A Scientific View of the God Delusion and it’s Implications
(March-June 2008)
This article is an outcome of an email discussion I had with members of my extended family. I initiated this discussion soon after my first grandchild was born. The fact that I had become a grandfather had a strong effect on me. I had been instantly catapulted to the next senior generation. I started wondering about what is the best gift I can give to her and to other yet-to-be-born children in our extended family. I could think of nothing better than the creation of conditions in the family in which a child can grow to become an independent thinker, unencumbered by the views her/his parents or teachers may hold.
Credulity in a child is an evolutionary necessity. It suits the child as well as the parents. But every child has a right to be exposed to all streams of thought before making a choice. This article presents the scientific viewpoint. There is no dearth of opportunities for children to hear the opposite viewpoints!
The photograph at the end of this article was taken by Prof. Claude Boulesteix of the University of Aix-Marseille, France, in 1991. All other photographs were taken by me.
1. THE LOGICAL FALLACY OF THE GOD CONCEPT
1.1 In science there is no place for any unquestionable authority. Only logical and verifiable propositions are relevant. Einstein was a brilliant scientist, and we humans can take pride in the fact that we belong to the same species as he. But his views on quantum mechanics were wrong, and he was shown his place on that issue. So we should never quote the scriptures or any ‘wise’ or ‘noble’ person when we want to argue about some FACT. Facts are established by evidence, not by opinion or preferences or desirability.
1.2 Intuition and inspired guesses, even traditional empirical information and folklore, are fine when it comes to building up a model for explaining a set of data, but the real test of that model will always have to be hard-core and repeatedly verifiable evidence.
1.3 We shall certainly discuss morality, the public good, and the desirability of a sense of service to others. But later. Let us get the hard facts first. As Mark Twain said: ‘Get your facts first. Then you can distort them as much as you please!’
1.4 The first thing to note is that, by adopting a strictly logical, honest, and objective approach to data, humanity has been able to achieve so much. To appreciate this properly, and to take pride in our scientific heritage, we should understand the basics of this approach. In particular, we must admire the indomitable human spirit which, in spite of the hostile conditions in which it had to progress, came up on top by adopting THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD of interpreting natural phenomena.
1.5 ‘Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding in a manner that’s precise, predictive and reliable – a transformation, for those lucky enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional’ (Brian Greene).
1.6 There can be no place for reverence for authority in the scientific method. Just imagine, if we humans had taken Einstein’s word on quantum mechanics seriously (overawed by his giant intellect), the progress of science and technology would have been pushed back by several decades.
1.7 If you are not familiar with the basics of information theory, you may have a mental block about some of the statements below, but I shall try to explain. You all have an intuitive idea of what we mean by ‘information’. It can be measured in terms of strings of 0s and 1s (bits).
1.8 Entropy is a measure of disorder. It is thus just the opposite of information. Information means knowledge, and entropy or disorder is a measure of absence of knowledge. Thus ‘negative entropy’ and information have similar connotations.
1.9 In science the term ‘complexity’ has a technical meaning. In particular, it is not the same thing as complicatedness. The ‘degree of complexity’ of a system can be viewed as the amount of information needed to describe the structure and function of that system. A living organism is far more complex than, say, a crystal of common salt. The amount of information needed to describe the structure of a crystal of common salt is not much compared to the degree of complexity of a living organism.
1.10 Energy drives all change. Energy is the engine of evolution. Our Earth (an ‘open’ system) receives most of its energy from the Sun, and the Sun produces it by thermonuclear reactions (conversion of mass into energy).
1.11 The influx of solar energy into our ecosphere drives it away from equilibrium. Any system away from equilibrium will naturally tend to move 
back to equilibrium and (concomitantly) towards a state of higher entropy (as dictated by the second law of thermodynamics). Thus a pushing of a system towards a state of disequilibrium (by solar energy in our case) can be thought of as an influx of ‘negative entropy’. And remember, negative entropy means information.
1.12 Thus what the Sun has been doing all the time is to increase the information content of Mother Earth. This perpetual increase of information content is what drives evolution of various kinds. Evolution is not only biological; it can also be chemical, or even cultural.
1.13 The basic concept of biological evolution (higher chances of survival and propagation of the fittest; and adaptation and evolution of species (even emergence of new species) by the consequent processes of cumulative natural selection) was introduced by Charles Darwin over 150 years ago. His basic idea has stood the test of time (in spite of all the vicious attacks by vested interests). In fact, there is even a flourishing new subject called ‘artificial evolution’. In it, you program your computer in terms of notions very similar to Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution, and use it to solve a huge variety of highly complex scientific and technical problems. The evolution of problem-solving capabilities in intelligent robots is also achieved by this remarkably powerful approach. And the best is yet to come!
1.14 Chemical evolution preceded biological evolution. Molecules of increasing complexity (or information content) evolved with the passage of time. In due course metabolism and self-replication properties appeared (either together or separately), and the emergence of ‘life’ was simply inevitable. Life just had to appear in the conditions prevailing on Earth, and, after it had appeared, biological evolution did the rest. There is nothing miraculous about that. Thus, the so-called ‘creation’ of life is a non-issue in science, whereas theologians make a huge issue out of it. Cool. Just chill!
1.15 And now about the God concept. The universe has a huge amount of information content, or complexity. How did the universe get created? Suppose you say that God created it. Now I appeal to your common sense and ask a question: If God created the universe, how did God get that information-content and complexity which must be at least equal to the information content of the universe? Anything simple or complex cannot have the capability to create something more complex than itself. So the God concept is no help whatsoever (it is redundant), so far as explaining the existence of the complex universe is concerned. Come with something else. Or simply say that we do not yet have certain answers.
1.16 But we still want a God up there, for emotional and ‘moral’ reasons, and for feeling secure in this utterly hostile set of natural conditions, right? Let us not mix objectivity with desirability. We can discuss these things separately, and we shall certainly do so below.
2. THE ATHEIST’S WORLDVIEW
2.1 Since there is no sensible God concept that I can take seriously, I have to manage without it.
2.2 As of now, life is known to exist only on Earth. And in this life chain, we humans have evolved to be at the top. This means that in the present scheme of things in Nature, we occupy a highly privileged position. We can feel a great sense of pride in that, but with privileges come responsibilities. Mother Earth is our collective responsibility. There is no ‘God’ around who can be depended on to take care of our habitat by his benign intervention, in spite of our follies. ‘Whatever is done is done by man and judged by man’ (Maxim Gorky).
2.3 My life can survive only in a narrow range of temperatures and pressures. It is extremely vulnerable and fragile. This is bound to give me a sense of insecurity, and a yearning for a father-figure I can turn to for solace and reassurance. Unfortunately, that wish cannot be fulfilled, no matter how desperate I am about it. Therefore I have no choice but to be a brave, rational, and responsible citizen of the world I live in.
2.4 I take genuine pride in the fact that my ancestors developed the scientific method of interpreting information. I accept nothing without evidence. This gives me a great sense of liberation and power. Elitism? Yes. And why not? All the accumulated scientific knowledge that humanity possesses is verifiable knowledge, and my proud heritage. And yet I have no sense of attachment to it. If tomorrow new evidence is found, which demands a change in the way I look at Nature, I shall have no trouble abandoning even my pet theories. This is intellectual humility, and in sharp contrast to what happens in theology. You are not permitted to question certain statements there. How stultifying that must be for the intellect. Such an approach can kill the spirit of free enquiry, and deny the pleasure of discovery. I am glad that I do not suffer from that terrible handicap. Come join the elite club.
2.5 Selfishness and a sense of self-preservation is built into my evolutionary history, and therefore into my genes. But it is not individual selfishness necessarily. My brain has evolved to a state where I understand the benefits of collective self-interest.
