“Saul Bellow says that science has made a housecleaning of beliefs. But there was value in these things for me. I am today what I am because of those beliefs. I wonder what happens to children who don’t have those fixed stars, that known horizon — those myths?” ^[¹]  —  Journalist Bill Moyers to Joseph Campbell

Science and Metaphysics

“The encounter between tradition and modernism is not an encounter of religion and philosophy with science. As recent studies of the Hindu, and other traditions amply prove, there is in them a systematic cosmological thought, though it is based on a different conception of Nature and Man. So, it is an encounter of one scientific system with another and a radically different one. Between two systems claiming to seek the complete truth, there can be no synthesis except based on agreement on basic truths and postulates. Hinduism and modern science are opposed as truth and error: between them, there can be no question of synthesis.” ^[²] — Professor A. K. Saran

Professor A.K. Saran’s assertion implies that Religion (Hinduism) and modern science, being two systems vying for complete truth, are fundamentally at odds. It underscores the imperativeness of a foundational concurrence on core principles to foster synthesis, yet this prospect seems elusive owing to the glaring incongruities inherent in both systems. The crux of the matter lies in their divergent premises, highlighting an insurmountable barrier to synthesis in the absence of alignment on foundational truths and postulates. This provides the canvas for the overarching discourse on the concepts of ‘Science,’ ‘Religion,’ ‘Scientism,’ ‘Metaphysics,’ etc.

Science is the methodical pursuit and utilization of knowledge and understanding concerning the natural and social spheres, employing a systematic approach grounded in empiricism. The genesis of Modern Science lies in purposefully disavowing religious orthodoxy, traditional knowledge systems, and the metaphysical comprehension of our world. Religion once explained Nature and the World using non-empirical ideas like ‘Metaphysics,’ ‘Miracle,’ ‘Divine,’ or ‘Mysticism.’ Under the sway of Religion, gnoseology finds itself confined by unchallenged dogma, compelled to endorse or, at the least, steer clear of challenging religious teachings. Phenomena associated with the divine realm are deemed beyond any scrutiny or inquiry. In its pursuit of objectivity, the Scientific Method endeavours to purge this inherent subjectivity, dogma, and contemplative traits within religious systems, aiming to craft a comprehensive knowledge framework to explain the world.

Metaphysicians, often inclined away from empirical endeavours, contrast with the rigorous scientific pursuit, whereas scientists and logicians, by disposition, dismiss the religious and metaphysical comprehension of the world as contemplative and fictional verbiage. In the words of René Guénon, a notable French figure in the realm of Metaphysics, Metaphysicians regard this Scientific spirit as “an aberration, or even as a positive intellectual monstrosity.” ^[³] Likewise, on the contrasting end, German intellectual Rudolf Carnap, one of the progenitors of ‘logical empiricism’ asserted:

“Les métaphysiciens sont des musiciens sans dons musicaux.”

“Metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability. Instead, they have a strong inclination to work within the medium of the theoretical, to 
connect concepts and thoughts. Now, instead of activating,
on the one hand, this inclination in the domain of science,
and satisfying, on the other hand, the need for expression in
art, the metaphysician confuses the two and produces a
structure that achieves nothing for knowledge and something inadequate for the expression of attitude.” ^[⁴]

Adopting dichotomous extremes obstructs the holistic understanding of both the temporal and the spiritual realms. Metaphysics should not be subservient to science but remain open to its insights. Dismissing the Scientific method overlooks the significance of empirical knowledge and direct perception (Pratyakṣa) in comprehending the physical world. Neglecting metaphysics evades the multifaceted realities that lie within experiential and religious realms, that surpass the confines of empiricism and the scientific method.

“न हि श्रुतिशतमपि ‘शीतोऽग्निरप्रकाशो वा’
इति ब्रुवत् प्रामाण्यमुपैति। यदि ब्रूयात् ‘शीतोऽग्निरप्रकाशो वा’ इति,
तथापि अर्थान्तरं श्रुतेः विवक्षितं कल्प्यम्,
प्रामाण्यान्यथानुपपत्तेः, न तु प्रमाणान्तरविरुद्धं स्ववचनविरुद्धं वा।”

“na hi śrutiśatamapi ‘śīto’gniraprakāśo vā’
iti bruvat prāmāṇyamupaiti| yadi brūyāt ‘śīto’gniraprakāśo vā’ iti,
tathāpi arthāntaraṃ śruteḥ vivakṣitaṃ kalpyam,
prāmāṇyānyathānupapatteḥ, na tu pramāṇāntaraviruddhaṃ svavacanaviruddhaṃ vā|”

Translation by A.M. Sastri:

“Even if hundreds of shruti-s (Veda-s) say that ‘Fire is cold, it doesn’t shine’, it cannot be considered as valid knowledge. If “shruti should at all declare that fire is cold or that it is dark,” we would still suppose that it “intends” quite a different meaning from the apparent one; for its authority cannot otherwise be maintained: we should in no way attach to shruti a meaning which is opposed to other authorities or to its own declaration.” ^[⁵]

The passage delves into the non-assumptive nature of scriptural validity (śruti) when dealing with topics conflicting with established sources of knowledge (pramāṇa). If a scriptural assertion contradicts established avenues such as empiricism or observation (pratyakṣa), it prompts a reexamination of scriptural validity (prāmāṇya) and its interaction with various sources of knowledge (pramāṇa) from an alternative epistemic perspective.

The quandary begins when there’s a tilt towards either extreme — adopting “scientistic” fervour or embracing an “anti-scientific” disposition — resulting in a loss of equilibrium.

“Both scientism and anti-scientific attitudes have their roots in misunderstandings of the character and limits of scientific inquiry and scientific knowledge, up till now I have focused on epistemological issues. But I don’t at all mean to deny the legitimacy or denigrate the importance of those difficult ethical, social, and political questions about the role of science in society.” ^[⁶] — Susan Haack 

Scientism — A Modern Quasi-religion

“Unfortunately, science is only splendid when it is science. When science becomes religion, it becomes superstition.” ^[⁷] — G.K. Chesterton

So, the problem doesn’t lie with Science itself, but rather with the extreme of Scientism overshadowing it. Douglas Giles, Senior Lecturer at Elmhurst University, puts Scientism as:

‘the assumption that science should be the sole source of knowledge, establishing an ideology that places science as an institution beyond questioning.’ ^[⁸]

This unwavering faith in Science has metamorphosed into a quasi-religious structure with its delineated doctrines and convictions, resulting in the emergence of Scientism.

The pursuit of absolute objectivity in Scientific inquiry was initially intended to eliminate dogmas and subjectivity inherent in metaphysics but now has paradoxically evolved into veneration for a new orthodoxy, with its distinct set of dogmas and metaphysics. Among the most remarkable works I’ve encountered regarding this subject is ‘Scientism: The New Orthodoxy.’ It is a compilation that features the contributions of numerous scholars including Peter Hacker, Bastiaan van Fraassen, Daniel N. Robinson, Kenneth Schaffner, Roger Scruton, James K.A. Smith, Richard Swinburne, Lawrence Principe, and Richard N. Williams. In the illuminating introduction by Richard N. Williams, he delineates the four tenets of Scientism. In the fourth, he elucidates how Science, originally envisioned to transcend Orthodoxy for the sake of objectivity, has paradoxically become a captive of it in the guise of Scientism.

“Scientism is not just an attitude about science and the power of science. Scientism makes metaphysical claims. Sometimes hidden, and sometimes not, among the claims of scientism is that the world must really be like the methods of contemporary natural science assume it to be. Otherwise, claims of the legitimacy and power of science would be without grounds. Just as the science of scientism has come through intellectual history fairly intact from the Enlightenment period, so has the metaphysics of scientism. Scientism assumes, and requires a naturalist, materialist, rather mechanistic metaphysics. Such metaphysics is so important to scientism that it has become a core feature of the orthodoxy of scientism. Commitment to this metaphysics is preeminent among the ideas that give energy to defenders and promulgators of scientism.” ^[⁹]

 Evolutionism

The modern belief in Evolutionism is proof of Scientism in practice.

