Science has not replaced religion, nor does it have the potential to do so. The two amount to different ways of knowing: objective and subjective; ascending and descending. Science pursues knowledge of the objective realm in an effort to master it, while religion pursues knowledge of the subjective realm in an effort to serve therein. Science can tell us much about the objective world in great detail, and this in turn gives it credibility. Religion, on the other hand, can tell us much about the subjective world, which is naturally elusive in comparison to the objective realm.

Our main objection to Darwinian evolution is that it sees consciousness as a product of matter. We cannot agree with this proposal, nor does it make much sense in terms of verifiable evidence. Where do we see consciousness arising from inert matter and what scientific experiment can prove that this occurs?

The poetry of Srimad Bhagavatam posits a multiverse cosmos with innumerable universes emanating from the pores of the body of Vishnu as he exhales in yogic sleep. With his inhalation they all collapse and then again expand in a beginningless and endless cycle of samsara. The world is but the dream of God.

I was recently asked if there is a form of secular meditation that I could recommend. Considering the inquiry, I become more interested in the reasoning behind it than in the question itself.

When reason serves revelation it finds its proper place as an aspect of faith. As an aspect of faith, reason is most useful and beautiful. It becomes a tool of the soul rather than its betrayer.