In continuation of the tone set in my previous volume, I've written this too in a debate style. In this, I further explore the question of rationality, which I briefly brought up in Volume-4.
Scientist: You know, I’d sort of accepted your statement that the rational method of evidence-based-progression-of-arguments was particular to science and that to use that method to evaluate the validity of a religious/God framework may not be appropriate. But I am now not sure why that method wouldn’t apply for all frameworks.
Skeptic: It wouldn’t apply because the method is unique to science and the theistic framework has a different set of methods and assumptions. You can’t cross-proliferate.
Scientist: Well, that’s where I am having a little bit of an issue. I can argue against this via three fronts:
First of all, I don't think anyone can pose the question of 'why rationality'. That's an oxymoron. When you ask 'why', that itself implies rational thought. Why else would you ask it? Suppose in response to that question I said "Because this laptop is a 200-year old Dutch princess". What would you do? Besides scratching your head and asking yourself if I should be admitted somewhere, you'd probably ask "What are you talking about? You are not making any sense." And, that's exactly my point. Sense-making implies rationality. You can't ask a 'why' without a fundamental belief the response has to make sense, has to be logical, and has to be convincing. All of which implies that you actually believe in rationality anyways, even before you posed that question.
Two, reflecting back on my Meandering Musings Volume-2, a 3-O God (especially an Omniscient one) is necessarily rational. As I’d mentioned in that volume, an omniscient God knows not only what would happen, but also why. He can give a proper explanation, not something like ‘because it happened magically’. The very fact that He can give a cogent explanation for why something happens means that He is rational; forcing theists to believe in rationality as well.
Third argument is this: Isn’t rationality a way of life? Rationality is nothing but noticing the cause-and-effect nature of things in our observable universe and deriving general principles from them. You put your foot on fragile glass…it breaks. Cause and effect. You clap your hands, it makes a sound. Cause and effect. Why wouldn’t this natural phenomenon be applicable to the God-framework? Many of the so-called definitive proofs of God rely on observing nature and using such observation to prove God. One of the strongest such arguments – Presence of Design – is based on being awestruck with the complexity of the universe and claiming that only an external agent can conceive of such complexity.
Well, if theists can offer nature observation as proof of God’s existence, shouldn’t they be equally open to accepting the cause-and-effect nature of the universe? And cause-and-effect with the principle of generalizing such observations is nothing but rationality. In fact, if you think about it, the so-called scientific rigor – where every scientific theorem is subject to proof by observation of nature and/or proof in the world of mathematical concepts (i.e., rely on the bedrock of basic assumptions and subsequent derivations built on that foundation) – is but an extension of the principle of rationality.
So, the question is why can’t at least the concept of rationality be applicable? The day we have inexplicable phenomena happening all around us, mysteriously, without any rhyme or reason, then, we can do away with the notion of rationality and of cause-and-effect and just accept that things happen simply because they do. We can then possibly accept that such magical things happen because God made it happen, even if God, as a construct, is as or more difficult to explain than the observations the construct is supposed to explain to begin with.
Actually speaking, that’s the world our ancestors inhabited, isn’t it?. Things happened magically. Lightning struck indiscriminately; rains were unpredictable; people got sick; etc. So, it is not all surprising that the concept of God evolved in such an environment. Even there, you can see that God came about to explain the phenomenon – we saw some effects and looked around for causes. When we didn’t know what the cause was, in order to not leave a vacuum, we created God to be that cause. So, the entire concept of God arose to satisfy the principle of rationality.
Then, why can’t we use the same principle of rationality and ask questions of the God framework?
Skeptic: That’s a good point. Should we revisit our previous discussion and make changes?
Scientist: No, I am too tired for that. Let’s just say it’s interesting and leave it.
Skeptic: I was hoping you’d say that...I too am a bit beat.
No comments:
Post a Comment