Naturalism is Self-Defeating

Alvin Plantinga:

“Toward the end of the book, Dawkins endorses a certain limited skepticism. Since we have been cobbled together by (unguided) evolution, it is unlikely, he thinks, that our view of the world is overall accurate; natural selection is interested in adaptive behavior, not in true belief. But Dawkins fails to plumb the real depths of the skeptical implications of the view that we have come to be by way of unguided evolution. We can see this as follows. Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or souls or substances joined to a body, and they don’t contain any immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?

From a theistic point of view, we’d expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naive hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he’d have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It’s as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.

If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it. (Example of a defeater: suppose someone once told me that you were born in Michigan and I believed her; but now I ask you, and you tell me you were born in Brazil. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.) And if he has a defeater for that belief, he also has a defeater for any belief that is a product of his cognitive faculties. But of course that would be all of his beliefs—including naturalism itself. So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.

The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins’ naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can’t rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.”

How the Nazi’s Based their Ideas on Darwinism

Whatever you see in this movie is simply Darwinism with a more hateful touch.

Biomimetics: Technology Imitates Nature

I’ve been watching Harun Yahya‘s films for many years now and I warmly recommend them. In “Biomimetics: How Technology Imitates Nature” we see how we humans often have to imitate nature when we want the best obtainable technological designs. Harun Yahya shows us how scientists have used the fantastic technology in nature to create a lot of interesting things like – and I find this especially interesting for us as devotees – how the lotus flower has been used due to its amazing ability to stay clean. I’ll not reveal more. Watch the video to learn how and why!

Enjoy this evidence of Intelligent Design.  

What follows from the link between Darwin and Hitler?

Sitapati Prabhu wrote:

“Science Daily.com has an interesting article entitled: “How to spot a hidden religious agenda“, which contains the following:

The ID crowd, for instance, loves to draw a line from Darwin to the Holocaust, as they did in the “documentary” film Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Even if such an absurd link were justified, it would have zero relevance to the question of whether or not the theory of evolution is correct.

That’s correct.

My answer:

Dear Prabhu!

Richard Weikart, author of “From Darwin to Hitler“, argued that a link between Darwin and Hitler can be either historical or logical. He argues for a historical link and not so much, if at all, for a logical link. The historical link in indisputable. As I argue in my post “Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 2)” there is also some what of a logical link – at least between some of Darwin’s ideas to some of Hitlers ideas. However, I would never say that Darwinism by logical necessity leads to Hitler even though it definitely leads to some horrible things. But looking at human psychology I think it obvious that if the wrong people get Darwin’s ideas in their hands (which they did) then Nazi Germany or something similar follows. Darwin’s ideas were insane on many points – and sick people acted on them and sometimes made their own little extra spin on them.

It would, of course, be a logical fallacy to claim that Darwin’s ideas are wrong because they lead to negative consequences, but in the light of Krishna Consciousness we know that the truth doesn’t contain evil doctrines. This might not be helpful for a non-Krishna Conscious audience. Therefore you can view my presentation of the moral consequences as going hand in hand with a scientific response to Darwinism. People, including some devotees, might argue that “Darwin is wrong, but so what? Why spend so much time on his ideas?” So I think it is important to give them a package where you can see that not only is Darwinism wrong, but also harmful – and thus must be addressed and defeated.

Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 2)

What follows is the continuation of my debate with Rasasthali Devi Dasi at www.dandavats.com. The below is a new and revised version.

In my post “Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 1)” I defended my first contention which was that Rasasthali Devi Dasi contradicts Prabhupada when she claims that Darwinism hasn’t been, to a large extent, the cause of the many social evils we see today.

In the following I’ll defend my second contention which is that Rasasthali Devi Dasi is wrong when she claims that Darwinism hasn’t been, to a large extent, the cause of the many social evils we observe today.  

