Getting the basics right
Ok. So lets begin. First let me clarify things here. I'm writing all this out of memory and on the spot thought.So this is a disclaimer that i may later on change what i've said here, particularly definitions, quotes, references, and sometimes my own statements. My objective here is to share my thoughts and findings on the 'Science of God'.
Beginning with definitions, Science is defined as "the examination and explanation of phenomena through observation, objective thinking etc. etc.". Point is that we seek reasons and explanations for everything in science. If somebody provides a good logical, common sense explanation of something we don't know the exact nature of, its called a theory. If the predictions of this theory are observed to be correct over and over again, it is proved, and hence becomes a law. Remember that even a law can be refuted if one observes circumstances not obeying the law, in nature.
So this is Science. God is often defined as a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnithis and omnithat being who rules the world.... This is where the skeptic in us is horrified and repelled away from religion, God, spirituality and the like. Neither do we like the idea of 'somebody' 'ruling' us nor do we find any proof of it. But the problem here lies not with spirituality, but with dictionaries and with language. Hinduism has never argued that somebody sitting up there is acting as ringmaster. I know ppl will argue with me here, citing examples of how the Gita mentions God talking about 'Himself". We'll talk about that later.
But first, let me speak for myself and state that i do not accept that definition of God. Let me, on the other hand, proceed about this exactly as Physics proceeded over the centuries. I can safely call Physicists as the best skeptics around. Now, these very physicists in around the 17th century were mostly 'determinists', meaning they believed every natural phenomenon could be explained as the effect of 'physical' variables, without the need for any 'arbitrary First Cause hypothesis' (read intervention of God). Laplace, the french scientist, was asked my Napoleon about the position of God in his model of the universe. Laplace replied, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis!!". That is pretty much our own objection to religious teaching, isn't it? That we don't see, and don't need God!!
Here, I mention the first out of my two proofs of God.
*** Up till here I completely agree with Laplace (and Newton, Galileo) that we can explain all phenomena as the effect of physical variables. eg. the reason for the 8 minute lag of sunlight as the constant speed of light at 3 x 10^6 m/s (or something like that, figure not important) , the reason for conversion of m kg. mass being converted into mc^2 amount of energy being the Relativity equation, and suchlike. But is there any answer to this question: why is the speed of light 3 x 10^6 and not 3 x 10^53 or why is E=mc^2 and not E=mc^3? There is no further why? to the above laws. So all these constants are the 'imponderables' of Science. One could say that we call the collection of all these constants as 'God'. My argument is similar, but not as simple. Remember 'Newton's laws of mechanics'? Do you also know that these laws do not apply at very high velocities? The laws that apply there are those of Relativity. But Newton's laws aren't wrong. They onle deal with a special case of relativity, the earth's environment. Get me? All the Physical laws we know aren't wrong. But like Newton's laws, they can be reduced to simpler, higher laws. Such that we can derive all physical laws from that One Law, that 'One Principle'! Hinduism calls this Law or Principle (Tattwa) as the 'Supreme Law' ( Parama-tattwa) or simply - God!!***
Whew! I think that's enough brain - exercise for now! Later on, we'll go to that second and better proof of God, that wonderful incredible science, that of Quantum Mechanics! Then, we can go on to actually define and understand God, and maybe we can even discuss the art of 'Becoming God'. I agree there's a lot to be argued in what i've said above. Comments are invited. It's only through sharing ideas that we can learn the Truth!!
Beginning with definitions, Science is defined as "the examination and explanation of phenomena through observation, objective thinking etc. etc.". Point is that we seek reasons and explanations for everything in science. If somebody provides a good logical, common sense explanation of something we don't know the exact nature of, its called a theory. If the predictions of this theory are observed to be correct over and over again, it is proved, and hence becomes a law. Remember that even a law can be refuted if one observes circumstances not obeying the law, in nature.
So this is Science. God is often defined as a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnithis and omnithat being who rules the world.... This is where the skeptic in us is horrified and repelled away from religion, God, spirituality and the like. Neither do we like the idea of 'somebody' 'ruling' us nor do we find any proof of it. But the problem here lies not with spirituality, but with dictionaries and with language. Hinduism has never argued that somebody sitting up there is acting as ringmaster. I know ppl will argue with me here, citing examples of how the Gita mentions God talking about 'Himself". We'll talk about that later.
But first, let me speak for myself and state that i do not accept that definition of God. Let me, on the other hand, proceed about this exactly as Physics proceeded over the centuries. I can safely call Physicists as the best skeptics around. Now, these very physicists in around the 17th century were mostly 'determinists', meaning they believed every natural phenomenon could be explained as the effect of 'physical' variables, without the need for any 'arbitrary First Cause hypothesis' (read intervention of God). Laplace, the french scientist, was asked my Napoleon about the position of God in his model of the universe. Laplace replied, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis!!". That is pretty much our own objection to religious teaching, isn't it? That we don't see, and don't need God!!
Here, I mention the first out of my two proofs of God.
*** Up till here I completely agree with Laplace (and Newton, Galileo) that we can explain all phenomena as the effect of physical variables. eg. the reason for the 8 minute lag of sunlight as the constant speed of light at 3 x 10^6 m/s (or something like that, figure not important) , the reason for conversion of m kg. mass being converted into mc^2 amount of energy being the Relativity equation, and suchlike. But is there any answer to this question: why is the speed of light 3 x 10^6 and not 3 x 10^53 or why is E=mc^2 and not E=mc^3? There is no further why? to the above laws. So all these constants are the 'imponderables' of Science. One could say that we call the collection of all these constants as 'God'. My argument is similar, but not as simple. Remember 'Newton's laws of mechanics'? Do you also know that these laws do not apply at very high velocities? The laws that apply there are those of Relativity. But Newton's laws aren't wrong. They onle deal with a special case of relativity, the earth's environment. Get me? All the Physical laws we know aren't wrong. But like Newton's laws, they can be reduced to simpler, higher laws. Such that we can derive all physical laws from that One Law, that 'One Principle'! Hinduism calls this Law or Principle (Tattwa) as the 'Supreme Law' ( Parama-tattwa) or simply - God!!***
Whew! I think that's enough brain - exercise for now! Later on, we'll go to that second and better proof of God, that wonderful incredible science, that of Quantum Mechanics! Then, we can go on to actually define and understand God, and maybe we can even discuss the art of 'Becoming God'. I agree there's a lot to be argued in what i've said above. Comments are invited. It's only through sharing ideas that we can learn the Truth!!
posted by Ranjeet Bhide at 3:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home