“Evolution is, in short, the God we must worship.” ^[¹⁰] — Phillip E. Johnson

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx’s materialistic theory of history and society and Freud’s attribution of human behaviour to influences over which we have little control, Darwin’s theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism — of much of science, in short, that has since been the stage of most Western thought.”^[¹¹]— Futuyma, Douglas J

In the perpetual discourse within religious domains, the clash between evolutionism and religious creationism has long formed the cornerstone of fiery debates. Not only on a scientific level but also in its expansive reach into the fields of Historicism, Economy, Development, Humanities, Technology, Ecology, etc., Evolutionism has encountered substantial scholarly refutation, notably by Christian academics. In a recent discourse within Hindu circles on Twitter, the mere mention of ‘Hinduism’s opposition to Evolutionism’ or Swami Karpatri Ji’s extensive critique triggered significant reactions. This outrage stemmed from:

1. a deficiency in comprehending Religious Orthodoxy,
2. an arbitrary and capricious notion currently held regarding Hinduism as a Religion,
3. a scarcity of discourse within Hindu Scholarship on this matter,
4. and an excessive emphasis on ‘Othering,’ leading to immediate contention when aligning with anything with the Abrahamic Religious traditions.

A Contender went on to proclaim:

“Opposing Theory of Evolution is like Opposing Theory of Gravity.” ^[¹²]

Amidst scientific inquiry, gravity’s proof lies in it being a demonstrable phenomenon, Macro-Evolution lacks such concrete corroboration. The data points in support of Macro-Evolution can simply be explained by the metaphysical principle of pointing toward a ‘Common Creator.’

British journalist Tom Bethell, who covered economic and scientific issues, noted his observation on the entire debate,

“He ‘knows’ that is true (Evolution), not because he sees it in the genes, or the lab, or the fossils, but because it is embedded in his philosophy.” ^[¹³]

Regardless, I am less inclined here to engage in a debate about the ‘scientific Theory of Evolution’ itself, but rather with the ‘scientised doctrine of Evolutionism.’

In the opening words of his long essay on Vikasvāda, Swami Karpatri points out:

“The Evolutionary thought is currently applied to all branches of history, politics, linguistics, culture, and religion. This may be seen as the antecedent to both the modern scientific method and fanatical materialism. Many Indian academicians also consider this authoritative when expounding upon indigenous subjects. To a large extent, Evolutionism serves as the substructure of Marxism as well. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the conjecture of evolutionary thought and the arguments put up to ratiocinate it.” ^[¹⁴]

Evolutionary thought establishes its own doctrinal principles and set of dogmas, permeating every facet of human existence. Various scholars have astutely highlighted the quasi-religious nature ingrained within the paradigm of evolutionism.

Eminent British Zoologist L. H. Matthews states in the foreword to a reprint of Darwin’s work, ‘On the Origin of Species’:

“In accepting evolution as a fact, how many biologists have paused to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved? The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory — is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” ^[¹⁵]

Dr. Momme von Sydow states Evolutionism as a “metaphysical belief,” in his paper on the subject titled ‘From Darwinian Metaphysics towards Understanding the Evolution of Evolutionary Mechanisms.’ He states:

“Although Charles Darwin did indeed mainly concentrate on biology, he speculated that his theory would at least “give zest […] to whole metaphysics” (Notebook B, p. 228).” ^[¹⁶]

This particular strand of thought carries merit. Even the famous Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin confirmed the presence of this quasi-metaphysical element tied to Evolutionism. He states:

“Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more. It is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light that illuminates all facts, a trajectory that all lines of thought must follow. This is what evolution is.” ^[¹⁷]

Chardin’s “all lines of thought must follow” closely aligns with the “all systems must bow” element inherent in Evolutionism, as highlighted by Swami Karpatri Ji in his initial statements.

The Religious perspective envisions a world structured by a superior design, encompassing elevated ethical and moral principles alongside an elevated spiritual aim of puruṣārthas (as in Hinduism). In contrast, Evolutionism markets a world as inherently spontaneous, devoid of explicit purpose or direction, and perpetually operating under the principle of mātsyanyāya (the Law of Fish, akin to the Law of the Jungle where the stronger consumes the weaker). Thus, Evolutionism constitutes a metaphysical doctrine, mirroring structures akin to those of Religious Orthodoxy, albeit in direct opposition — as it replaces ‘puruṣārthas’ with ‘purposelessness’ and ‘Chārvākian Materialism’ (ancient school of Indian materialism and Atheism). This metaphysical essence not only poses a threat to the Religious worldview but also relegates its assertions from purely scientific to a scientistic domain, resembling a quasi-religious framework.

Now, considering our comprehension of the quasi-religious essence within Evolutionary thought, what emerges are the quasi-theological ramifications it holds for the societal fabric and the collective psyche of Hindus and all Theists in general.

The Evolutionary thought and relentless ‘Progressivism/ Materialism’

Religious thought tends towards stagnation, circling divine revelations to shape societal organization. The evolution within Religion adheres to set boundaries, following a very structured trajectory. Professor A. K. Saran observes that Religion (Hinduism) conflicts with ‘Progressivism/ Development/ Technology,’ attributing this conflict to its stagnation rooted in a lack of “enterprising spirit and requisite individualistic motivation.”

The evolutionary thought stands in stark contrast to this. It perceives human life as an ongoing journey of perpetual change, consistently striving for a ‘supposedly’ improved state of being. Phrased as “Jad-bhautikvād (Fanatical Materialism)” by Swami Karpatri or, in the words of Tom Bethell, “Anyone who believes in this (Materialism) must, as a matter of logical necessity, also believe in evolution.” This perspective appears to serve as the quasi-theological backbone of Evolutionism.

The materialistic inclination in human nature might reflect a deliberate design by the Divine. Nevertheless, Dharma assumes the pivotal role of a regulatory force, extricating individuals from the allure of material pursuits. It serves as a guiding principle, channeling their energies towards the pursuit of a transcendental purpose, beyond the confines of material possessions or worldly endeavors. This profound concept resonates deeply within the following Śloka from the Kaṭhopaniṣad:

“पराञ्चिखानि व्यतृणत्स्वयंभूस्तस्मात्पराङ्पश्यति नान्तरात्मन्‌।
कश्चिद्धीरः प्रत्यगात्मानमैषदावृत्तचक्षुरमृतत्वमिच्छन्‌॥” ^[¹⁸]

“parāñcikhāni vyatṛṇatsvayaṁbhūstasmātparāṅpaśyati nāntarātman,
kaściddhīraḥ pratyagātmānamaiṣadāvṛttacakṣuramṛtatvamicchan.”

“The Self-born hath set the doors of the body to face outward, therefore the soul of a man gazeth outward and not at the Self within; hardly a wise man here and there desiring immortality turneth his eyes inward and seeth the Self within him.”

Entrapped by the seduction of our sensory perceptions, we fervently pursue pleasures in the external milieu, conflating this human nature as the sole purpose of our being. Solemn spirits, hungering for everlasting moments, pivot inward, challenging the typical outward focus. Propelled by this profound desire, they embark upon a quest to perceive not with their corporeal eyes but with the faculty of inner vision, endeavouring to catch a fleeting glimpse of the immortal Self concealed within. This verse serves as a poignant admonition, urging us to extricate ourselves from the transient allurements and diligently seek the eternal reality that resides within the recesses of our being.

In ancient times, Lokāyata’s staunch materialistic philosophy, which satisfied the outward gaze and inherent materialistic inclination of man, kept it at odds with the prevalent religious ideologies of its time, making it difficult to supplant.