There’s a lot to be said about this subject matter. My intention is to write a longer article presenting more detailed explanations and giving more evidence for the six points I will discuss here. So stay tuned at Vaisnava Apologetics! :-)

The Social Impact of Darwinism

I will argue that social evils follows logically and inescapably from Darwin’s ideas. Specifically I’ll mention six things about his theory of evolution which makes it an evil theory:

1. Leaving God out of the picture

Darwin’s ideas made it possible, like never before, to explain the world without the need for God or any sort of supernatural phenomenon. Darwin was himself heavily influenced by materialistic philosophy from his very childhood and from earlier and contemporary materialistic philosophers like Hume and Comte whom he liked. Even before he published his books he would lean towards the rejection of God. Evidence for this can be found in his earlier notebooks and manuscripts. At the end of his life Darwin would totally reject Christianity. His theory became a “scientific” justification for leaving God out of the picture – and Darwin knew this very well. 

The social impact of leaving God out of the picture is that from that it follows that there can be no absolute standard for right and wrong. We are left with no spiritual guidance. This is common sense which I show in my version of “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. Prabhupada agrees fully with this view which I document in my “Prabhupada and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. Making people think that we don’t have any need of God in order to explain the origin of and development of life leads naturally to disastrous moral consequences. It more then anything else confines people within the physical world by making them identify with the body.

2. Moral relativism

If we can explain everything without God it becomes irrational to believe in God. Darwin argued that all human traits including moral traits can be explained by his theory. This leaves us with moral relativism. The consequences of moral relativism can be seen in my article “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. The consequences are that all actions are morally equal. There can be no true normative moral statements. Thus it becomes impossible to condemn things like rape, murder, oppression, child abuse, slavery etc. And we also can’t praise things we normally consider morally good like helping people in need, caring for our children, spreading spiritual knowledge etc. Everything become equal. Darwin himself arrived at the conclusion that morality was simply relative. If we want to do good, he said, we can do nothing more than listen to what we feel is good. This moral relativism was condemned by Prabhupada (see “Prabhupada and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God“).

3. There is no progress in our evolution as a species without war, disease, famine and other sorts of pressures which eliminates the weak specimens and forces the strong to adapt and develop superior traits.

Darwin often praised war as a good thing and later thinkers and political leaders like Stalin, Lenin and Hitler used this to justify their wars. Some, like Lenin, even created artificial famine in their countries to eliminate the weak.

To say that there’s no progress without wars and that wars are therefore a good, and even a necessary thing, is in itself an evil doctrine. How accountable Darwin is for this is ultimately between him and Krishna. 

4. The use of eugenics.

Darwin favored, at least to some degree, the use of eugenics. Just like we can make better and stronger animals by not letting the weak specimens procreate and by letting the strong specimens procreate so we can make better and stronger men by hindering the weak in body and mind to procreate and by helping to strong in body and mind to do so. There are quotes were Darwin says that the poor should not be allowed to procreate and were he says only humans, among other animals, are so stupid as to take care of their weak specimens.

5. Racism

While some argue that Darwin was against slavery it’s still true that he was a racist. You’re not necessarily against racism because you are against slavery. Darwin’s books are filled with racism. He consistently wrote that the European white race was the most superior race and that blacks were almost like apes. This view follows logically from his evolution theory; some must be more evolved than others. The weak dies and the strong survives. Thus Darwin predicted that soon the “savage races” would die in the struggle for survival, being eliminated by the stronger races (the white caucasians).

6. Sexism

Darwin used his theory of evolution to explain why he thought that men were more intelligent than women. He argued that it must be because men were the ones who were out of the home struggling to get food. Thus they encountered more pressure and thus acquired superior traits, like a higher intelligence. In some places Darwin would say that women, like dogs, was good to keep men company. 