2.6 I am a good and charitable person because it feels good to be so. If I am good to others, it is beneficial for my mental health. If I am good to others, I am being a responsible world citizen. I pity a person who is good only because of the fear of punishment/retribution by an
imaginary ‘God’ for bad actions. My morality comes from within, because it is sensible to be moral and ethical. Being a moral person feels good. Why should I be moral and upright only because I am a ‘God-fearing’ person? And what is God anyway?
2.7 Since Mother Earth is my responsibility, I should do nothing that harms the ecosphere unnecessarily. That is a matter of simple self-interest (collective self-interest). Just look at the pollution caused by Hindus with all the burning they do in their havans and pujaas. Mindless burning of 
precious resources is a crime, and it is happening because of an irrational belief system. Look at their contribution to global warming when they burn their dead. The three ‘Abrahamic’ monotheistic religions, namely Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, are more environment-friendly on that score, but they are worse in many other matters. The depredations of these three religions have been discussed in detail by Richard Dawkins (RD) in his book ‘The God Delusion’ (TGD) (2007).
2.8 I feel sad about the immense damage done by practically all organised religions to Mother Earth and to humanity: wars, terrorism, meaningless rituals and wastage, inter-religious hatred and animosity, atrocities on women and children; the list is very long indeed. ‘Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities’ (Voltaire). ‘With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, that takes religion’ (Steven Weinberg). It is our duty to raise our voice against all irrational acts and thinking.
2.9 Buddhism preaches non-violence and emphasizes the importance of service to others. It is also quite Godless; that is why it was hounded out of India by the Vedic Hindus of that time.
2.10 Many people create a God because they want one. Their upbringing has been such that they would have withdrawal symptoms if their God were taken away or demolished by logical and responsible reasoning. In fact, they exhibit arrogant or even violent behaviour when this happens. Does that ring a bell? The symptoms are the same as those of drug addicts. ‘Religion is the opium of the masses.’ The C.M. of West Bengal cannot give up smoking because he cannot cope with the withdrawal symptoms. But can that justify his addiction? No addiction can be justified. I feel good about the fact that I do not suffer from God-addiction.
2.11 Free from the God-created-everything syndrome, I can indulge in a great sense of wonder at the way complexity has evolved in Nature, starting from simple inanimate matter. The pictures I have inserted in this write-up are some examples of that, and there is nothing ‘Godly’ about their beauty. There is a great sense of accomplishment when I or any of my fellow humans discovers one more ‘secret’ of Nature. And I keep thanking the scientific method for this, which is a great accomplishment of the human intellect. I should do nothing to insult the scientific spirit and the scientific method. And I am grateful for the ever-mounting fallouts of this method of discovering the secrets of Nature. I am proud of the scientific and technological heritage of humankind, a triumph of the human mind, particularly the collective human psyche (leaving out the irrational believers, of course).
3. VISIONS, DREAMS, PREMONITIONS, COINCIDENCES, AND ALL THAT
3.1 Interactions or forces operative between any two or more objects have to be from one or more of the following:
- The electromagnetic interaction.
- The gravitational interaction.
- The nuclear interaction.
- The electro-weak interaction.
No other interactions or forces are known to us at present.
3.2 No object can move with a speed greater than that of light (Einstein again).
3.3 The past is dead, and the future cannot be predicted. Therefore, all astrology is utter nonsense, as also numerology and all that.
3.4 No macroscopic object can be at two different places at the same time.
3.5 If you take seriously some of the claims made by yogis, babas etc. (regarding clairvoyance, premonitions, predictions, dreams coming true, and all that), you have to postulate the existence of at least one more interaction (in addition to the four mentioned above), with mutually contradictory properties, and in clear violation of the known laws of science. Science does not have all the answers, but we are trying to get more and more answers. If anybody can establish the existence of this completely crazy-looking interaction I just mentioned, he/she will surely be honoured with a Nobel Prize, and may become more famous than Einstein. Science, of course, always welcomes new knowledge and insights.
3.6 Brain science is a very challenging science, and there is a lot we do not understand at present. But we are trying. There are various views on the meanings of dreams, if at all there are meanings. The feel-good factor, as also the feel-bad factor, plays huge tricks on the brain. We tend to remember what we like or cherish, and tend to forget or ignore what we do not like or do not find interesting. Our upbringing and mental conditioning since childhood has a major role to play in this.
3.7 We all want to feel important. What can feel better than being close to ‘God, the almighty’, even an imaginary God?! But it is nothing more than a self-imposed delusion, the God delusion. Just make-believe.
3.8 Some of the great names among the classical psychologists are: Freud, Jung, and Adler. Adler built on the idea that much of our frustration and mental disorders come when we cannot have control over situations or domination over others. People go to extraordinary lengths to achieve this control. In the case 
of ascetics, this aggression is turned inwards, and they try to control their bodies and thoughts. It makes them feel good, and in control. A stage comes in their penance and meditation when their brain starts imagining things; they interpret it as ‘divine revelation’, ‘flashes of insight’, and what not.
3.9 Being of service to others certainly rebounds on you in various ways, and you are always a gainer in the long run. The ‘spiritual’ leaders, knowingly or unknowingly, do things which often amount to charity and social service, but there is an additional bonus for their ego: They exercise huge control over the minds of large numbers of people. Adler again.
3.10 Ascetics and ‘spiritual’ leaders are called ‘holy’ men or women, whatever that term means. A nonscientific ascetic does little more than torture himself, apart from influencing others with his irrational and therefore false beliefs. A scientist, on the other hand, improves the quality of our physical, mental, and cultural life by his discoveries and inventions, by strictly following the tenets of the scientific method. Who is the ‘holier’ of the two: the ascetic or the scientist? Who is more deserving of our gratitude and reverence?
4. WHY IS THERE SO MUCH IRRATIONAL BELIEF AROUND?
4.1 Blame it on the upbringing of children. Parents impose their beliefs on their little children. This is not fair. Every child has a right to be exposed to all streams of thought. In particular, it is our duty to ensure that we do not shield our children from the scientific approach to things. We want our children to grow into fearless truth-seeking individuals, no matter how harsh the truth may be. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We do not want that any of them should move around in life like a zombie, repeating certain statements parrot-like, without pausing to think about their veracity or logic.
4.2 Some of the scientific arguments and theories are not for the intellectually meek. By contrast, it does not require any intelligence to have blind faith in something. But even a moderately intelligent child can develop a scientific outlook on life if brought up in an atmosphere in which all types of questions are encouraged, and no idea is treated as unchallengeable or taboo.
4.3 It is necessary to have a basic understanding of statistical theory for a correct interpretation of many of the coincidences, ‘premonitions’, ‘miracles’, etc. Unfortunately, even among the trained scientists there are many who lack this understanding. ‘Statistical significance’ and ‘level of confidence’ are technical terms. How many educated persons actually bother to think in terms of these parameters when they come across ‘miracles’, ‘strange’ coincidences, dream-realisations, etc.? Not many. This happens because they have been brainwashed
4.4 It is worth repeating and emphasizing that a high degree of intellectual prowess is not a necessity for a child to develop a rational view of things, provided he/she grows up in an environment of rationality and free enquiry. This is a birthright of your children. Do not deny it to them. Be a reasonable and responsible parent, who sets a good example for his/her children by having an open mind on every issue, including the ‘God’ issue. Parents do want to give good sanskars to their children. They usually do this by their own example. Give your children the sanskar that they should not be afraid of facing the truth. In fact, they should have a proactive approach, whereby they go seeking the objective truth, and not just sermons of ‘wise’ people or pronouncements in ‘sacred’ texts. ‘Mere scholarship will not help you to attain the goal. Meditate. Realize. Be free‘ (Swami Sivananda; emphasis added).
4.5 To the young generation I want to say this: It is nice to see how ‘cool’ you can be regarding all the ‘in’ things and the latest trends. Show me how cool you are capable of being when it comes to knowing the basics of what science is all about, and why is it that the scientific method has been so remarkably successful in engendering so many achievements of the human intellect. Should you not be curious about that? How about showing off your knowledge in that area also?