“यावज्जीवेत्सुखं जीवेत् ऋणं कृत्वा घृतं पिबेत्।
भस्मीभूतस्य देहस्य पुनरागमनं कुतः।।” ^[¹⁹]

“yāvajjīvet-sukhaṁ jīvet ṛṇaṁ kṛtvā ghṛtaṁ pibet
bhasmībhūtasya dehasya punarāgamanaṁ kutaḥ”

“While life remains let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt;
When once the body becomes ashes; how can it ever return again?” ^[²⁰]

The philosophy of the Chārvākas was similar.

Similar to Chārvākas, in the contemporary discussions about freedom, and liberty, the prevailing focus revolves around the pursuit of unbridled enjoyment without constraints. There’s a notable absence of consideration for divine judgment or acknowledgment of any higher authority. The demise of metaphysical conceptions pertaining to nature, and the soul, and the absence of overarching purpose beyond survival (The rule of Mātsyanyāya) results in a shift towards rationalised anthropocentrism. Consequently, this transition fuels an unwavering pursuit of materialism, technological advancements, and developmental objectives as the ultimate endpoints. Eminent Polish sociologist, Zbigniew A. Jordan’s scholarly work, ‘The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism: A Philosophical and Sociological Analysis,’ adeptly captures the precise demise of these metaphysical notions from the social sphere.

“Although Kant paved the way for the historical conception of nature, the cosmology of immutability continued to dominate the minds of scientists and philosophers for another century. But this was the period of the growth of various seminal scientific ideas which finally destroyed the metaphysical conception of nature. Laplace and Herschel in astronomy, Lyell in geology, Mayer and Joule in physics, Lavoisier and Dalton in chemistry, and Oken, Lamarck, Baer, and Darwin in biology, all helped to establish an entirely new historical, dialectical, or evolutionary outlook on nature.” ^[²¹]

The core tenet of Materialism lies in its explicit rejection of the Divine. Consequently, Religion perceives Materialism as a hindrance to the pursuit of loftier objectives and the establishment of structured designs within the grand existential framework. These doctrines, assuming the guise of Scientism, not only impede various facets of moral consciousness inherent in individuals but also encourage the pursuit of frivolous gratification devoid of meaningful purpose or ethical considerations.

The subsequent negation of the inherent philosophical connection between Materialism and Evolutionism has instigated an enduring and protracted debate since its inception, prompting Evolutionists to assume a defensive stance on the matter. Professor Joseph LeConte, back in 1888, published a work titled ‘Evolution and Its Relation to Religious Thought,’ endeavouring to refute all contentions negating the affiliation of Evolutionism with Materialism, advocating for their discrete ontological existence. It was originally through his writings and arguments that elevated Evolution to a scientific stature comparable to, or possibly exceeding, the ‘law of Gravitation’ —  a perspective now commonplace, including by the individual cited earlier from Twitter. While Professor LeConte’s point of view is certainly in contrast to our held perspective, he adeptly expounded upon the counterview with eloquence and thoroughness.

“There can be no doubt that there is at present a strong, and to many overwhelming, tendency toward materialism. Just at this time, it is strongest in the department of biology and especially is evolution its stronghold. This theory is by many supposed to be merely demonstrative of materialism. Once it was the theory of gravitation that seemed demonstrative of materialism. The sustention of the universe by law seemed to imply that nature operates herself and needs no God.” ^[²²]

An interesting read linking these all together was shared on Twitter by Shri Halley Kalyan Ji (@halleyji). These are the concluding lines of ‘Hindu Perspectives on Evolution- Darwin, Dharma and Design’ by C. Mackenzie Brown:

“In Madhava’s view, it (Carvaka view) was hard to expunge because it rationalized the people’s pursuit of sensual pleasures. But today, it may be harder to drive out because it has the unanticipated support of Darwinian evolutionary theory.” ^[²³]

Hence, one may conclude that mankind possesses an intrinsic proclivity towards Material Inclination and Outward Gaze, yet it was the constraints of Religious dogmas and Orthodoxy that restrained such tendencies. Evolutionism and Scientism, assuming the guise of ultimate veracity, supplanted the significance of Religious truths, thereby clearing the path for unbounded materialism accompanied by a comprehensive moral rationale. This perpetual Anthropocentrism drives ceaseless Development, and Progressivism as the exclusive raison d’être of life. The unrestrained progression of technology, directed by an Anthropocentric paradigm, wherein Technology emerges as the ultimate pursuit. Concurrently, the narrow concentration on human-centric advancement has the potential to heighten ecological challenges, encompassing environmental decay, depletion of biodiversity, and disruption of delicate ecological equilibrium. Evolutionary thought serves as the moral, scientific, and rational substantiations for all these apprehensions, situating them as essential milestones in the extensive narrative of human evolution.

Evolutionism, Historicism, and its extension to Religious Structure and Itihāsa

Within the ideological battleground of institutional domains, a preponderance of political scientists and historians espouse the cause of evolution while distinctly opposing the narrative of “Creationism.” Significantly, these individuals within the intellectual echelons, in unison with their academic counterparts, categorize those who outright reject the authoritative tenets of evolutionary theory as emblematic of anti-intellectualism or purveyors of anti-scientific ignorance.
The weaponization of Historicism, via Hegelian dialectics or, as Hegel puts it, “the rational alone is real,” ^[²⁴] constitutes a clear war against the metaphysical. Though Historicism’s challenges warrant attention on their own, examining its intersection with Darwinism and Evolutionary thought, particularly with religious thought, becomes imperative.
Given the significance of Marxian dialectics in modern historical writing, it’s important to note the words of the prominent Russian Marxist thinker Plekhanov, “Marxism is Darwinism in its application to social science.” ^[²⁵] Marx in his letter to Ferdinand Lassalle went on to proclaim:

“Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. … Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.” ^[²⁶]

The weaponization of Historicism within Marxian history writing implies using historical analysis as a means of advancing and justifying Marxist ideas, transforming historical interpretation into a tool for ideological advocacy, and aligning the past with the revolutionary goals inherent in Marxist thought. Within the historiographical arena, this symbiosis transforms into a meticulously staged platform where Historicism is instrumentalized to fortify and propel forward the narrative ordained by Marxian perspectives. It portrays the historical continuum as an unceasing progression towards proletarian emancipation  —  an orchestrated and inexorable march in consonance with Marxist tenets. The calculated utilization of Historicism emerges as a formidable ideological implement, symbolizing an inherently disruptive force on societal structures and civilizations. This strategic approach interrogates established religious and societal norms, advocating for a paradigmatic shift towards Communism.

This comradeship extends further into the domain of Darwinian evolutionary principles, finding an organic linkage with Marxist ideas. The core of Darwin’s exploration  —  adaptation, variation, and natural selection within the biological sphere  —  conceptually dovetails with Marxist historical materialism. The latter emphasizes the pervasive influence of material conditions and class strife in configuring societal development. The shared dialectical modus operandi between both paradigms recognizes the interaction among antagonistic forces and the metamorphosis of quantitative nuances into qualitative shifts, accentuating a seamless comprehension of evolutionary dynamics. Moreover, the emphasis on strife and competition inherent in Darwin’s biological framework resonates profoundly with the Marxist postulate of class conflict propelling societal evolution. Both frameworks imply an epochal trajectory marked by progressive metamorphosis, whether manifested in the biological evolution of species or the socio-economic evolution intrinsic to human societies. The internal debates surrounding Darwin and Marx, though lively, take a backseat in our considerations.

Now let us understand how these ideas of Evolutionism and Historicism interact with Religion. Religious structures stand on hardcore belief, not on rationale or falsification. Through Belief, a specific tradition comes to represent a higher metaphysical order for a particular group. Modernity has shifted the spirit of all modern religions from being ‘Transcendental’ to ‘Temporal’. This shift to ‘Temporal’ has acted as a counter-tradition in every form and manner. It has provided religion with an evolutionary push, thereby subjecting it to a series of Reforms. Guénon speaks of this problem that this shift to ‘Temporal’ brings to Tradition,

“All misuses of the word ‘tradition’ can serve this same purpose in one way or another, beginning with the most popular of all, whereby it is made synonymous with ‘custom’ or ‘usage’, thus bringing about a confusion of tradition with things that are on the lower human level and are completely lacking in profound significance.”