Conclusively

There is definitely a logical and historical link between Darwin’s ideas and evil. The six points mentioned above are in themselves evil and combined together gave a “scientific” justification for all sorts of social evils. Darwin was warned about the consequences, even by his own mentor and friends. But he didn’t do anything to prevent them. Nor did he protest when his cousin Francis Galton instituted a eugenics society. He also didn’t object to the sick way in which many contemporary thinkers took his ideas.

Besides the indisputable historical links between Darwin and all the socials evil performed in his name by later dictators, like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini and others are there also logical links between them? I think in some areas there certainly are. But in other areas it might be their adding something to Darwin’s ideas or seeing some consequences of the ideas that Darwin didn’t see or spoke about. Sometimes Darwin was inconsistent. This was the case in regard to his morality. He had his personal moral opinions which is inconsistent with the view that morality is relative. On the one hand the claimed that morality was relative, but on the other hand he claimed that slavery was wrong. So some thinkers simply took the logical consequences of Darwin’s moral relativism and rejected his inconsistent moral opinions. Darwin’s contemporary admirer Ernst Haeckel, who was a very outspoken racist and eugenicist, did this and claimed that moral relativism follows logically Darwin’s theory. He was right. Without Darwin’s theory it’s hard to see how these thinkers and dictators could have argued for their ideas and gotten away with their actions.

Darwin’s theory has been used as the building block for many social evils. It has fueled, inspired and “scientifically” justified things like euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, racism, satanism, forced sterilization, sexism, liberalizing sex and criminal justice, experimentation with humans and animals, wars, artificial famine, elimination of the inferior, eugenics and many other evils.

Darwinism permeates everywhere and makes people identify with their bodies and think that God is unnecessary. Therefore it is the number one evil theory on the face of the planet and therefore Prabhupada wanted it defeated almost more than any other thing. We can let Krishna decide precisely how much Darwin will be held accountable for propagating his ideas. But it doesn’t look good. Let’s pray that he will become Krishna Conscious and be protected from the bad karma.

William Lane Craig on Dawkins “The God Delusion”

Christian Philosopher and Theologian Dr. William Lane Craig gives an eminent response to the central argument of Dawkins Book. This is a must hear for all intelligent persons. 

Audio (MP3):

William Lane Craig on the Central Argument in Richard Dawkins Book “The God Delusion” plus questions and answers by students (Florida University)

Originally to be found on William Lane Craig’s www.reasonablefaith.org.

The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity

Reading Prabhupada like the Devil Reads the Bible

How to undermine Prabhupada’s teachings:

1. Claim that Prabhupada was conditioned by the time and milieu he grew up and lived in.

In this way devotees can relativize a lot of Prabhupada’s statements, and we see some devotees try this, especially those statements which have social implications which runs contrary to modern secular atheistic thoughts. I’ve seen, to name a few examples, devotees advance this claim to justify a rejection of some of Prabhupada’s views on the role of women, homosexuality and the definition of science.

2. Claim that Prabhupada was not an expert on material matters.

While there might be some truth to this (Prabhupada would sometimes say that he was not an expert on certain material affairs), problems arise if we extrapolate from this that therefore whatever Prabhupada said about any material affairs can’t be taken as absolute truth. Like the first claim this has also been advanced in order to reject many of Prabhupada’s views on the role of women, homosexuality and the definition of science.

3. Claim that Prabhupada wanted us to adapt his teachings to our present time, place and circumstances.

Sometimes we should, of course, but this has probably become the most misused quote from Prabhupada. Even if Prabhupada said we shouldn’t do a specific thing with this quote in our hands we can now claim that “times have changed and we have to adapt.” Some devotees, for example, wants ISKCON to accept homosexual marriage, contrary to Prabhupada’s views, because times have now changed. 