4.6 The scientific method is not the exclusive possession of scientists. The scientific method of interpreting information is the crowning glory of the collective human intellect, and is available to all of us for applying in our day-to-day lives. Don’t miss out on it. A whole new world of good science is waiting for you to explore and wonder about. There is poetry in good science. And deep philosophy too. Rational philosophy. Scientists seek truth, and have the ever-present humility to admit their mistakes in science. What can be nobler than that? How about joining their ranks, at least as informed members of the public? That would be really cool! No?
5. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
5.1
Q: No matter what science or scientists say, my faith in the existence of a prayer-answering God is unshakeable. Do you have any problem with that?
A: As I was sitting in my chair,
I knew the bottom wasn’t there.
Nor legs nor back, but I just sat,
Ignoring little things like that.
(William Hughes Mearns)
5.2
Q: What is prayer?
A: Prayer means ‘to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy’ (Ambrose Bierce).
5.3
Q:How can all knowledge be acquired only by physical, objective, ‘scientific’ means? Is it not possible that some types of knowledge can be obtained only by ‘experiencing’ it in your head?
A: How can we humans be sure that such ‘knowledge’ is correct and universal? How dependable can such ‘subjective knowledge’ be, whatever that 
term means? Even such knowledge is bound to lead to some predictions (say about God) which are in the physical realm, and therefore amenable to objective scientific verification. That has not happened. Why not wait till science can make more progress? What is the hurry?! In any case, what can you achieve by hurrying?
5.4
Q: I have experienced God. How can you challenge that?
A: Please take the trouble of gaining a mastery over the science of modern psychology. Also, read up some good books on evolutionary theory. You will change your views.
5.5
Q: But if my God-concept is demolished, I shall feel utterly lost and forlorn. How can I cope with that?
A: Please be brave and mentally strong, and try to face reality. There are a huge number of atheists or irreligious people out there. Establish contact with them, and share your thoughts with them. There is strength in numbers.
5.6
Q: But religion has given rise to so much art and literature. Should we abandon all that?
A: No. That is also our heritage. Nothing prevents you from enjoying good poetry or music. I enjoy Sufi music, as also bhajans sung by Jagjit Singh (yes bhajans, and not just ghazals). The Ramayan and the Mahabharat are great stories. But only stories. They were aptly described by Nehru as a curious mixture of fact and fiction. The point is that we humans must move on as we acquire more and more knowledge and understanding. In the beginning there was no science; only ignorance or some fragmentary pieces of information. And there were superstitions, born out of the fear of the unknown. Our perspective must change in the light of new insights and knowledge. As more and more people come round to the rationalist’s view of things, a new kind of art, music, and literature would emerge. Things change with time. Don’t be afraid of change.
5.7
Q: Einstein’s famous remark ‘God does not play dice’ shows that he believed in the existence of God. Right?
A: Wrong. This issue has been discussed in great detail in the very first chapter of the book ‘The God Delusion’ by Dawkins (2007). Einstein made this remark in the context of his opposition to quantum mechanics as formulated at that time. Recently a letter written by Einstein in January 1954 (just one year before his death) was auctioned for $400,000. Here is an excerpt from that letter: ‘. . the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish’.
Dr. V. K. Wadhawan is the Raja Ramanna Fellow at BARC (DAE), Mumbai and the Associate Editor of PHASE TRANSITIONS. He is also the Ex-Head, Laser Materials Division at the Centre for Advanced Technology (DAE), Indore.
Related posts:
- In Defense Of Scientific Temper
- The God Delusion in Action: My Indian travelogue.
- Naturalism: Scientific, Philosophical and Socio-Political.
- Yukti 2011, a Workshop to Promote Scientific Temper
- Annual “Best Scientific Outlook Award” Ceremony And Rationalist Program
- The God of Mind : Exploring the Implications of Neurotheological Research
Subscribe to RSS
Follow us on twitter
Follow us on facebook
Flickr
Youtube
It is entirely possible that if there is a God creator then the only language this being is able to speak is in the creation.
All else is a human personal understanding of it, the prejudice and the judgmental of it are those whom are unable to understand the language of a creator.
The lesson may well be that the differences found in this creation are the reason and purpose of the mind to learn of it all and to know ones place within it.
If one does not have a God belief that lesson is the same.
The world has been changing for those very reasons, the more we learn of others the more we share more then we do not share.
This embraces all of humanity, its spirit, its mind its research of discovery, its science and holds no prejudice to conform all of it to a single way of existence.
It holds the human race to recognize its faults and to learn from them.
It holds it accountable to learn and reasons the purpose of a creation or an evolution of it.
Embracing the spirit and the mind, the belief in a God and no belief in a God yet does see its spirit in both views.
Evolution is a learning to evolve a creation is a building of something. Nothing can be built if there is no purpose in building it., nothing can evolve if it can not fit into it all.
A bird does not jump from the egg into flight, it must learn to fly.
A human does not jump from birth to walking and speaking it must learn to walk and the language must be learned.
All the differences are not the same and can never be the same, all of existence shows this.
So many still stand in a valley surrounded by trees and yell how they can not see the forest.
Religions confuse this telling of one thing then the other; it allows a prejudice of opinion while not seeing the reality of it all.
It stands in the valley covered by trees and yells it can not see the forest while telling all that the trees must be removed so the forest can be seen.
A belief in a God or no belief in a God must learn that the forest is not hidden it surrounds us.
The spirit can not be confused with the mind the two rest in the same place.
A dog or a cat has many breeds. The dog and cat are still a dog and a cat, there are many different birds yet they are still birds.
Human kind has many breeds yet they are still all human.
We all share in being human. Understanding its many breeds does not separate us from all being human.
It is in the connection of all being human that removes its prejudice of its many breeds.
It is fine if one connects the dots to the total picture in a God belief it is fine if the dots fit together in a non-God belief. The dots still fit. The many breeds are still a part of the same.
A religion or belief be it a God one or not in the final examine or observation is the character of the person.
The immorality is believing your personal morality must be in all others, proper morality is in practicing it and not preaching it, outlawing or beating another because they do not fit into this personal morality is not only un-ethical it is a bigotry of intolerance.
Tolerance does not mean to accept everything it only means to tolerant that which is self evident in the lifestyles of others that harm no one.
When someone speaks to another that they love or like them just as they are, it is a powerful message that cuts deep in the sole of humanity.
It cuts in so very deep because it is just what humanity has always wanted and always needed.
It is a message of such power it can not be overwhelmed or stopped.
When another hates someone who they have never meet only just now sees it is another message that cuts deep against the sole of humanity.
When someone holds a hand out to help another who they do not know who is in deep pain or hungry or oppressed asking nothing in return. It speaks a powerful message of the heart of humanity.
That never once ever required a God or no God its only requirement is to do so.
When one of us is oppressed we all are.
When one of us goes hungry we all go hungry.
History when looked at for its motives intent and reasons is different then just events and dates.
Motives are human intentions the results are the events which follow all being human nature.
A building is built for a reason; people live in a city for a reason a war for a reason language for a reason.
Organizing all of this as a reason and laws have a reason. All of this having been built by human kind has its reasons in human kind.
When early human kind began to form into larger and larger villages then cities there became a need to organize it for self protection from things they know people are capable of doing to each other
Early laws centered on the population judging itself and the ruling class enforcing this to remain in power.
Those early laws centered on common held beliefs religions of various types this to is exampled in human history, examples of doing this so the crops will grow or a rain may fall or a person must to this and live this way or this will happen.
Early religions were the law of which the public judged itself.
This to in evident in the historical record parts, of which still exist in modern law.
This is where those selective abominations religions still have in them were used for back then.
The enforcement of them of the people themselves and the justified reasoning was this might happen because of a God might do this or that.