“Moreover, in order to become aware of the importance assigned to the negation of the supra-human by the conscious and unconscious agents of the modern deviation, it is enough to observe how all who lay claim to be ‘historians’ of religion and of other forms of the tradition (and in any case they usually mix all these forms together under the general title of ‘religion’) are eager above all to explain everything in terms of exclusively human factors; it matters little whether, according to school of thought, these factors are psychological, social, or anything else, the very multiplicity of the different explanations facilitating the seduction of a greater number; common to all is the well-defined desire to reduce everything to the human level and to retain nothing that surpasses it; and those who believe in the value of this destructive ‘criticism’ are thenceforth very ready to confuse tradition with anything whatever, since there is nothing in the ideas inculcated into them such as might enable tradition to be distinguished from that which is wholly lacking in traditional character.” ^[²⁷]

This reductionist perspective on religion, bringing it down to the ‘human level,’ tightly intertwines it with the fabric of evolutionary thought. Guénon, in addressing the influence of the ‘historians of religion’ underscores the impact of Historicism, with its evolutionary essence, steering religious thought away from stagnation and pushing it through the tides of reform. This new Evolutionary understanding of religion emerges from a meticulous exploration of its interconnections with societal, mental, organic, and physical evolution. Within this metamorphosis,  the divine is subtly relegated to a fragment within the expansive realm of human psychology, and its interaction with specific societal dynamics gives rise to the various conceptualizations of deities and religions.

James H. Leuba’s writings are noteworthy in the psychological evolutionary domain concerning his theories around the creation and evolution of Religions and Deities. Even Swami Karpatri contributes a Hindu perspective in response to Leuba’s ideas. In his essay from the book: ‘A Psychological Study of Religion: its origin, function, and future,’ titled ‘The Making of Gods and the Essential Characteristics of a Divinity,’ Leuba explores the cognitive processes of the society involved in shaping up divine entities.

“The mere knowledge that the world is peopled with invisible beings does not of itself lead to the establishment of a religion. It is only when the unseen beings become important factors in the struggle for life that they acquire the significance of real gods. As a matter of fact, however, a “mere knowledge “of unseen agents completely unrelated to the daily life is fiction. Creators, naturebeings, spirits, and ghosts are all connected to some degree with the practical life of the tribe. This is inevitable, because these beings owe their very existence in the mind of man to fundamental human needs. If, for instance, striking cases of fertility gave rise to the idea of naturebeings, their leading attribute would be the power to render fertile. If a belief in spirits arose from the observation of dreams and trances, these spirits would possess the kinds of power that belong to man.

But some of these beings lose their significance after a time, while others enter more and more into the life of the community; they become objects of special attention and thus centres of observances and practices, i.e. they become gods.” ^[²⁸]

Such endeavours of Historicism outright reject Faith and serve to substantiate the claim that “Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes — religion … is the opiate of the masses.” ^[²⁹] Indologists and Political Hindus alike are immersed in the task of assigning temporal origins to Scriptures, Tradition, and Deities, engaging in an eccentric pursuit to designate the Historical Method as the exclusive authority on truth. In opting for this approach, they consciously reject the Aparuṣeyatattva of the Vedas and the cyclical essence of time inherent in Hinduism. Leuba’s proposition, attributing the creation of Deities to external influences, human psychology, and societal needs, finds resonance, and Hindus appear to acquiesce to it, transforming themselves into adherents of some Nāstika/Ardhanāstika (Skeptic/Agnostic) cult.

Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, in his work “Spiritual Authority And Temporal Power In The Indian Theory Of Government,” critiques this weaponisation of Historicism with regards to dating of Religion, Scriptures, and Deities. Coomaraswamy highlights the pitfalls associated with an empirical approach that exclusively leans on the historical method as the sole adjudicator of truth when navigating the complexities inherent in realising theological truths.

“Thus, indeed Indra “supersedes” the father (Varuna, Dyaus, Prajapati, or Vrtra) whom he has overcome or more strictly speaking “sacrificed the pseudohistorical legend of his namesake Ajatasatru is another recension of the same story. But to think of this “supersession of Varuna by Indra” as the reflection of some doctrinal “evolution,” or even to say that “Varuna was divested of his supreme powers by the time of the AV” (Macdonell, Tcdic ilythology, pp. 65, 66) is a misapplication of “historical method” and only displays the mythologist’s ignorance of theology.”

The classical Hindu approach to historical narratives, embodied in the term Itihāsa, amalgamates metaphysical underpinnings with a fusion of factual and mythical elements, steering individuals towards the realization of puruṣārthas. Unlike a pursuit anchored in literal precision or scientific validation, Itihāsa steers clear of aspiring to reach some Enlightenment or Marxist Utopia. At its very core, the fundamental concept of Kalpabheda permeates Hindu Theology, reflecting a dynamic and cyclical understanding of historical narratives.

Gosvāmī Tulasīdāsa eloquently expresses this in a Chaupāi within the Rāmacaritamānasa:

“हरि अनंत हरि कथा अनंता। कहहिं सुनहिं बहुबिधि सब संता॥
रामचंद्र के चरित सुहाए। कलप कोटि लगि जाहिं न गाए॥” ^[³⁰]

“Hari ananta hari kathā anantā, Kahahi sunahi bahubidhi saba santa.
Rāmacandra ke carita suhāe, Kalapa koṭi lagi jāhi na gāe.”

“Infinite is Hari, and so are Hari’s tales. Saints, in myriad ways, sing and hearken to it. The resplendent tales of Lord Rāmacandra remain unsung even across myriad eons.”

Rather than adhering to a singular historical persona of Shri Rāmā, multiple renditions coalesce, each acknowledged as equally valid historical entities within the framework of Kalpabheda. The legitimacy of these versions isn’t contingent upon historical facts or scientific scrutiny but rather on their alignment with the scriptural principles attributed to Shri Rāmā. Within the labyrinthine contours of Itihāsa, the revelation of truth transcends the realm of empirical validation, finding its essence in the scriptural and theological tenets–resonating in profound consonance with the ethos of religious society.

This melding of myths with factual elements to nurture societal concord and drive it towards religiosity is not confined solely to Hinduism. In the context of other Religions, there was a lack of fixation on the tool of Historicism as well until the advent of modern paradigms like Scientism, Evolutionism, Economism, etc., which have now ascended to the status of new deities. This is from ‘Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth’ by Reza Aslan:

“This is an extremely difficult matter for modern readers of the gospels to grasp, but Luke never meant for his story about Jesus’s birth at Bethlehem to be understood as historical fact. Luke would have had no idea what we in the modern world even mean when we say the word “history.” The notion of history as a critical analysis of observable and verifiable events in the past is a product of the modern age; it would have been an altogether foreign concept to the gospel writers for whom history was not a matter of uncovering facts but of revealing truths.