4. Claim that Prabhupada didn’t want us to follow his words blindly.

Of course the ideal is not to follow Prabhupada blindly, but it’s better to follow him blindly than to contradict him. I’ve seen this argument used in connection with some of the above arguments in a way that undermined his teachings. With this quote one can even contradict Prabhupada and claim that “we now know better and since Prabhupada didn’t want us to follow blindly we are now following our own intelligence and new “scientific” data and Prabhupada would be very happy about that.” I’ve seen devotees reject Prabhupada’s critical remarks on Darwinism which he consistently made throughout his teachings, because “we shouldn’t follow him blindly!” 

With the above four claims we can basically take anything Prabhupada said and twist it to fit your own speculative philosophy – and in this way read Prabhupada as the Devil reads the Bible. 

I’ve heard a devotee claim that Prabhupada didn’t want us to repeat things we hadn’t sufficiently realized. But that’s not true. Even if our realization of Prabhupada’s word are not fully mature it’s our duty to simply repeat them:

Hari-śauri: When we go out and preach and we just repeat or try to repeat whatever we’ve heard from the spiritual master, but we may not have fully realized what we’re speaking about, does that somehow or another reduce the potency of the Gītā or the Bhāgavatam or…

Prabhupāda: Yes, realization takes time. Therefore there is no question of realization. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says you simply repeat as Kṛṣṇa says. That will save you.

The right and safe thing to do is to repeat what Prabhupada said. The wrong and risky thing to do is to speculate and try to be more clever than the guru.

William Lane Craig Responds to Dawkins Book

Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler

“In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles.” Series: “Voices” [11/2004] [Humanities] [Show ID: 8987]

Darwin – an objective scientist?

Darwin – an objective scientist?

Darwin is often portrayed as a sort of textbook example of a perfect scientist who after objectively observing and studying the diversity of life came to conclude that the most logical explanation for this diversity is that life must have evolved over time from a common ancestor through natural selection. A few weeks ago I saw a video where a person defended Charles Darwin and portrayed him as an honest scientist who simply objectively observed the diversity of life, tried to make sense out of what he saw and then came to accept evolution by natural selection as the most plausible and scientific explanation.

How objective was Darwin?

Most people are under the wrong impression that Darwin was the father of evolution theory. That’s not true. The idea that life arose from matter and evolved from it had been existing for thousands of years. It can be found in the writings of materialist philosophers from in India, Mesopotamia, Sumeria, Egypt and later Greece. Even though these materialist philosophers did not agree on everything we find in their writings ideas of how life arose from matter in water, that humans evolved from fish, that species evolved from one another, that there was a struggle for survival amongst the living beings and that there was a hierarchy of life from the most simple to the most complex. The writings of these philosophers were well known to many western thinkers and scientists like Benoit de Maillet, Pierre de Maupertuis, Comte de Buffon and Jean Baptiste Lamarck and others who all embraced and propagated the idea. Charles Darwin was greatly influenced by these thinkers.

Not only was Darwin influenced by earlier and contemporary thinkers, he was influenced by materialistic ideas from his very childhood. Both his father, Robert Darwin, and grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, were Freethinkers and members of the Mason order. Erasmus Darwin, who was a physicist and one of the highest ranking members of the Masonic organization, was himself influenced by and played an important role in the formation of the evolution theory. In the 1780′s and 90′s he wrote two books, “Temple of Nature” and “Zoomania”, in which he argued that all life came from a common ancestor and developed through the laws of nature alone. Later the founded the “Philosophical Society” to help him spread his ideas. So Darwin wasn’t acting alone. There was a whole anti-religious movement centered around so called Enlightenment ideas to help propagate a materialistic world view. Darwin’s important contribution in this connection was that he was the first to offer a usable “scientific” justification for the idea.

While the above does not in disprove evolution by natural selection it does show us that Darwin is often misportrayed. The fact is, however, that he did not coin the idea of evolution by natural selection due to his objective observations in nature. He already had the idea in mind from his very childhood and from earlier and contemporary Enlightenment thinkers. He might, therefore, not have been as objective as many would like him to appear.

