher ... Evolutionary theory proposes the exact opposite, that the higher life-forms appear ages after the lower ... of course, evolutionists don't believe in the soul or transmigration, so this poses no problem for them. But I am at a loss to understand how you can conceive of such a thing?
As far as fossils and dinosaurs are concerned, Srila Prabhupada says that they are left over from the last kali-yuga, that they will again appear later on in this age ... it is not that all forms of body must be simultaneously present here on earth ... and if you accept that they can be present at different times on different planets, then how on earth can evolution explain such interplanetary connectedness?
Anyway, remembering specific quotes and references is not at all a strong source with me - though I know that there are various data-bases that can assist the more computer-literate devotee (of which group I am certainly not a member), and I have no doubt that there are devotees who could easily furnish you with supporting quotes. Certainly a quick read of the discussions in "Life Comes From Life" can make it very clear exactly where Srila Prabhupada stands regarding evolution ... and his many consistent statements in these regards can hardly be compared to the example you give re. the Vrindavan incident relating to interpretations of a single statement Srila Prabhupada had said about sahajiyas rolling around during kirtan.
Meanwhile, my interest is in somehow or other making our philosophy interesting and relevant to persons who have not yet reached the point of accepting shastra as evidence of anything (except perhaps of abandoning intellectual autonomy or reasoning ability in favor of taking someone else's words on faith) ... and so I try to present points on the basis of logic and argument. And in this regard, I am pointing out where your own positions appear to run contrary to the same.
There are several areas where your position seems confused. Regarding the empirical evidence of the fossils - I recommend reading Sadaputa's excellent book "Forbidden Archeology" so as to become clear as to how very little of such evidence actually exists, how extremely contradictory it is, and how the actual evidence has been censored and edited and manipulated in order to apparently support the official evolutionists' line, whereas in actual fact, it does not at all support their assertions.
Indeed, 'empirical' evidence is not at all something that evolutionary theory has very much of. It's never been observed, it's never been produced in a laboratory, there is no theory at all actually detailing any of the steps or how they could have occurred - it's all speculative assertion, but not science, which implies definitive knowledge as supported by Observation, Theory and Experiment. To refer to examples of variants in the general species, such as melatonin in so-called whites and blacks, or to mating between close relatives such as different equines or felines so as to produce hitherto unknown (to us, at this time, on this planet) members such as tigons or mules or so on, has nothing to do with evolution, with the Origin of Species, or with the emergence of a joint (eg elbow or knee) from a, well, from a what, exactly? Or the emergence of a feather from a scale, or a bird from a lizard...
You are confusing science, which deals with actual empirical data that can be summarised in specific laws that actually describe the transformation and relationships of matter and allow us to create technologies to facilitate the same, with a specific belief-system commonly referred to as 'scientism' which is simply a name for atheism claiming scientific validation. Fossils provide scientific facts, as does the great variety of species living today. That they exist is scientifically and empirically verifiable. To claim that they evolved one from another is simply an idea, a belief, that does not have any scientific or empirical verification.
You quote Srila Prabhupada acknowledging that science can certainly be used in Krsna consciousness ... but you use this quote to support accepting evolutionary theory as science, which is to assume that evolutionary theory is indeed science. But you can't assume the truth of the very proposition you hope to prove as part of the proof itself!
You are also confused regarding the background of evolutionary theory, claiming that it was the intrenchability of the church that pushed evolution towards an atheistic stance or alignment. Not true - actually, Darwin wasn't presenting anything new. Exactly the same theories, including the idea that we all evolved from fish, were put forward by certain ancient Greek thinkers whose ideas were compiled primarily by Lucretius. The reason that Dawinism became so popular was, well, first of all it wasn't because of Darwin's own efforts - but because Huxley made it his business to promote this view of life that he, and so many other intellectuals of the time saw could at last break the chokehold and the insufferable righteousness of the church. In other words, right from the get-go it was seen as a weapon against the church. The church claimed absolute and unimpeachable authority for itself and the scripture it was founded on, which included Genesis. If Genesis could be shown to be in error, then the absolute position the church claimed for itself was toppled.
Unfortunately, the church was not seen as a perverted reflection of religion, as something committing so many errors 'in the name of' religion only, while actually representing so much ignorance and ego of mere conditioned souls ... rather, it was taken to be an accurate representation of what God and religion are all about, so that the intellectual classes could now say that God and religion are for fools, they are simply repressive inventions of frightened power-hungry mortals filled with fear and hatred of their fellows if such should such profess different beliefs or, God forbid, be women.
So this is a very important issue for us, as students and followers of an enlightened transcendentalist, to try to clarify - that there is a huge distinction between what God and religion and all that may be said and done 'in the name of' the same are ... and to oppose the resentment and resistance towards the very possibility of God and true religion that arose in response to all the bogus behavior and teachings 'in the name of' ... and this requires also recognizing the actual nature and intent of evolutionary theory. Again, Dawkins makes this very clear, and he is speaking and writing as (as you say) a fundamentalist, i.e. as one who rigidly upholds the fundamental principles of evolution which, please make no mistake about it, are to explain life and existence without any need to refer (or defer) to a transcendental authority or supernatural agency - and this has been the intention from Darwin and Huxley through to Gould and Dawkins et al.
As I previously suggested to you, if you want an alternative empirical narrative of material creation, see if you can find Sadaputa's Origins series of talks that include this very topic ... and at the same time take into consideration the limits of empirical evidence as well as of our abilities to receive such with our very limited senses (including for example the awareness that whereas reality is in fact n-dimensional, since every point is actually connected to every other point since it is all contained within Krsna Who is also all-pervading ... our senses are locked into a 3-dimensional awareness only, hence we cannot even imagine a being with 10 heads for example - Ravana - whom we could only picture as being able to have so many if each was supported on a very long, skinny and flexible neck)
As far as the actual absence of empirical evidence is concerned, along with the hopeless illogicality and irrationality of evolutionary theory itself, and the abundance of entirely contrary evidence ... such is actually the main substance of around 16 arguments against evolutionary theory that I have developed in one portion of a book I am currently at work on ... although several people have suggested I publish that section separately since it is already complete. So I expect that to happen within the next couple of months, and you may be interested to read these arguments as a whole presentation and see how your own thoughts might then develop in response.
Yours, Narasingha Gurudas
Too long!
Sorry, this is too long for me to parse without structure. Please use subheadings with the <strong> tag if you want to post something that long.
Please post something backing up your statement about karma requiring all species to be present at all times, or we have to downgrade it to an opinion.
Then we can move on to another point if you wish. My preference is to deal with things one at a time.
restructured response
Hare Krishna prabhu
I unwittingly posted a restructured response to your many points as a 'reply' to a previous part of this conversation, so that it does not appear to follow your last comment "Too Long" - please scroll back up to see it, thank you