Yet the motive of reasoning is also a social bigotry or intolerance of people or lifestyles.
This to is exampled in the evolution of modern laws, and the growing knowledge of other people.
The more we know the more we know we are more the same then we are not the same.
What we know for an un-questionable reality which as exampled itself about the human race is that it factually has certain actions and life styles it has which some are completely intolerant of, prejudiced about and discriminating about.
This is witnessed in daily life and throughout its entire existence.
A religion can not exempt itself from this reality by saying a god desires this or that for all people to live like.
A human minister can not claim to not be human by exempting him or herself in selecting parts of humanity as being an abomination and then dismiss this as being some sort of Godly plan.
It can not put into writing such things then claim it never put anything into writing and the writing is gods plan.
It can not claim to have no prejudice then write or explain how anything not living this is wrong?
It can not claim that which is in reality and claim itself to not be a part of this reality.
That is by example extreme evidence of the reality of the human race that does and has certain intolerance of it.
This could not be a pure God belief it is a pure use of such a belief to conform all to one way of existence while denying its intolerances of that existence.
The movement away from many religions is exactly because of its refusal to understand human kind for what human kind really is.
Religions have only themselves to blame and the blame is not upon those whom question the blame is upon those whom refuse to question.
An example which is sometimes pointed out is: The tree you just ran your car into is not the trees fault for having grown in the wrong place.
The only abominations we do to each other are the ones we created. They remain because we have yet to realize the truth of ourselves and have not fully learned to stop doing it.
When the human race finally realizes its own existence, the heaven it has been always living on called earth will finally stop being the hell it created on it.
Organized religions are by their own examples the “use of” a belief for its purpose to conform all to it.
It is not about the belief itself
Why would any person continue to follow or quote selective passages from or associate themselves with an organization that believes in a God?
This of course begs the next question of why would any person not associate themselves with any belief in a God or contradict passages from organizations that belief in a God?
Terms such as liberal and conservative are labels used by to certain people to identify them.
Environmentalist ,gays , women activists, adultery, blacks, Mexicans white people.
These are also terms chosen to identify groups.
Why in a world of constantly increase temperatures and littered oceans with polluted air visible for any to see would anyone think that the human race could cause no harm to its planet and not even for one moment think it even possible?
Why would a person consider a sexual preference that has been in existence since all of time and exampled by millions upon million in its practice. That this is somehow un-natural and placed here by some evil force?
Women are just as human as a male, just as able to create to built as any male, why would a male let alone another female think this sex is less able or inferior to the other and hence fore must submit and obey the other sex?
Why in matters of sexual affairs be them married or widowed must to woman be punished for doing the same actions as a male?
All races of the world are equal in that they are all human.
The answer to all of this lays in the perceptions, of willfully intended ignorance’s of the one that is perceiving it and much of this lays solely in their personal fearful perceptions of themselves and their perceived place in a sociality.
The herd syndrome, the lamb with the bell around its neck leading the rest into the butcher house ,the pack of bulls all running because two of them jumped and ran fast.
Peer pressure to conform, an invisible yet even present force of roaming eyes looking over how another person walks or dresses or speaks or the others it maybe speaking to.
The other boy is skinny and looks to feminine, that girl is dressed to revealing.
I was in a store on day just buying a few thinks to make for dinner. Across the isle when the meat was displayed a woman was picking out a few pieces of chicken to make a meal. the male with her looked around to see if anyone was noticing what he was getting. He noticed a group of other males that looked like the football players standing a few feet away. He then proceeded to put on a small display of macho movements kind of resembling promenading rooster in a barn yarn saying. “Chicken..uh ..I am not going to eat that get some steak!”
The woman with him rolled her eyes up then down and bought the chicken anyway.
Ever noticed how a person walks in public? Or how a male or female will act differently around another male or female in public?
Religions surround us every single day of our life’s so much so that it often goes un-noticed.
How so?, it is on the currency we use. “In god we trust“, it in is settle words we use “God damn it” ,Jesus Christ” or things like “I pray this works”. One can hardly turn on any television station be it the news or comedy without hearing so sort of religious word.
The pressure of culture peer pressures to conform are extreme.
How this has continued to exist in a world filled for endless research and worldwide reference of research and human interaction well known be even the most naive of people would be bewildering if it were not for the herd syndrome of self perceptions with its mate self esteem.
It is easy to understand how a belief system plays into peered enforce conformity.
Prejudice is a powerful force when its left un-checked, when its excused even justified to the extend of the use of a concept of creation of all things.
To preach of a better life in death for following a religious standard of morality is perhaps the most dangerous form of preaching which has lead to the murder and torture of many an innocent person.
The act of terror in the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11 is an example yet another is the suicide of so many during the times in Jim Jones.
Death is not the beginning of a better world it is the end of ones life. What we do in life determents how we are remembered in death.
Religions have absolutely no place in public education.
Why?, public education is the place of research, factual ,applications without bias in an open arena of questions.
To expand the understanding of math, science, social study to open a creative mind.
Religions have a very long history of attempts to close the mind to questions, to conform a sociality.
The seemly endless debate over evolution, to intelligent design to the more resent Texas school book debate attempts to rewrite the historical record and center it around Christian and Christian only reasoning.
When the term religion being based upon the use of excused prejudice with the intent to discriminate for social conformity to tract record is impossible to not notice.
Its very existence would of never existed if this were not only true by its present and past track record by equally true of those preconceived concepts people form of others.
From the child in school being bullied for looking different to the woman only being stoned to death for adultery as well as how people act in a crowd or treat another in public.
Yes the science of knowledge is the science of reason ,the evidence of evolution is visible yet the enemy is not in the knowledge of learning this, it is in the ignorance of refusal to see the forest for the trees.
The single enemy has remained the same,. Its name is bigotry.
Why would any person continue to follow or quote selective passages from or associate themselves with an organization that believes in a God?
This of course begs the next question of why would any person not associate themselves with any belief in a God or contradict passages from organizations that belief in a God?
Terms such as liberal and conservative are labels used by to certain people to identify them.
Environmentalist ,gays , women activists, adultery, blacks, Mexicans white people.
These are also terms chosen to identify groups.
Why in a world of constantly increase temperatures and littered oceans with polluted air visible for any to see would anyone think that the human race could cause no harm to its planet and not even for one moment think it even possible?
Why would a person consider a sexual preference that has been in existence since all of time and exampled by millions upon million in its practice. That this is somehow un-natural and placed here by some evil force?
Women are just as human as a male, just as able to create to built as any male, why would a male let alone another female think this sex is less able or inferior to the other and hence fore must submit and obey the other sex?
Why in matters of sexual affairs be them married or widowed must to woman be punished for doing the same actions as a male?
All races of the world are equal in that they are all human.
The answer to all of this lays in the perceptions, of willfully intended ignorance’s of the one that is perceiving it and much of this lays solely in their personal fearful perceptions of themselves and their perceived place in a sociality.
The herd syndrome, the lamb with the bell around its neck leading the rest into the butcher house ,the pack of bulls all running because two of them jumped and ran fast.
Peer pressure to conform, an invisible yet even present force of roaming eyes looking over how another person walks or dresses or speaks or the others it maybe speaking to.
The other boy is skinny and looks to feminine, that girl is dressed to revealing.
I was in a store on day just buying a few thinks to make for dinner. Across the isle when the meat was displayed a woman was picking out a few pieces of chicken to make a meal. the male with her looked around to see if anyone was noticing what he was getting. He noticed a group of other males that looked like the football players standing a few feet away. He then proceeded to put on a small display of macho movements kind of resembling promenading rooster in a barn yarn saying. “Chicken..uh ..I am not going to eat that get some steak!”
The woman with him rolled her eyes up then down and bought the chicken anyway.
Ever noticed how a person walks in public? Or how a male or female will act differently around another male or female in public?
