In the past volume, I debated the validity of belief in existence of God; now, I extend the same sense of skepticism to science as well. To make the reading tone a little different, I am going to write this in the form of a debate – a debate between a Scientist who obviously believes in science and a Skeptic who questions the validity of science itself. In fact, when I think about it, this sort of a debating writing style more accurately reflects my own thinking paradigm – because, when I cogitate about these topics, it’s actually a back-and-forth dialog between two people that happens in my mind. After all, as Dumbledore said to Harry Potter (one of the best lines in the whole seven-volume series), “…of course it’s all happening in your head, but why in the world should that mean it’s any less real?!” So, anyways, here’s the debate:
Skeptic: You know, it’s not as if science is beyond reproach either. If you think about it, science is as much a system of blind beliefs as religion. Take the simple number ‘1’. Can you show me ‘1’?
Scientist: Sure, I can. Here. (And he writes the number ‘1’ on a piece of paper.)
Skeptic: No, that’s just a symbol of ‘1’; a depiction of the concept of ‘one’. There isn’t ‘1’ to begin with in this universe. It’s a mathematical construct to represent and simplify the world. Similarly can you prove that 1+1=2?
Scientist: No, not quite.
Skeptic: Exactly right. 1+1=2 isn’t a given. It again is a base assumption. So science, taken as a whole, is not completely provable through an independent system of verification. It is not absolute truth. Do you agree with me so far?
Scientist: So far, yes.
Skeptic: Now, extend that argument a little more. The very concept of sequential progression of arguments (simply called logic flow) toward proving something as being necessary is itself an unproven assumption, isn’t it? It’s simply the definition of rationality. It’s just a method adopted as being justified and necessary within the framework of science – if someone asks a why, there isn’t any answer. It simply is. It’s the definition and hence beyond questioning. If one does question, one is questioning rationality itself and is therefore deemed irrational.
Scientist: True. Ok, let’s accept the fact that science is built on a set of fundamental assumptions. But what science has going for it is that having once established a set of base assumptions and clearly calling them out as such, the rest of the derivations are internally consistent. That is to say that all statements of science are consistent with the initial set of assumptions that cut across concepts, methods, and values. For example, the method of using observation to validate a hypothesis is itself an assumption of a valid method. But once that assumption is made, all subsequent points of view science adopts are consistent with that and other such assumptions. So, science, as an overall framework, is internally self-consistent.
Skeptic: Hmm…go on…
Scientist: This is unlike the case of a typical religion, in which simultaneously a 3-O (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) God exists and also allows for God’s punishing/rewarding bad/good human behavior. As I demonstrated in the previous musing, a 3-O God and freewill cannot coexist and therefore the question of reward/punishment doesn’t even arise. That is the fundamental difference between science and religion. Both make assumptions, but the former is a rational framework that is intrinsically consistent, while the latter seems like it makes stuff up as it goes along.
Skeptic: You see, right there, you have a problem. Your whole thesis is based on subjecting the God/religion framework to methods of analysis that are in the domain of science and therefore is not justified. Let me say that again: you are sitting within the science framework and taking the tools, techniques, and assumptions of that framework (including the critical assumption that things need to make rational sense and/or rationality is better than non-rational) and evaluating the merit of a completely different framework, namely God and religion. Each framework is different. Just as ridiculous it is to ask the science why God created an electron (it’s ridiculous because the question of God doesn’t even come up within the science’s lattice of assumptions and definitions and methods), it is equally ridiculous to evaluate religion by using scientific methods.
Scientist: Ok, that’s a valid point. Then, tell me, what are the methods by which we should evaluate the religious framework? I used scientific tools and techniques because they are well-publicized and I know them. What are those of religion?
Skeptic: There aren’t any. The whole basis of belief in God is exactly that – belief. You just believe in God and no questions are allowed, at least not in the usual way that science allows. You just have to believe.
Scientist: Thank you so much. That’s exactly what I am saying as well. Belief in God is just is. That’s what theists must say to a non-believer like me. Don’t try and make it a rational argument, because the moment you do so, like you yourself said, you are starting to use techniques from a different framework. It is just blind belief, isn’t it? (Best said in a satirical, condescending tone.)
Skeptic: Yes, but not in the bad, belittling way you put it. Tell me something, Siva, you meditate, don’t you? (It’s a rhetorical question since you are my alter ego and when I say ‘you’, it’s also ‘I’. But answer, nonetheless.)
Scientist: Yes.
Skeptic: When you meditate, you sometimes go into a deep sate, don’t you? You have had the experience of unbelievable-freshness, of a state of supreme relaxation, right?
Scientist: Yes.
Skeptic: Now, if someone had told you about this whole meditation thing and told you about this possible experience, would you believe it?
Scientist: No. I wouldn’t. I’d probably ask for proof of such a state.
Skeptic: And if I had said, there’s no such proof because science hasn’t evolved sufficiently and doesn’t know that there are other states of consciousness which science hasn’t discovered yet?
Scientist: Then, logically I shouldn’t believe in meditation or, at least, suspend judgment (both belief and disbelief) till such time that science can prove it.
Skeptic: But here we are, where you (we) meditate, know the benefits, and know that we sometimes get lucky and transcend into a level of consciousness that’s simply an indefinable state of contentment. So, you had to first do it, experience it for yourself, and then establish the belief. You had to first believe that in your (our) Guru and believe that what he was saying is truthful, although there isn’t logical proof for it. From that belief came the action of undertaking meditation, after several months of practice of which, you (we) had our first transcending experience. For each of those initial days, you went on blind belief. How’s that any different from my telling you to believe in God, do it for several months, or even years, and you’ll see what it means?
Scientist: It’s no different. So, if I now say that it’s better for God-believers to simply say they believe and ask others to believe without questions, than to argue using techniques that are more suitable to the realm of science, would you agree with that? (Now in a slightly more respectful tone than above.)
Skeptic: I agree. So, can you summarize the whole point of this debate?
Scientist: Sure. The major eye-opener in this Meandering Musing volume is that science too is not beyond belief. It too relies on fundamental, unproven assumptions that cannot be questioned. But to its credit, once it makes and states those assumptions, the foundation is very strong. The rest of the house of knowledge that’s built on the foundation is all intrinsically consistent and ‘logical’.
The other part is that belief in God is ‘blind’, but in that respectful sense of belief in meditation, not in a condescending tone. Theists must be candid enough to admit that they believe in God simply because they do. No rational justification must be offered since the tool/technique of rationality is pertinent to science. The only tool theism has is ‘belief’. That’s all. Concur?
Skeptic: Concur.
No comments:
Post a Comment