The readers of Luke’s gospel, like most people in the ancient world, did not make a sharp distinction between myth and reality; the two were intimately tied together in their spiritual experience. That is to say, they were less interested in what actually happened than in what it meant. It would have been perfectly normal, indeed, expected, for a writer in the ancient world to tell tales of gods and heroes whose fundamental facts would have been recognized as false but whose underlying message would be seen as true.” ^[³¹]

The Evolutionary Thought in Individual and Collective Behavioural Psychology: Social Darwinism

“Evolutionary psychologists are missionaries, advocating a set of principles that define the meaning of life and seeking to convert others to their beliefs”. —  Dorothy Nelkin

Evolutionary psychology aspires to explicate the emergence and raison d’être of sophisticated human behaviours as a consequence of the evolutionary trajectory of Homo sapiens and the complex evolution of cerebral architecture. This discipline encompasses the scrutiny of the adaptive advantages that such behaviours afford, meticulously dissecting their genesis through the lens of natural selection. This psychological approach, rooted in evolution, consistently delves into the domains of human sexuality, moral/ethical discernment, religion, social order, and hierarchy. Genetics is pivotal in evolutionary biology, dictating trait inheritance and transmission. Mutations introduce variability, forming the basis for natural selection. Over time, advantageous genetic variations drive adaptation, speciation, and the emergence of diverse psychological traits. However, the genetic foundation and evolutionary correlation have been unduly extended, donning the semblance of a straw man used to rationalize assertions that are bereft of empirical substantiation – resembling religion-like beliefs that exceed the bounds of scientific scrutiny.

“Geneticists call the genome the ‘Bible’, the ‘Book of Man’, and the ‘Holy Grail’. They convey an image of this molecular structure as more than a powerful biological entity: it is also a mystical force that defines the natural and moral order. And they project an idea of genetic essentialism, suggesting that by deciphering and decoding the molecular text they will be able to reconstruct the essence of human beings, unlock the key to human nature. As geneticist Walter Gilbert put it, understanding our genetic composition is the ultimate answer to the commandment ‘know thyself’.”

This is from Dorothy Nelkin’s writings where she investigates the pervasiveness of scientism within the sphere of evolutionary psychology. This is a part of the opus titled ‘Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology’ ^[³²] where she rigorously challenges the reductionist tenets of evolutionary psychology. Its distinguished contributors span disciplines, featuring biologists such as Stephen Jay Gould, Gabriel Dover, Patrick Bateson, and Anne Fausto-Sterling; anthropologists and sociologists including Dorothy Nelkin, Tim Ingold, Tom Shakespeare, and Ted Benton; and philosophical insight from Mary Midgley, and cultural critics Barbara Herrnstein Smith and Charles Jencks.

Nelkin further writes on this mad obsession with Genes and their theories to maximise ‘evolutionary fitness:’

“Though concerned about genes, evolutionary psychologists are no longer addressing the old debate about the relative influence of nature or nurture on human behaviour: they are firmly convinced of the biological basis of human nature and culture as well. They are rather seeking universal explanations — the cosmic truth that underlies life, death, culture and faith. This truth lies in natural selection as ‘the consistent guiding force.’ The need to maximise ‘evolutionary fitness’ governs the world, controls destiny, intervenes in history and guides the conduct of human behaviour.”

In the nineteenth century, proponents leveraged race science, social Darwinism, and eugenics to validate their perspectives on belonging. Coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, eugenics, translating to ‘well-born,’ found its roots in England. Advocates of eugenics endorsed measures restricting marriage and immigration to forestall racial amalgamation. This fanaticism of scientism inflicted a deadly assault on humanity. They additionally championed legislation enabling the sterilization of the “socially unfit.” Eugenics, a distorted ideology promising societal enhancement through selective breeding, cast a malevolent shadow over human history, leaving an indelible mark. The ramifications and illustrations are myriad, with notable instances reflecting its pernicious influence. Propelled by racist, classist, and ableist ideologies, it wreaked havoc, resulting in the forced sterilization of over 60,000 individuals in the US, predominantly targeting marginalized communities such as immigrants, those with disabilities, and people of color. Nazi Germany amplified this insanity with the Aktion T4 program, systematically exterminating disabled and mentally ill individuals in a foreboding precursor to the Holocaust. The legacy of eugenics transcends statistical data; the psychological trauma and discrimination suffered by victims reverberate across generations. This somber chapter stands as a poignant cautionary tale against scientific arrogance and prejudice, compelling us to advocate for a future where human rights and individual autonomy unequivocally prevail.

Deciphering collective behavioural psychology through the prism of Evolutionary Psychology intimates that specific group behaviours may have undergone adaptive metamorphoses across temporal expanses. Advocates contend that collaborative inclinations, intra/inter-group dynamics, and hierarchical architectures materialized to amplify group longevity and procreation. Nonetheless, critics of Evolutionary Psychology may scrutinize these interpretations with a degree of caution, raising questions about the ostensibly straightforward nature of evolutionary explanations for complex social phenomena. They assert the multifaceted influence of cultural, historical, religious, and contextual variables in molding group behaviours.

The Kirkmen of Social Darwinism posit that the doctrine of natural selection elucidates the intricate spectrum of human behaviours, encompassing love, jealousy, infidelity, coercion, aggression, empathy, altruism, and more. The pursuit of evolutionary fitness serves as a foundational force in shaping cultural diversity regarding gender distinctions, social categorization, and interpersonal affiliations, thereby molding our fundamental conceptions of morality and virtue. To evolutionary psychologists, natural selection assumes the mantle, as put forth by Dorothy Nelkin, of a “theory of everything,” an enduring principle expounding the causation behind our conduct and the essence that molds our identity.

Swami Karpatri presents a counterargument against the overarching influence of the “survival of the fittest” as the sole driving force behind every human behaviour:

“The Evolutionists’ perspective on the relationship between God and the Self is unclear, incomplete, and laden with misconceptions. The assertion that ‘struggle and self-interest are the essence of life; altruism is ultimately driven by self-interest’ is a fallacious argument of the Evolutionists. It has been stated that only a few perceive altruism as self-interest. Even predatory creatures like tigers are observed sacrificing themselves for their offspring.”

“The assertion that ‘the feeble lack entitlement to societal existence’ exudes a severity that cannot be overstated. The analogy between humans and creatures such as ants, bears, and buffaloes serves to underscore an irrefutable truth: in the realm of physical prowess, animals inevitably triumph. Nevertheless, the ascendancy of humanity emanates not from sheer physical might but from the ascendancy of human intellect. Within human society, it is the cognitively astute who ascend to the zenith of domination. But, it is ethical astuteness that holds greater importance than both intellectual and physical prowess. The obliteration of Sodom and Gomorrah serves as a stark reminder of the catastrophic consequences wrought by ethical transgressions. It is those who embody ethical rectitude, ataraxy, and abstention from bad inclinations that live longer. The Group that prioritizes svartha-buddhi (Temporal/selfish interests) over parāmartha-buddhi (Divine/transcendental interests) finds itself on the precipice of swift quietus. Even among animals, this parāmartha-buddhi is evident. Thus, it is imperative for human beings to exhibit ethical resilience and embrace selflessness. Henceforth, positing life as solely governed by the ‘Survival of the Fittest’ in this ceaseless struggle is an oversimplification and largely untrue.”

Thus, Mātsyanyāya, symbolizing the core principle championed by Evolutionary Psychology, embodies their non compos mentis conviction in defining all human social behavior. Social Darwinists assert that the strong should witness an increase in both their wealth and power, while also suggesting that the weak ought to undergo a concomitant reduction in both their wealth and power. Present day economics and politics, representative of the entire new world order, find themselves ensnared within the influence of this Social Darwinism as well. Adam Smith, in his magnum opus “The Wealth of Nations,” expounded on the invisible hand steering market dynamics, asserting,

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” ^[³³]

The evolutionary congruence inherent in contemporary capitalism resonates with the Darwinian paradigm of natural selection favouring the survival of the most adept. In his tome, ‘The Darwin Economy: Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good,’ Robert H. Frank posits Adam Smith as a ‘Darwinian-before-Darwin.’ ^[³⁴] Frank illustrates this by delineating attributes in fauna, such as the acute eyesight of hawks and the formidable antlers of elk, which endow them with competitive advantages in the relentless struggle for survival and procreation. He contends that Darwin’s nuanced comprehension of competition, encapsulating both individual and collective interests, surpasses the conceptual limitations inherent in Adam Smith’s notion of the invisible hand.