Religions surround us every single day of our life’s so much so that it often goes un-noticed.
How so?, it is on the currency we use. “In god we trust“, it in is settle words we use “God damn it” ,Jesus Christ” or things like “I pray this works”. One can hardly turn on any television station be it the news or comedy without hearing so sort of religious word.
The pressure of culture peer pressures to conform are extreme.
How this has continued to exist in a world filled for endless research and worldwide reference of research and human interaction well known be even the most naive of people would be bewildering if it were not for the herd syndrome of self perceptions with its mate self esteem.
It is easy to understand how a belief system plays into peered enforce conformity.
Prejudice is a powerful force when its left un-checked, when its excused even justified to the extend of the use of a concept of creation of all things.
To preach of a better life in death for following a religious standard of morality is perhaps the most dangerous form of preaching which has lead to the murder and torture of many an innocent person.
The act of terror in the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11 is an example yet another is the suicide of so many during the times in Jim Jones.
Death is not the beginning of a better world it is the end of ones life. What we do in life determents how we are remembered in death.
Religions have absolutely no place in public education.
Why?, public education is the place of research, factual ,applications without bias in an open arena of questions.
To expand the understanding of math, science, social study to open a creative mind.
Religions have a very long history of attempts to close the mind to questions, to conform a sociality.
The seemly endless debate over evolution, to intelligent design to the more resent Texas school book debate attempts to rewrite the historical record and center it around Christian and Christian only reasoning.
When the term religion being based upon the use of excused prejudice with the intent to discriminate for social conformity to tract record is impossible to not notice.
Its very existence would of never existed if this were not only true by its present and past track record by equally true of those preconceived concepts people form of others.
From the child in school being bullied for looking different to the woman only being stoned to death for adultery as well as how people act in a crowd or treat another in public.
Yes the science of knowledge is the science of reason ,the evidence of evolution is visible yet the enemy is not in the knowledge of learning this, it is in the ignorance of refusal to see the forest for the trees.
The single enemy has remained the same,. Its name is bigotry.
Trial of beliefs is a book about personal beliefs and how they are used.
If a person choses to have some sort of belief in a God that is their personal view. This must never interfer with the quest of knowledge and must never be imposed upon another or used to excuse and injustice.
It must be open to question for to question is to learn and to learn is to understand the humanity within humanity and must never get in the way of humanine humanity.
This belief some have never never really disappear from the face of the earth but its evil can be exposed and removed.
The beginning of its end may have started in the age of enlightment when humanism and the equality of it began to be considered.
It is estimated that over 850.000.000 people consider themselves to be either atheist or not a member of any organized religion and or at least in question of religion (source Atheist Empire)
That makes it the 4th largest group of the planet.
Be mindful that to win this war it means to always stand upon the high ground and never allow a perjudice to guide you other wise one becomes just as the enemy has been.
Dear Dr Wadhawan,
Being a scientist myself I find it hard to come to grips with the following: “The influx of solar energy into our ecosphere drives it away from equilibrium. Any system away from equilibrium will naturally tend to move back to equilibrium and (concomitantly) towards a state of higher entropy (as dictated by the second law of thermodynamics).”
The notion that the influx of solar energy which you treated as equivalent of negative entropy, is possibly wrong! Influx of energy/heat increases the entropy/disorder of any system. For example, you heat water (equivalent to receiving heat from the sun) and you increase its entropy. Kindly elaborate on this point (i.e., how solar energy influx can be interpreted as ‘negative entropy’.
Thanks for the remaining brilliant points.
Just tempted to guess that you are possibly a metallurgy/material scientist!!!
I graduated from the Dept of Metallurgy IISc Bangalore (did project with Professor KT Jacob). Being associate editor of phase equilibria, I reckon you to be possibly familiar with Prof. JAcob. Hope my academic kinship with yourself will attract your attention!
Randhir
Hello Randhir. You guessed it right. I am a materials scientist ALSO! I have written books on ferroic materials, smart structures, and now on complexity. My latest book is: ‘COMPLEXITY SCIENCE: Tackling the Difficult Questions We Ask about Ourselves and about Our Universe,’ Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken (2010), ISBN 9783838377544. You should actually read this book to get a detailed answer to the question you raised.
1. We are dealing with OPEN systems here.
2. For an open system the second law has to formulated in terms of free energy (F = E – TS). The law now says that F tends to the minimum possible value. This means that there is now scope for even an INCREASE of the TS term, so long as the decrease in the enthalpy term E is larger than the increase in TS. This is what happens in crystal growth, for example. A highly ordered structure (crystal) emerges from the highly disordered fluid. The binding-energy term overpowers the decrease in entropy.
3. Entropy is defined by dS = dQ/T. The T value for the Sun is much much higher than that for the Earth. So the entropy of photons coming from the Sun is very low when they reach us. They undergo a number of processes which ‘degrade’ them to states of higher entropy as the system moves towards a state of equilibrium. But there is not a total loss. Some of the energy gets trapped in, say, plants, fruits, grains etc. We and other animals eat this food to stay alive, i.e. to stay away from a state of equilibrium.
4. Equilibrium is death. The entropy is the highest at equilibrium. This means that entropy is lower when a system is away from equilibrium. The food we eat enables us to stay away from equilibrium.
5. Suppose we take the equilibrium entropy as the base value, i.e. zero. Then the nonequilibrium entropy gets a negative sign on this scale. That is the meaning of negative entropy.
6. As explained in my book, in the jargon of information theory, entropy is also equivalent to missing information. Both are measures of disorder or LACK of information. That makes negative entropy a measure of AVAILABLE information.
Dear Sir,
Its indeed an honour to have a response from authors of your stature. Thank you.
However, I am more confused now.
1. If your point 1 is valid for the subsequent points as well then statements in point 4, “The entropy is the highest at equilibrium.” appears less-rigourous (than to say that F is minimum) in the light of point 2.
2. If “The entropy is the highest at equilibrium.” is true, then the sentence 5 is contradicting it!
3. Though the meaning in point was obvious to me, I would prefer to have ‘-’ sign wherever TS has appeared (2nd occurrence onward).
I take back point 2!!!! Its wrong.
On negative entropy: This comment (Courtesy of commentator ‘Bonzai’,at richarddawkins.net) appealed to me!
“Actually the earth radiates the same amount of energy back to the sky as it receives from the sun, otherwise the temperature of the earth will keep on rising (forget about global warming for a sec)
What makes a difference is that the radiation from the sun has short wavelength whereas the infrared radiation that the earth reemits has long wavelength.
If you think of radiation as a stream of photons, then longer wavelength would correspond to less energetic photons. Now if the earth reemits the same amount of energy as it receives from the sun but in the form of less energetic photons, it has to emit more photons than it receives to make up for the balance.
Now entropy basically counts the number of ways you can arrange a system. For the same amount of energy a situation with more photons would correspond to a larger number of configurations, hence higher entropy.
So in summary, the earth receives energy in a low entropy from from the sun and reradiates it in a form with high entropy. That means, on the entropy balance sheet the earth gives out more than it receives and hence has a net loss of entropy. Thus, in this exchange the sun acts as a source of negative entropy, or order, for the earth.
Another way of saying it is that the earth converts the organized energy it gets from the sun into a less organized form, thereby increasing the total disorderliness in the sun plus earth system in accordance to the second law.”
There is an estimated 850.000.000 atheist and those whom question the existance of a God. This is found in the Atheist Empire which a web site all can research making those of this form of thinking the 4th largest group in the world.
In my own research i have found that the more educationed and by educated i do not mean just schooling. i also mean people educationed that is to say the more one knows of others and is not perjudice in others before knowing them the more enlightened one becomes.
Ignorance is not just the not knowing of something ,often its a willfully intented ignorance.
The debate about religion can not be just the science verses the belief.
It is the willfully ignorant verses the educated.