It is also crucial to keep in mind that at Darwin’s time (like today) there really was no evidence to justify evolution. Darwin did some observations, but he himself admitted that there was a lot of problems with his theory. He dedicated a whole chapter in his book “The Origin og Species”, which he called “Difficulties on Theory”, to  a discussion on the many problems with his ideas. He hoped that in the future they would be solved. In spite of the lack of evidence Darwin nonetheless believed in his own theory. His belief was thus unscientific in nature and mere philosophical speculation. Today there’s even less justification for his ideas and thus both Darwin and his modern followers can’t decorate themselves with the label “scientist”.

Can we use Darwin to argue for vegetarianism?

Written to a devotee who tries to create an argument for vegetarianism based on Darwins teachings:

—

Dear Prabhu! Pamho, agtSP!

I don’t think you can use Darwinism to argue in favor of any morality. It’s the naturalistic fallacy to try to derive an “ought” from an “is”. On Darwin we might as well argue that just as animals commit no moral wrong in killing, so we humans, who on Darwinism are also just animals, do no wrong in killing. In fact, many atheists will say that an alien race superior to us would do no wrong in killing us, so they would have no problem with your argument.

This reminds me of the movie “Predator” where some aliens come down to hunt humans for fun. They are far superior to humans. So just like we can hunt animals, they can hunt us. Of course the movie challenges us humans – hunters and meat-eaters – to admit they are inconsistent if they claim these aliens are doing something wrong. But it can do not more than that; you can’t change it into a Darwinistic moral argument for vegetarianism.

—

Further thoughts:

Some might argue that it’s good if we also can establish vegetarianism on a Darwinian view, but it is crucial to understand that from a naturalistic world view no normative morality can be derived. If God does not exist then everything is permitted. The whole problem with saying that we can derive a normative morality from Darwinism is that it contradicts our scriptures and will allow the atheists to tell us that we don’t need God as the ontological foundation of morality. Thus we will hamper our own preaching.

Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 1)

The following is a comment I wrote to a devotee at dandavats.com. View her comment to ISKCON Hungary here.

Pamho, agtSP!

Our process is to repeat the words of our spiritual master and therefore not contradict his words.

My first contention is that you are contradicting Prabhupada’s words when you claim that Darwin’s theory is not “to a large extent” “responsible for the moral decline of human society.”

My second contention is that you’re wrong when you claim that it is “unproven” that Darwins theory is “to a large extent” “responsible for the cause of the moral decline in our society.”

The first contention

Prabhupāda: “Darwin is a rascal. What is his theory? We kick on your face. That’s all. That is our philosophy. The more we kick on Darwin’s face, the more advanced in spiritual consciousness. He has killed the whole civilization, rascal.”

Prabhupāda: “That is nonsense. Darwin was a number-one nonsense. Yes. Rascal. He has confused the whole world.” Prabhupāda: “Full nonsense, this rascal. How much havoc he has done to the human society. A grand rascal, this Darwin. And he is taken as the basic principle of anthropology. The whole world has become…”

Prabhupada: “The Darwin’s theory, this theory, that theory, simply they are bewildered, thinking this body is the self.” Prabhupada: “So the modern civilization, according to Darwin’s theory, they are advancing to become animal. That’s it. Therefore they are claiming their forefathers are coming from monkeys.”

Prabhupada: “Because they are standing on a wrong theory, all their calculations are wrong, and people are suffering. The rascal Darwin’s theory. So many, based on this foolish theory, wrong conception of life. So we have to challenge, protest. defeat. This will be our work. Our worshiping of Kṛṣṇa, that is our internal affair. The external affair—we need to establish this theory. Otherwise they’ll be leading this society. Misleading. They are misleading, not leading, misleading. So we have to stop this misleading.”

To sum up: According to Prabhupada Darwins theory has killed the whole civilization, that is has confused the whole world, that is has caused a lot of havoc in human society, that is bewilders people be making them identify the body as the self, that it makes people become animals, that it misleads people and makes them suffer. Darwins theory has created so much trouble that Prabhupada want us to stop it.