“When the ability to achieve important goals depends on relative con- sumption, as it clearly does in a host of domains, all bets regarding the efficacy of Adam Smith’s invisible hand are off. Notwithstanding the uncritically enthusiastic pronouncements of many of Smith’s modern disciples, unbridled market forces often fail to channel the behavior of self-interested individuals for the common good. On the contrary, as the pioneering naturalist Charles Darwin saw clearly, individual incentives often lead to wasteful arms races.”

The erstwhile landscape of traditional stasis has now transformed into an intensely competitive arena, wherein individuals, bereft of customary vocations, are compelled to vie for modern pedagogy and proletarianization from the outset. This competitive ethos extends to securing coveted positions in esteemed educational institutions, necessitating triumph in rigorous examinations. Subsequently, the struggle persists into the professional realm, where relentless competition for employment opportunities ensues. Once employed, individuals find themselves embroiled in a Machiavellian struggle for career advancements and remuneration augmentations, beset by intricate politics within the capitalist milieu.

Julius Evola provides a concise critique of the entire framework.

“Modern capitalism takes form through the liberalistic Jacobin illusion, which abased the idea of the justification of the State to the mercantile and utilitarian idea of a ‘social contract’, and finally the capitalistic oligarchy, the plutocracy, ends up controlling and dominating the political reality. Power descends, that is, to that level which in traditional terms corresponded to the level of the third caste, the ancient caste of the merchants. With the advent of the bourgeoisie, the economy comes to dominate all things,& its supremacy is openly proclaimed with respect to every subsistent remnant of those, we do not say spiritual, but simply ethical principles which yet survive in the Western political world. This is the Paretian theory of ‘residues’ & the Marxist theory of ‘superstructures’.By the force of a highly significant logic, the royal denomination passes over to the ‘kings of the dollar’, to the ‘kings of carbon’, the ‘kings of steel’ and so forth.” ^[³⁵]

The Italian Philosopher critiques contemporary capitalism, contending its transformation into a plutocracy, where economic forces reign supreme. He discerns a decline in traditional values, replaced by economic considerations embodied in the bourgeoisie, resonating with Pareto’s ‘residues’ and Marxist ‘superstructures.’ He argues for power structure passing over to the ‘kings of the dollar’, to the ‘kings of carbon’, the ‘kings of steel’, and so forth.

Modern man has become an indentured participant in capitalistic establishments, wherein he commodifies his labour while concurrently assuming the role of the discerning consumer. The fiscal dividends are disproportionately concentrated in the hands of the managerial elite, relegating the workforce to endure profound hardships. In contrast to the traditional societal structure that provided a nuanced structure of Caste, affording hereditary and vocational security, contemporary dynamics manifest as an incessant arena of natural selection, characterized by perpetual conflict rather than harmonious complementarity within the religious-social paradigm.

In the trajectory of socio-political evolution, the precepts of Social Darwinism invariably extend their sway into the domain of modern liberal democracy and electoral politics as well. Social Darwinism also influences the philosophy of technology, wherein an excessive reliance on it is considered a panacea for all existential or ecological crises.  Consequently, in cognizance of the repercussions, an exhaustive comprehension of these principles becomes imperative, beckoning a deliberate and circumspect reconsideration of their far-reaching implications.

Evolutionary Ethics Versus Religious Ethics

“Wherever any precept of traditional morality is simply challenged to produce its credentials, as though the burden of proof lay on it, we have taken the wrong position.” ³⁶— C. S. Lewis

 Classical philosophical elucidations, epitomized by Aristotle and Kant, delineate ethics as a nuanced exploration of morality and how humans should act. In the phenomenal work ‘Nicomachean Ethics,’ Aristotle posits that the apex of human well-being resides in activities of the soul consonant with virtue. Morality, in turn, involves the articulation of principles discerning right from wrong, a theme underscored by Immanuel Kant in the ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.’ Kant’s categorical imperative accentuates the imperative of adhering to maxims with potential universality. These conceptual paradigms converge to afford a foundational comprehension of ethical and moral considerations within classical philosophy, elucidating the trajectory towards virtuous comportment and unwavering adherence to universally applicable moral precepts.

Evolutionary ethics constitutes an academic domain delving into the moral ramifications arising from human evolutionary development, scrutinizing the impact of evolutionary mechanisms on the configuration of ethical comportment. Charles Darwin, in his literary contributions, posited that human moral conduct could be comprehended as an outcome of natural selection, accentuating the foundational underpinnings of ethical proclivities in evolutionary processes. Richard Dawkins, an eminent figure in evolutionary biology, challenges established religious and moral paradigms, propounding that a scientifically informed grasp of evolution begets a paradigm shift in ethical perspectives. His assertions, however, are, sacrilegious, contravening fundamental religious tenets and being underpinned by vacuity. In his own words:

“The cynic about human nature might say that religious morality is an effective way of keeping people in line. The threat of Hell, the reward of heaven, but the rules of the holy books are out of date and often barbaric.” ^[³⁷]

Central to Darwin’s paradigm was the assertion that ethics and morality underwent evolutionary development, in tandem with human biological instincts. This conception, however, presented morality as not fixed or objective but rather subjective and subject to considerable divergence among individuals, societies, religions, and races. Ernst Haeckel’s concurrence with Darwin’s evolutionary origin of ethics took a formidable turn as he critiqued Christian ethics for purportedly fostering excessive altruism. His departure from conventional Evangelical doctrines to a more heterodox alignment with Darwinian theory signified a metamorphosis spurred by personal bereavement and an immersive engagement with scientific paradigms. He distanced himself from orthodox religious tenets, prominently observed in his intellectual clashes with stalwart figures such as Erich Wasmann and the Keplerbund  —  ardent advocates of traditional religious doctrines who accused Haeckel of perpetrating fraud. Haeckel’s repudiation of doctrinal rigidity and his proclivity toward an empirically substantiated worldview underscored a deliberate disengagement from formal religious conformity and metaphysics. However, a part of his consciousness acknowledged intrinsic worth in the orthodox structure of Christianity. In his own words:

“Doubtless, human culture today owes the greater part of its perfection to the spread and ennobling [effect] of Christian ethics, despite its higher worth often in a regrettable way being injured by its connection with untenable myths and so-called ‘revelation.’” ^[³⁸]

Evolutionary ethics, firmly grounded in biological instincts, diminishes the role of free will. Probing the assertion that morality is solely tethered to biological determinism, the influence of cultural and religious dynamics in shaping moral frameworks is oversimplified into a binary. Evolutionary ethics may also serve as a justification for reprehensible conduct, highlighting the discernment of selective endorsement of specific moral standards (as required for the Survival of the fittest) by intellectuals. There is a consequential deterioration of traditional ethical foundations and a violation of the sanctity attributed to human life. This operationalization mirrors mātsyanyāya.

Thus, one could delineate Religious Ethics as a set of values that act as a formidable barricade thwarting the perilous plunge of human existence into the chasm of Mātsyanyāya. If life’s sole purpose is confined to survival, the justification for perpetuating traditional values diminishes. Inevitably, one would grapple with internal contradictions, succumbing to discord, where championing actions conducive to the procreation of superior offspring must exclusively determine all moral rectitude.

Cherishing moral virtues such as kindness, gratitude, compassion, altruism, honesty, generosity, and loyalty appear incongruent when our solitary pursuit is ensconced within the competitive precincts of natural selection. Offering his perspectives, Michael Ruse, a philosopher specializing in the field of science at the University of Guelph, observes a lack of substance in Religious Ethics. He asserts that religious morality is not only devoid of foundational support but also dismisses it as a mere illusion.