When I ask a person why in the face of such knowledge and in the facts of such a history of religion, why do you still belief?
Some wish to hedge their bets, meaning they are not sure but just in case maybe there is a God I should at least leave that idea open in my mind.
Still others also fear a non-cultural comformity (they don’t want to be different)
Others will say because it tells people the proper way to live.
That last quote of “it tells people how to live” is by far the absolute most revealing use and meaning and purpose of religions.
A use of a belief to discriminate for purposes of social order that uses the concept of a belief and intolerance of selective lifestyles to enforce it.
This evidence of how it is used is widely evident both in past history and present day.
Examples would be the role and placement of woman in a sociality, selective sexaul lifestyles perjudice and intolerence punishments of woman in adultry which is selective toward the female and not the male in that punishment. It takes 2 to have an adultry yet it is the woman that is punished?
When asking others as to why they do not like religions they nearly in all cases state how judgmental and or how closed minded it is.
The problem in the battle for a human sense of equality and basic equality of justice lays greatly in the acknowledgment of a persons perjudice and personal fears.
religions tend to be a resting place for a justified excused intolerence.
The rout core battle in about that excused justification and exposing the reality of it being a perjudice and a bigotry.
Education not only in a school but more importantly in human interactions will in the end win this battle and in so doing end the wars.
The only requirement is a willingness to open the mind and to learn without a prejudice as to want you wish to only learn.
2 blind men are standing next to an elephant.
the first blind man is touching along the long trunk saying “An elephant is like a snake”
The other blind man is touching along the legs. “No your wrong an elephant is like a tree”
There is none so blind as those whom will not see.
I hope it would not be long before people have to argue for why they believe in a personal god to a larger proportion of the population, than the contrary (which is happening now).
Part A. Some Reflections on God and Science
1.
“Tegmark’s Ensembles
Tegmark has recently proposed what he calls “the ultimate ensemble theory” in which all universes that mathematically exist also physically exist (Tegmark 1997). By “mathematical existence,” Tegmark means “freedom from contradiction.” So, universes cannot contain square circles, but anything that does not break a rule of logic exists in some universe.”
(From: The Anthropic Coincidences:
A Natural Explanation
Published in The Skeptical Intelligencer, 3(3, July 1999): pp. 2-17.
By Victor J. Stenger)
So here we see that as per Tegmark mathematical existence implies physical existence. From the following equation of special theory of relativity
t1 = t (1-v2/c2)1/2
one can see that if one can move with the speed of light, then he will be immortal. Because when v = c, then for any value of t, value of t1 will always be zero. Even if value of t is an eternity, till then value of t1 will be zero. So in one frame of reference whole of eternity may pass, but in another frame of reference not a single moment will elapse. Whoever will be in this second reference frame, will be immortal. Because even in the whole time span of an eternity he will not be older by a single second. So from this equation we see that immortality has got mathematical existence. But as per Tegmark mathematical existence implies physical existence. Therefore we can conclude that immortality has got physical existence also. This means that there is an immortal being in this universe.
2.
In his article “Ten Things Wrong with Cosmological Creationism” Richard Carrier has written:“When we posit a god, we are left with almost no predicted observations–theism does not predict any physical feature of the universe that we can check.”
But this is definitely not true. First of all one will have to decide whose God one is considering. Is it Abraham’s God? Is it Jacob’s God? Or is it mystic-philosopher’s God? If it is mystic-philosopher’s God, then definitely some physical features of the universe can be predicted that can be checked and verified by the scientists. Philosopher’s God is beyond good and evil, one, all pervading, spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, etc. Since God is all pervading and spaceless at the same time, so volume of the entire universe must have to be zero. Otherwise, how can that God be spaceless? So, this is one prediction that can be made. The next prediction that can also be made is this: existence of a spaceless, timeless being in this universe implies the relativity of space and time. I have written a book in Bengali (published in 2003) in which I have shown in some great details as to how a spaceless, timeless God implies the relativity of space and time. And this last prediction has already been found to be correct. Since God is one and since everything in this universe has sprung from that one God, then everything in this universe must be ultimately reducible to one thing. This is another prediction that can be made.
Another prediction that comes to my mind is this: God is said to be timeless. If God is really there and if that God is timeless, then there is some sort of timelessness in this universe. For timelessness to be there, time must have to be unreal by some means or other. So God-theory predicts that time must have to be unreal by some means or other. And science has shown that it is just the case. At the speed of light time becomes unreal. If there is no apparent reason for time becoming unreal, there is at least one reason as to why it should be. And that reason is God’s timelessness.
One more prediction: God is said to be immortal. So here God-theory predicts that immortality must be found to be written somewhere, in some scientific theory or law or equation. Here also we find that science has not betrayed us. From the following equation of special theory of relativity we can see that if one can move with the speed of light, then he will be immortal.
t1 = t (1-v2/c2)1/2
Now one question will definitely arise here. Is deathlessness same as timelessness? Is there no difference? This question arises because I have used the same equation for showing as to how one can be timeless as well as immortal. The answer to this question will be a very big YES. Death means some sort of change. I am very much alive at this moment. But at the very next moment I may die. But in a timeless world this very next moment will never come. So a timeless being can never die.
So, it is not true that God-theory does not predict any physical feature of the universe that we can check. As per the definition of a good scientific theory given by Karl Popper, God-theory can be considered to be a very good scientific theory. Because it can predict something that can be checked and verified, and so it can also be falsified. Only those who are heavily prejudiced against God will decline to admit it.
Scientist Victor J. Stenger has written:
“Mystics state that their experience of oneness with God and the universe cannot be described in scientific terms. The more rational statement is that this experience is all in their heads.”
But the problem is that if this God is in mystics’ heads only and not in the outside world, then whatever predictions can be made from God-theory, if at all correct, should be correct in their heads only, and not in the outside world. But since some of these predictions have already been found to be correct in the outside world, then the more rational statement is that this God is in the outside world and not in mystics’ heads only. Or, it may be that, these mystics’ heads are so very big that, like God, the entire outside world is also in their heads. That is why predictions made from God-theory have been found to be correct in the outside world. In that case mystics’ heads must be as big as the universe itself.
3.
Generally two things are claimed about science:
a) Science always deals with something that is real, and not with something that is unreal, imaginary. It is in man’s power imagining anything and everything, and actually he has imagined so many things, so many worlds, and so many beings. But it is not the job of science to prove that all these imagined things, imagined worlds, imagined beings are as real as this world.
b) Only science, and no other discipline, can give us the true picture of reality.
Keeping these two claims about science in our mind let us proceed further to see what conclusion can be drawn from the following equation of special theory of relativity:
t1 = t (1-v2/c2)1/2
From this equation we have already seen that if one can move with the speed of light, then he will live eternally. So we see that here science has dealt with the idea of immortality, and that it has also shown as to how that immortality can be attained. But if the claim about science that it only deals with what is real is true, then we must conclude that like change and mortality, immortality is also a real feature of this universe. Otherwise, why has science dealt with that? But immortality can be a real feature of this universe if, and only if, there is at least one immortal being in this universe. So the presence of the above equation in a scientific theory clearly indicates that there is at least one immortal being in this universe.
But if one is loathe admitting the existence of God, then one will have to admit that while in most of the cases science deals with something that is real, sometimes it also deals with something that is unreal, imaginary, and untrue. In that case one will also have to abandon the claim that only science can give us the true picture of reality. In the above equation science has created an impression that attaining immortality is not an impossibility whereas actually no one can be immortal. So here science has simply baffled us, confused us, misled us. And if we are allowed to use a very bad term here – I hope we will be pardoned for that – then we can even say that by showing that it is possible to be immortal, science has given us a very nice and beautiful bluff. Like so many religious bluffs, it is also a bluff, in this case given by science itself.
