Let’s unravel this thought by looking into it from three angles. It’s so vast topic, I don’t think so I can cover it in this short post but to at least provide some explanation of my previous post, I am making quick attempt.
Believing in Science: “Believe” is a state of mind where someone holds an opinion or has firm conviction on something. This can be aided by evidence but it’s more of a psychological state where a person holds something as true with or without explicit reasoning. That’s why you would see that at times a person is holding two beliefs at the same time that contradicts with each other. By very definition, “believing in something” is not truly “scientific” - as per Scientific Method (systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses). Because, even Science can be proven wrong through Scientific method and at that point. So believing in science is kind of “oxymoron”. So, if someone says that I believe in Science but I don’t want to believe in God because I can’t prove the existence of God - that’s like the person is saying that I can believe one thing in my mind with/without prove but I can’t believe something else with/without a prove. This is inherently contradicting because as per definition, believe doesn’t need a firm prove to start with and science is all about observation-experiment-proving hypothesis.
Disbelieve in God: if you’re a scientific mind, to prove or disprove anything you would have to prove a hypothesis through experiment and able to do that repeatable manner. So, if you believe (hypothesis) that God doesn’t exist then the next step is to prove your hypothesis in a repeatable manner. I have never seen such hypothesis has been proven so far by any atheists - for or against God’s existence. So until, you can prove it or disprove it - you should be quietly working on that experimentation using Scientific method (to clarify the common misconception - most of the atheists go on wasting their time on proving the idiotic arguments of some religious people. When you prove certain religious people as idiot or dumb you are only proving those people as idiot but that’s not moving the needle for your hypothesis on God’s existence or nonexistence). I know it’s very hard or at this point not even possible to conduct experiments on the hypothesis because there are so many basic fundamental things, for instance, in Physics but in general in Science, that even Science can’t prove or disprove it but they just know that it just happens (e.g. Quantum superpositions, Entanglement).
I am just taking one example of God’s attribute if it can be proved or disproved: God is omnipresent i.e. God can be everywhere at the same time. How can that be possible? This is a concept even a theist has hard time to comprehend it (no wonder, as we try to explain things based on our knowledge such as mostly by classical physics where we know nothing can travel faster than light speed at which point the time becomes constant or irrelevant thus causing all theories of classical physics to fail). On the contrary, if you get into the world of Quantum mechanics, you would see that our traditional understanding doesn’t work there (such as Quantum Superpositions: it states that a quantum particle can be in multiple state at the same time until it’s measured). Though physicists yet don’t know fully how it works but it’s evident that it works and is now being used in real world implementation. I am not saying that this is the prove of the “God’s Omnipresence” attribute but I am just pointing that the “night is still young” - Science has to go long way to even understand the Creation before it can jump into proving the Creator.
Scientific mind can’t disbelieve God: This may seem totally opposite of what you experience in the real world situation. Most of the Atheists claim that they are the students of science or at least have affinity to Science. But this is actually far from the truth. It is like Donald Trump’s great proclamation that “I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world”. Would you buy into his claim and agree with him? No, you wouldn’t. Because you would check this statement against the action he has been taken or he has said in other occasions. In the same sense, even the most atheists would claim that they are the most scientific friendly person there is anywhere in the world, you would judge their actions and other statements to justify that. Let’s see what Science tells us to do. Science never claims that it knows everything rather it is the process of discovering the truth by observation and experiments. Through that discovery process you would find new truth, dismantle old truth - even the truth that Science had asserted as “truth” in the past through scientific experimentation. Do you want evidence of it? I am giving you a few as headline (otherwise it would be few pages long for each of them)
- Aristotle’s Eternal state is shattered in early nineteenth century by the Big Bang theory which is now recognized the widely accepted theory (until the next big theory shatters it)
- Cosmological constant (aka Einstein’s greatest blunder) to adhere to static universe
- Lord Kelvin’s claim on Airplane and Oxygen’s supply in the earth would run out in 400 years (claimed in billion population
- Newton was absolutely wrong on the cause of gravitational force and then superseded by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Spoiler alert, Einstein was also dead wrong about the Quantum mechanics (below)
- Quantum physics and classical computing don’t agree with each other on many things. Quantum entanglement is one where Einstein had denied the existence of such behavior but now has not been accepted but it’s one of the founding principles behind the Quantum computing.
- Opioid, once hailed as a “miracle pain killer” is now proven to be root cause the America’s Opioid Epidemic where almost 50 thousands Americans are dying every year due to the addictive nature of this prescription medication. In just 50 years, the
- The list goes on…
By going through the evolution of scientific discovery you would see with certainty that Science doesn’t stand still on anything for a long time but is an eternal journey to find new discovery and truth while shattering its own past truth. While the state of Science is such, how would you rely on Science to decide that there’s God or no God? For Science to come to that point where you can have a candid discussion on God you would probably need to wait hundreds or thousands years. Until then, what should be a science minded person should be do? If honest, it can be at the minimum - Agnostic (which is another hypocritical stand that I can cover in another post).
No comments:
Post a Comment