“The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself, they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such a reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory.” ^[³⁹]

This unequivocal illustration accentuates the extremist nature embedded in the principles of Evolutionary Ethics, and how it is a formidable peril to the foundational ideas of kinship and altruism in society. This assertion is consonant with Haeckel’s contention that altruism propelled by religious convictions is an extremist position. But these claims of Evolutionists’ to Altruism in itself are paradoxical as Lauren Wispé likewise notes,

“How can genes that lead to less of me (the altruist) lead to more of us (altruists)?” ^[⁴⁰]

Now, it becomes crucial to fathom the standing of religious ethics in this milieu and grasp its conceptual essence. Jesuit theologian John Mahoney posits altruism as an inherent divine trait. He notes,

“[W]e are entirely the product of divine altruism, the effect of the sheer creative generosity of the Supreme Being.” ^[⁴¹]

Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, notes:

“Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.” ^[⁴²]

Devoid of the divine ontological anchor, the very concepts of good and evil shed their perennial hues. This doesn’t necessitate a theological commitment for the apprehension that acts like abortion or murder bear moral reprehensibility. But once we discard God, we are compelled to concede that these moral values amount to nothing more than Human contrivance. If the entirety of ethical principles is a mere anthropogenic contrivance devoid of metaphysical underpinnings, then moral relativity ensues, permitting unrestrained actions. In the absence of religiosity, akin to the Chārvākas’ repudiation of metaphysical concepts of the afterlife and God, one could potentially rationalize any behavior, given that the exclusive objectives of life are hedonistic gratification and reproductive success. In the words of Dostoevsky,

“If there is no God, then all things are permitted.” ^[⁴³]

Religious Ethics emerge from Myth and Metaphysics. It transcends Mātsyanyāya, as its essence lies in upholding commandments ordained by a force of higher magnitude, bequeathing Man with a purpose beyond the mere survival of the fittest (like the puruṣārthas in Hinduism). Religious frameworks use metaphysical constructs such as Svar̥ga and Nāraka(Hell and Heaven) to prevent Ethics from devolving into a justification for reprehensible conduct as a mere matter of Evolutionary choice. Instead, they hold ethical adherence as an imperative not beholden to individual choice but firmly placed within the domain of divine judgment, a tenet ingrained in the believer’s conviction.

Frithjof Schuon, the brilliant Swiss metaphysician highlights the importance of this Metaphysical rumination being the core of Religious Ethics:

“From the point of view of philosophical morality, it is the logic of things that determines the sense of good and evil: a world without morality would be a madhouse, and a man without morality would be a monster; philosophical morality and the judgments it sets out to explain are sufficiently justified by these facts, although the basis of this wholly profane morality is not proportionate to the total nature of man. The great fault of the secular moralists is to cut man off from his priestly substance and thus ultimately to suppress morality itself — at least intrinsic morality, for man can always invent false utilitarian justifications and false equilibriums; every society of criminals has its own code of morals while necessarily maintaining a minimum of true morality.” ^[⁴⁴]

Schuon highlights the void arising from the lack of moral values rooted in Religion and Metaphysics. Inevitably, individuals resort to fabricating fallacious utilitarian justifications and establishing deceptive equilibriums. The innate morality within every man is, albeit suppressed by the grave error of secular moralists. Their grievous fault lies in the act of severing mankind from its ‘priestly substance,’ thereby stifling the foundations of morality. Morality, in the worldview expounded by Schuon, emanates from two fundamental sources: the revealed law and conscience. The former, with an ‘objective’ tether to Revelation, provides a framework set forth by divine guidance. In contrast, the latter operates on a more ‘subjective’ plane, intricately linked to the Intellect. Conscience, according to Schuon, is not a mere sentimentality but serves as the inner criterion of our vocation, contingent upon our alignment with the truths of God, the world, and self.

Schuon further extends his critique to an idea of Moral Relativism that not only accommodates arbitrary whims as ethical standards but also embodies an agnostic orientation.

“There is a moral relativism that is truly odious: if you say that God and the beyond are real, this shows you are cowardly, dishonest, infantile, shamefully abnormal; if you say that religion is just makebelieve, this shows you are courageous, honest, sincere, adult, altogether normal. If all this were true, man would be nothing, possessing the capacity for neither truthfulness nor heroism; and there would be no one even to note the fact, for a hero cannot be extracted from a coward nor a sage from a man of feeble mind — not even by “evolution”. But this moralistic bias, ignoble or simply stupid as the case may be, is by no means something new: before it was applied to intellectual positions, it was used to discredit the contemplative life, which was described as an “escape”, as if a man did not have the right to flee from dangers concerning him alone and — more important — as though the contemplative life and withdrawal from the world were not instead a pilgrimage toward God; to flee God as do the worldly is far more senseless and irresponsible than fleeing the world. To run away from God is at the same time to run away from oneself, for when a man is alone with himself — even though he may be surrounded by others — he is always with his Creator, whom he encounters at the very root of his being.”

It is thus asserted that the metaphysical conception of God must act as the foundational pillar of all ethical principles. To evade such contemplation is to elude one’s own essence. Guénon, in his ‘Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines,’ delves into a cognate explication, positing that ethics divorced from religious substrates is pointless. It becomes a mere set of conventions aimed at facilitating social life.

“Outside the religious viewpoint, which gives to ethics a legitimate meaning, everything connected with this order of things should logically be reduced purely and simply to a body of conventions, established and obeyed solely with the object of making social life possible and tolerable; but if this conventional character of ethics were frankly recognised and acted upon accordingly, there would no longer be any question of philosophical ethics. It is sentimentality once again which has stepped in here, and which, in order to find material for the satisfaction of its own special needs, contrives to take these conventions and to cause them to be taken for other than what they really are; hence the development of many different theories, some of which remain clearly sentimental in form as well as in substance, while others are disguised under a more or less rational appearance.”

In the understanding of Ethics detached from religious foundations, sentimentality intervenes, yielding a spectrum of theories, where some are imbued with emotion while others are veiled behind an ostensibly rational veneer.

The distinguished psychologist and philosopher William James recognized for his influential work in pragmatism, engaged in a profound dalliance with Spencer’s teleological ethics. His response echoed a sentimentality reminiscent of that expounded by Guénon.

“We can never on evolutionist principles altogether bar out personal bias, or the subjective method, from the construction of the ethical standard of right.” ^[⁴⁵]

Contemporary ethicists who cavalierly engage in discussions on moral rectitude, ethical impropriety, and the imperatives of morality devoid of any tether to religious tenets, are essentially constructing frameworks ex nihilo. This, fundamentally, implies that their discourse lacks substance. Does Ethics originate from a divine source or find secure anchorage in some metaphysical substrate, or does it exist merely as an evanescent human construct of Evolutionism? The crux of the matter concerning moral and ethical principles resides in their ontological foundation. Verily, the inherent propensities of mankind or the tenets of Natural Selection and Evolutionism do not constitute reliable pathways to ensure ethical comportment and forestall the descent of humanity into a state of collective insanity.

An Idealist of the Neo-Kantian school, T. H. Green, contends in his ‘Prolegomena to Ethics’ that the endeavour to explain Ethics through Natural Science culminates in “the elimination of ethics.”

“Now it is obvious that to a being who is simply a result of natural forces an injunction to conform to their laws is unmeaning.” ^[⁴⁶]

One could argue that the disquieting aspects, which include reflections on warfare, incest, bestiality, rape, and paedophilia, are also part of human nature. While presently consigned to societal disfavour, these natural inclinations, once intellectually legitimized and brought into vogue, may attain societal acceptance. Analogous to the metamorphosis of concepts like homosexuality and gender fluidity, once decried as taboo and deemed unethical, contemporary society not only tolerates but also extols them as intrinsic and ethically commendable facets of human existence.