So the gist of the whole matter is simply this. Science cannot hold the following two propositions as true simultaneously:
1) God, or, any other immortal being, does not exist,
2) Only science can give us the true picture of reality.
If any one of the above two propositions is true, then the other one must be false.
4.
Mystics who have claimed that they have direct experience of God have repeatedly and unanimously told us one thing: time is unreal. If one claims that God does not exist and that mystical experience is nothing but a mere hallucination, then he must show that mystics were wrong in holding that time was unreal. Here common sense says that to do this one must have to show that time is not unreal and that in no way can it be unreal. But here science has done just the opposite; it has shown as to how and when time will become unreal. But to show that mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination, one must have to show that mystics’ view regarding time was completely mistaken. As science has miserably failed to do that, so by what kind of logic is it established that mystical experience is a hallucination? If mystical experience can no longer be discarded as a mere hallucination, then by what kind of logic is it established that God does not exist?
When man did not know that time could be unreal, his labeling of mystical experience as a hallucination was fully justified, logical and reasonable. But once it has dawned on him that at the speed of light time could become unreal, his discarding mystical experience as a hallucination is totally unjustified, illogical and unreasonable. And, it is unscientific also. As per definition a hallucination is a sensory perception without a source in the external world. When the mystic says that time is unreal, he is definitely in touch with some state where time is unreal. If he were not, he would not have said time was unreal. But he wrongly and erroneously thinks – and believes also – that this timeless state is in the real, external world. But if mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination, then as per its definition this timeless state cannot be in the real world. Because, if this timeless state is in the real world, then mystical experience is not a hallucination. And if mystical experience is not a hallucination, then it cannot be said that God does not exist. But since atheists and scientists claim that God does not exist, then mystical experience must have to be a hallucination. So, if necessary, then even by hook or crook, it will have to be established that mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination. For that it must have to be ensured that this timeless state can never be in the external world. And for that, it must further have to be ensured that time can never be unreal in the external world. But we find that this last condition is not fulfilled at all. It is not fulfilled because science has shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal. Since time can also be unreal in the external world, then there is every possibility that this timeless state is in the external world. And if this timeless state is in the external world, then mystical experience cannot be called a hallucination. And if mystical experience is not a hallucination, then God is real.
5.
Science is supposed to deal with something that is real, that is existent, that is of this world, and not with something that is unreal, imaginary, and non-existent. If God does not exist, then that God is a fictitious, imaginary Being. Whatever has been said about that imaginary God cannot be true, cannot be real. If God does not exist, then there is no one in this universe about whom it can be said that He is immortal, spaceless, timeless, all pervading etc. So, if God does not exist, then the terms immortality, spacelessness, timelessness etc. will have no meaning at all. These are all imaginary concepts attributed to some imaginary Being. Then why will science, which is supposed to be concerned with only what is real, what is existent, what is of this world, show that all these imaginary concepts have got some sort of scientific explanation? Why will science show that if one can move with the speed of light, then one can be immortal, timeless, etc.? If God is also not real, then how do those imaginary concepts attributed to that imaginary being somehow become part of a real world by being explained scientifically?
Has science ever been found to give proof for the existence of any non-real, imaginary thing? Has science ever been found to give proof for the existence of any non-real, imaginary being? Has science ever been found to offer explanation for the occurrence of any imaginary event? Is science famous for doing all these things? Has science proved that ghosts are real? Has science proved that there is a place called heaven where every human being goes after his or her death? Does science think that real human blood can come out of the wounds of a stone or wooden Jesus? Can one give any single instance where science has supported any single human superstition or folly? If science has never been found to give proof for any single imaginary thing or being, and if science has never been found to offer explanation for any single imaginary event, then why is it that it has on its own given explanation for these imaginary concepts? Why is there an exception here at all? What is the reason behind this? What does it want to make us understand by giving scientific explanation to these imaginary concepts? Does it want to make us understand that these are not imaginary concepts at all? Does it want to make us understand that these are real concepts having meaning and significance in some real context in a real world? Does it want to make us understand God is real?
Perhaps this is the greatest irony in the whole history of our human civilization so far: science has explained that very God whose existence it has vehemently denied. If God does not exist, then those scientists who have given us special theory of relativity should not be called proper scientists at all. And if God does not exist, then special theory of relativity is not a proper science at all; it is simply a pseudo-science, something like astrology. To call it a science is an insult to human reason and understanding.
Part B. SOME RESPONSES RECEIVED
The problem is that in order for this equation to be true you have to be talking about a material object(being). When V=C you are saying that the object is going the speed of light. This can’t happen as the mass becomes infinite at C. In short you would turn into your own black hole. Furthermore, it would take an infinite amount of energy to get to C. All that is impossible. Now if you are talking about an immaterial being, then none of the equation applies.
An immortal being in literature can usually do stuff. The type of immortality described here consists of existence as a popsicle, frozen in time. This would be no fun at all!
OK: a timeless being can’t do anything because events happen in time. Sure you’d be immortal at the speed of light, because time would be frozen for you. Behold the incredible frozen God!
Predictions only count if, well, they are made in advance of the finding. Already knowing the findings of relativity theory and then claiming that your version of God predicts them is, if not delusional, at least cheating.
Plus I don’t see any good reason to accept Tegmark’s proposition that mathematical possibility implies physical existence anyway. With only one universe to observe we can’t make ANY substantial claims about the probability of any of its properties. We have no way of knowing whether physical laws could have varied at all, let alone by how much. Theological skepticism doesn’t need multiple universes to explain why this particular universe is only 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% inimical to life as we know it instead of 100% because you can’t determine the odds when all you’ve seen is one result. Maybe there are multiple universes, maybe there aren’t, maybe all mathematically possible universes exist, maybe they don’t. None of these situations has positive implications for the existence of God absent evidence that God is not imaginary.
Part C. MY RESPONSE
Regarding Tegmark’s argument: Here my main intension was not to prove the existence of God, but to expose the hollowness of his argument. If scientists claim that mathematics can prove the existence of multiverses, then I will also claim that mathematics has already proved the existence of a timeless, deathless being, in which case we no longer need any multiverse theory to explain the fact that our universe is life-supporting.
Regarding immortality: It may be there is no immortal being in this universe. It may be there is no God. But the fact still remains that science has shown that in this universe to be immortal is not an impossibility. For that only one will have to be massless, because Einstein has shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. So, if there is a being that is massless, then that being will be immortal. If human being possesses a soul, and if that soul is massless, then that soul will also be immortal. Here the question is not whether a massless being does at all exist. Neither is it a question whether human being really possesses a soul or not. The real question is: why in this universe has it been found that it is not impossible to be immortal? The real question is: why has Mother Nature kept such a provision in its scheme of things? And, for whom has it kept that provision?
Now regarding cheating: This charge of cheating brought against me is baseless, as anyone going through my article carefully can find it out himself. Let me first quote what has been written in one of the responses:
“Predictions only count if, well, they are made in advance of the finding. Already knowing the findings of relativity theory and then claiming that your version of God predicts them, is, if not delusional, at least cheating.”
So, there is no doubt that I have cheated. But the person who has brought this accusation against me has forgotten that in my article I have mentioned that at least five predictions can be made from God-theory, out of which only three have so far been found to be correct. Let me repeat them once again:
a) Space and time must be relative,
b) Time must have to be unreal by some means or other,
c) Immortality must be found to be written somewhere, in some scientific theory or law or equation.
d) Volume of the entire universe must be found to be zero,
e) Everything in this universe must be ultimately reducible to one-thing,
In the first three cases above he might have said that I have cheated, because, really, these are the findings of relativity theory. But if he holds that I have cheated in the other two cases also, then will he please take the trouble to give us the name(s) of the scientific theory/theories of which these are the findings? If he cannot, then he should admit that he has brought a false and baseless charge against me, for which he should apologize. Actually, by showing that these two predictions can also be made from God-theory, I have taken a very great risk. Because if they do not come true, then one day God-theory will eventually be falsified. And then there will be no hope left for us.