Thus I think it is proven that my first contention is correct: You are contradicting Prabhupada.

Arguments for my second contention is coming soon.

Ys, Ajit Krishna Dasa

How to Deal with Philosophical Deviations in ISKCON?

Lately I’ve witnessed what I can only consider to be philosophical deviations being preaching by ISKCON devotees on the internet. This is, obviously, not the first or the last time that has been seen. But it disturbs me. Some might say that it’s not proper etiquette to mention names, but I think it’s more fair for all parts if readers of this blog can get access the texts written by these devotees in order to evaluate the situation themselves. If these authors really think they are correct they’ll be likely to want people read their texts rather than to just hear my opinions on them. Therefore I will provide links and names in the following.

On dandavats.com Rasasthali Devi Dasi is claiming, contrary to Prabhupada’s words, that Darwinism has not to a large extent caused the moral decline of our world. On his blog Janakirama Prabhu (who is the husband of Rasasthali Devi Dasi) argues that you can create an argument for vegetarianism based on Darwinism. On atmayogi.com Sitapati Prabhu argues that Krishna Consciousness and Bhagavatam is not a science and that we as devotees shouldn’t present them as such. He also seems to be a gay rights activist in a way that runs contrary to Prabhupada views on the matter and he accept quite a lot of the evolution theory as being true – even though it contradicts sastra and Prabhupada. He has written a lot about these thing, so you have to investigate his blog for yourself. On news.iskcon.com Janakirama Prabhu and someone who calls himself Kapil (I don’t know if he’s a devotee) argues that Intelligent Design is not science and criticises Expelled the Movie.

The above mentioned philosophical deviations are only a few among many being preached on the internet and other places by ISKCON devotees. It is our duty to ask ourselves where such misunderstandings and philosophical deviations – smaller or greater as they might be – comes from? 

One answer would be that people in Kali-Yuga are very prone to accept the atheistic conclusions they’ve heard for their whole lives in our soul killing educational institutions. A philosophically weak kanistha-adhikari is by definition easily confused when confronted with opposing arguments and has a tendency to compromise or even be converted. When such a kanistha-adhikari feels social pressure he or she might want to find some sort of compromise to remove that pressure. Thus it’s tempting to create a fantasy that mixes devotional and atheistic arguments.

I think ISKCON has a lot of work to do in order to make sure that new devotees are properly educated in Krishna Consciousness.

Another answer would be that there’s a lot of  bad, but well-meaning, preaching going on in ISKCON (among all the good preaching). Often we are so eager to get new devotees that we use all sorts of speculative preaching styles which gives people the impression that ISKCON is a much more compromising religion than it actually is. In this way we attract a lot of dangerous pseudo-spiritualists who sooner or later hampers our preaching due to their non-devotional attitudes. I think ISKCON devotees should be less speculative in their preaching efforts and that we should focus on “boiling down the milk”. 

“Now I want that we shall concentrate on making our devotees Krishna conscious and ourselves becoming Krishna conscious, and not be so much concerned with expanding ourselves widely but without any spiritual content. Just like boiling the milk, it becomes thicker and sweeter. Now do like that, boil the milk.” [Letter to Rupanuga, 72-05-09]

Can ISKCON afford to not address the views of devotees who are preaching philosophical deviations? I think ISKCON needs to be better at protecting itself from such deviations. After all Prabhupada said that ISKCON can only be destroyed from within. If we keep our doors too open bad elements will creep in. Unfortunately it has now become increasingly difficult to check the spreading of deviating views since every new bhakta and bhaktin can now voice his or her opinion on his own blog and on internet forums. 

What to do? Let’s work together in a true spirit of wanting to protect ISKCON and helping devotees get back to Prabhupada. I’ll address the texts of the devotees in forthcoming posts.