Thus, Religious Ethics serve as a deterrent amidst the tumult of innate inclinations and the chaos of Natural Selection. Put brilliantly by C. S. Lewis,

“There is a story about a schoolboy who was asked what he thought God was like. He replied that, as far as he could make out, God was ‘the sort of person who is always snooping around to see if anyone is enjoying himself and then trying to stop it’. And I am afraid that is the sort of idea that the word Morality raises in a good many people’s minds: something that interferes, something that stops you from having a good time. In reality, moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine. That is why these rules at first seem to be constantly interfering with our natural inclinations. When you are being taught how to use any machine, the instructor keeps on saying, ‘No, don’t do it like that,’ because, of course, there are all sorts of things that look all right and seem to you the natural way of treating the machine, but do not really work.” ^[⁴⁷]

Conclusion

In conclusion, Religion and modern science stand in stark contrast, representing a dichotomy between truth and error, thereby negating any potential synthesis between them. These are distinct systems. The overreach of science, in the form of Scientism, begets ideologies like Evolutionism. Evolutionism, as a conceptual framework, permeates various aspects of human existence, spanning Religion, History, Social Order, Economics, Politics, Psychology, Ethics, and Technology among others. Succumbing to this emerging quasi-religion of the modern era yields detrimental and chaotic consequences. The Dharmic order, conversely, is buttressed by a system of myth and metaphysics, providing society with a purpose rooted in puruṣārthas, as opposed to the perceived meaninglessness inherent in the Darwinian paradigm.

It is a modern tendency within religious factions to seek a synthesis and synchronization between the domains of Religion and Science. This inclination manifests in the attempts of forceful amalgamation of both domains, with the rejection of traditional interpretations of Religion and deliberate efforts to reformulate it to seamlessly align with the framework of Science. Muslims claim Qu’ran talks of a Spherical Earth instead of a flat one. Christians, especially among Protestant groups, follow a parallel course, asserting that the subtleties embedded in the Christian Creation find a more nuanced and comprehensive explanation within the Evolutionary Theory. Hindus extend this tendency even further. Their assertion regarding the compatibility of Hinduism with science is unparalleled, to the extent of disregarding scriptural verses that do not align with scientific principles. Claims such as the presence of quantum physics in the Vedas or the alignment of the Daśāvatāra of Lord Viṣṇu with the modern evolutionary theory are now widely accepted.

Swami Karpatri deconstructs these hollow assertions in his essay, which modern Hindus and Indologists uphold with reverence, thereby converting Hindu theology into a dynamic and openly accessible tabula rasa for reform. He writes,

“Many individuals attempt to establish evolutionary concepts through descriptions of the eighty-four lakh yonis mentioned in the Purāṇas and the Avatāra like Matsya, Kacchap, Varāha, and Narasiṃha. Similarly, some people cite certain Vedic mantras to support the idea of Darwinian evolution. However, according to the Vedas and Purāṇas, the evolution of one species into another is not substantiated. Instead, all yonis are considered independent. Even in the Avatāras, Matsya and others are considered independent manifestations. The idea that “evolution has occurred from Matsya to Kacchap” is not supported by the Purāṇas.”

This constitutes a formidable rebuttal to the unsubstantiated convictions embraced by present-day Hindus. These Modern efforts toward reconciliation and synthesis lack substantive profundity, exhibiting intellectual dishonesty and compromising the integrity of both the spheres of religion and science. It is imperative for the adherents of Hinduism and other theistic traditions to fully embrace the innate orthodoxy of their respective religions, untethered by the constraints imposed by modern institutions. Only through such unwavering commitment can they effectively grapple with the formidable forces of modernity, encapsulating elements of the New World Order such as capitalism, scientism, technology, democracy etc. Absence of a profound and resolute engagement with these formidable forces of Modernity, the safeguarding, nurturing, and advancement of religion and tradition in the modern era will prove elusive.

Bibliography

1. Campbell, J., & Moyers, B. (1991). The power of myth.
2. Saran, A. K. (1963). Hinduism and economic development in India. Archives de sociologie des religions.
3. Guénon, René. (1921). Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines. 
4. Carnap, R. (1959). New York: The Free Press. The elimination of metaphysics through logical analysis of language.
5. Adi Shankaracharya. (1982). Bhagavad Gita with Shankaracharya’s commentary. (18.66) (A.M. Sastri, Trans.).
6. Haack, S. (2003). Defending science — within reason: Between scientism and cynicism.
7. Chesterton, G.K. (1922, April 8). The Separation of Science and Popular Science. Essay in The Illustrated London News
8. Giles, D. (2023, March 14). Philosophy’s Critique of Scientism — Part 1. Inserting Philosophy. https://medium.com/inserting-philosophy/philosophys-critique-of-scientism-part-1-539f551408a
9. Williams, R. N., & Robinson, D. N. (Eds.). (2014). Scientism: The new orthodoxy.
10. Johnson, P. E. (1991). Darwin on trial: An intelligent design critique of Darwinism.
11. Futuyma, D. J. (1986). Evolutionary biology.
12. [@AgentSaffron]. (2023, December 25). Opposing Theory of Evolution is like Opposing Theory of Gravity at this point it’s not even funny anymore. [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/AgentSaffron/status/1738988444527829356
13. Bethell, T. (2001, January). Against sociobiology. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life.
14. Karpatri, Swami. (1959). Marxvaad aur Ramrajya.
15. Matthews, L. H. (1971). Foreword to the reprint of ‘Darwin, C. (1971). On the Origin of Species.’
16. Von Sydow, M. (2013). From Darwinian Metaphysics towards Understanding the Evolution of Evolutionary Mechanisms.
17. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin quoted by Johnson, P. E. (1991). Darwin on trial: An intelligent design critique of Darwinism.
18. Kaṭhopaniṣad. (Chapter 2, Śloka 1)
19. Acharya, M. (1925). Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha.
20. Cowell, E. B., Gough, A. E., & Gough, A. E. (1882). The Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha of Mādhava Ācārya or Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy.
21. Jordan, Z. A. (1967). The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism: A Philosophical and Sociological Analysis.
22. LeConte, J. (1888). Evolution and Its Relation to Religious Thought.
23. Brown, C. M. (2012). Hindu Perspectives on Evolution: Darwin, Dharma, and Design.
24. Paraphrase of the ideas expressed by Hegel, G. W. F. (1801). The Critical Journal of Philosophy, 1801 Jena.
25. Plekhanov, Georgi. (1956). The Development of the Monist View of History.
26. Letter to F. Lassalle in Berlin. London, 16 January 1861″. Marx & Engels Collected Works. Vol. 41.
27. Guénon, R. (1945). The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times.
28. Leuba, J. H. (1912). A Psychological Study of Religion: Its Origin, Function, and Future.
29. Marx, K. (1844). A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.
30. Tulasīdāsa, G. (16th century). Rāmacaritamānasa.
31. Aslan, R. (2013). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.
32. Rose, H., & Rose, S. (Eds.). (2000). Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology.
33. Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
34. Frank, R. H. (2011). The Darwin Economy: Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good.
35. Evola, J. (1996). Metaphysics of Power.
36. Lewis, C. S. (1943). The Abolition of Man.
37. Quoted in Seeker Project 4 Spiritual Exploration. (n.d.). Why is Losing Your Faith in God is the Best Thing that Could Happen?
38. Haeckel, E. (1903). Monism as Connecting Religion and Science: The Confession of Faith of a Man of Science (J. Gilchrist, Trans.).
39. Ruse, M. (1989). Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics. In The Darwinian Paradigm.
40. Quoting Wispé, L., Toward an integration from Kay, M. (2022). What’s wrong with being wrong: a closer look at evolutionary ethics — part 1. Journal of Creation.
41. Mahoney, J. (2011). Christianity in Evolution: An Exploration.
42. Taylor, R. (1985). Ethics, Faith, and Reason.
43. Dostoevsky, F. (1880). The Grand Inquisitor. In The Brothers Karamazov.
44. Schuon, F. (1970). Logic and Transcendence.
45. James, W. (1920). Collected Essays and Reviews.
46. Green, T. H. (1883). Prolegomena to Ethics.
47. Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere Christianity.