But still I think there will be some hopes left. At least what the Russian scientist Andrei Linde has said to Tim Folger in a completely different context raises some hopes in us. Let us first see what he has actually said:
“When I ask Linde whether physicists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, he has a simple answer. “Nothing else fits the data,” he tells me. “We don’t have any alternative explanation for the dark energy; we don’t have any alternative explanation for the smallness of the mass of the electron; we don’t have any alternative explanation for many properties of particles.
“What I am saying is, look at it with open eyes. These are experimental facts, and these facts fit one theory: the multiverse theory. They do not fit any other theory so far. I’m not saying these properties necessarily imply the multiverse theory is right, but you asked me if there is any experimental evidence, and the answer is yes. It was Arthur Conan Doyle who said, ‘When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’”.”
[From: Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse theory, By Tim Folger, published online November 10, 2008, DISCOVER Magazine.]
So, here lies the hope. First, eliminate all the impossible theories. Then the theory that remains, even if improbable, must be the truth.
As per the scientists God does not exist, because so far there is no proof for His existence, and perhaps there will never be any. But it is also true that man believes in God. So, it is a fact that man believes in God in spite of the fact that there is no God. This fact also requires some sort of explanation. Some explanations have been offered so far by some eminent thinkers and philosophers, but none of these theories are adequate enough to explain certain aspects of that imaginary God. So it can be said that all their theories, all their hypotheses are failed theories, failed hypotheses.
If God does not exist, then God did not create man, instead man has created God. So it is quite expected that he will create that God in such a way that He can satisfy all his needs. Man will definitely not create a God who is not merciful. He will definitely not create a God who is not immortal, because a mortal God cannot bestow immortality on others. For that purpose God Himself must have to be immortal. These points are easily understood. So we can understand why man-created God is benevolent, merciful, all-loving, all powerful, immortal, etc. & etc. But what about that God who is spaceless, timeless? Why was it necessary to imagine that God as such? What are the specific needs of man that can only be met by a spaceless, timeless God? If God did not have these attributes, then what would have been lost to man? A real God might have to have these attributes; there might be some philosophical justifications for that. But why should an imaginary God? Does anybody have any answer? Then what about Hindu’s Brahma who is indifferent to man’s sorrows and sufferings? What about that Brahma who is without any qualities, without any attributes (Nirguna Brahma)? A Nirguna Brahma cannot have benevolence even, so He cannot even do any single benevolent act. So what purpose does such a Brahma serve to man? Man can easily do without Him. And so, why in the first place will he take the trouble on him to create such a Brahma, and then declare that He doesn’t care for us? All such queries remain unanswered, unexplained. So all these theories, all these hypotheses so far offered to explain man’s belief in God are impossible theories, impossible hypotheses. So, according to Konan Doyle, they need to be eliminated mercilessly. Therefore the only theory that ultimately remains is the correct theory. The theory that simply says: Man believes in God, because there is a God.
H.S.PAL
Rationalists are trying to rediscover the world and universe.
Their hypothesis is that God concept is unnecessary.
We must honour their sincerity.
Any anomaly that can not be resolved by our present hypothesis, theory and experience, is a sure shot invitation to new openings, and is also a welcome endavour.
To say that scientific methods is best, is ofcourse correct.
To believe in scientific dogma, because we hate other thought processes is wrong.
Experience of flying in a non stop flight to USA from India is a reality, no body can dely. Travel in to a timeless state is not that common. The truly religious/ spiritual gurus claim to make it possible for their followers. But obviously the throughput is so less that ‘others’ including rationalists can not relate to it.
Like one can relate to the description of non stop flight to USA.
Just remember that to a person without visa, money and opportunity to travel , the later description is as hollow as the earlier one.
Timelessness,immortality etc are properties of the universe at certain special conditions. It doesnt mean that those properties are the ones that created the universe. your argument is built upon one fallacy over another fallacy.
I dont have a problem if you want to call the primordial fire ball before the big bang or light itself(since it alone can travel at the velocity C, hence be timeless and immortal) as God. but does it make sense to pray to the several
constants and forces of the universe… “dear force of gravity, heal all my sins” , how does this sound?. there is certainly a difference between beleiving there is a zero mass particle in the Universe and beleiving the zero mass particle created the universe. All of your evidence are not proofs for the existense of god… they are proofs for the existense of timelessness, immortality etc in the Universe from which it doesnot follow the existense of god.
Interesting. Fact is fact. Only through science man can find answers to his doubts. Please put some light on what is Black Magic (mata, mantra). Lot of people are afraid of this black magic. How can be understand that it is just deceiving others.
I never felt the need to try to understand black magic. There are much better ways of spending my time. As awareness about science spreads, and as literacy spreads, black magic will disappear ‘like magic!’
The phenomenon of “Life” is a mystery which science has yet to unravel fully. Living beings experience great fear when faced with death or extinction. It is this mystery-cum-fear which drive humans towards a God, and, naturally to one or the other religion. Since it is this Life which concomitantly gives rise to intelligence, which is at the base of all human endeavour, including science and scientific progress, it seems impossible that the human intellect will be capable of solving the riddle of the phenomena of Life and (more importantly)Death and what happens after that.
Is it likely that there is a universal Life Force Field (just like the Gravitational Field) which causes all life forms to manifest whenever and wherever there are conducive conditions and stops manifesting as soon as the physical body becomes incapable of supporting it?
‘Is it likely that there is a universal Life Force Field (just like the Gravitational Field) which causes all life forms to manifest whenever and wherever there are conducive conditions and stops manifesting as soon as the physical body becomes incapable of supporting it?’
1. Complexity science already has a very substantial answer to ‘how life arose out of nonlife’. Please see my 17 articles at http://nirmukta.com/complexity-explained-the-complete-series-by-dr-vinod-wadhawan/
2. Any attempt to postulate a new fundamental interaction in Nature will have to face Ockham’s razor (OR): One cannot introduce more postulates or axioms than what are necessary for explaining natural phenomena. OR is not just a matter of philosophy. It has been given a clear validation in terms of algorithmic information theory.
3. In any case, let somebody try to postulate such a fundamental force, and give a consistent list of its expected properties. Scientists will then check it against experiment. My view is that there is no evidence that such a force exists.
4. If somebody says that certain things are beyond the domain of science, then for such things we can only have tentative opinions. And my opinion is as good as that of the man next door.
5. I can think of no method other than the scientific method for knowing truth. Science does not have all the answers at present, but what else can we do about it?
Hello
There is little question that in time human kind will explain the orgins of life and what happens after life ends.
This will happen for the very same reasons that human kind explores the universe. looks into the sky,builds machines, creates civilaztions, and traveled across the seas . because of the same question that is always asked “WHY’and continues to be answered with “WHY NOT”
A mystery only remains a mystery when the question is not asked and the wondering remains just a wondering when it assumes it can not be answered.
showing the evidence of the reality of reality is only relaying the reality of it to those whom see and understand it.
Or to put it more bluntly to those ablity it see it for what it is and not confuse it with an intolerence of any who live a life in the reality of it.
Faith without reason is insanity without thought, Religion is insanity without thought.
We know this we see it on a near daily basis.
The problem is the use of discrimination and the use of by and within the context of a religion.
The way to remove this is to expose this, the battle is not and has never been a science over religion,it has always been a bigotry excusing itself in a battle against a reasoning mind.
The evidence of reality is overwelming in its proof yet this proof can never win in a war against a bigoted intolerent outlook that is unable to stand the thought of being in a world that is filled with people whom don’t life the way they want them to.
Religion is centered around the use of this, In this battle the war is about exposing this, in a battle of exposure religion can not win.
To win this war the only requiremnet is in that constant reminding of what religion does and has done and to turn the faith into a faith of human possiblites.