Science and God C R Krishnan
Let me make my stance clear on science and God
with the following conversation.
A theologist said: “A philosopher is like a
blind man, searching in a dark room for a black cat,
which is not there.”
The philosopher replied: “That may be true;
but the theologist will find it.”
Now for my thoughts: it is a long katti. Hope
you won’t mind going through it.
Just a general word of introduction. On venturing to
write about God, I can write nothing new; It is all
too well known; just that I put across my views for
you to examine.
Hareesh once told me: “Our life is a two-input AND
gate. One input is in our hand, and the other in
God’s. God invariably feeds in a “1”. So the output we
get is dependent on what we put in.” That is an
excellent way to put it; and Hareesh did it as only he
could.
With your consent, can I modify it a bit? If God
always puts in a “1”, why should I worry about that.
Can’t I just throw my mind to the full onto what I am
supposed to do? Why should I keep worrying about him,
and keep trying to please him. That doesn’t mean he is
not there. But he too wants us to “Do what we are
supposed to do.”
So can I compare life to a D-flip flop. We are sure
to get the output of what we have put in; May not be
immediately, but for sure. So I should strongly
recommend ignoring the constant “1” input from God. It
is no blasphemy to utter this. I repeat, that doesn’t
point to God’s non-existence. It just makes us
constantly aware of the fact that the output is
determined ONLY by our input and “We have to do what
we are supposed to do.”, and everything else will fall
in its place.
God is what we can call the “Z – factor”. We derive
an equation, and we reach a point where we have almost
found a solution. There still is some offset, which
keeps the theoretical value separated from the
experimental value.
If X is our action and Y is our reward. I should put
it this way:
Y(t) = X(t0 + Z).
There is not even a scaling factor, just a
displacement in the time axis. We get exactly what we
put in. The delay Z for us to be rewarded is what God
determines; we may allow at least so much to God!
Look at how Einstein puts it: “God is subtle, but he
is not malicious.” We will by now have experienced the
truth that “God is indeed subtle”, difficult to
comprehend or perceive. Again what does he mean by the
statement “God is not malicious.” Must be the fact
that God is not the one who wants us to keep praising
him.
Let us keep it simple. I think we all are smart
enough to have understood by now that we cannot please
God with prayers. Do you sincerely think he will be
able to alter our fate accordingly as he pleases? I
swear, he won’t be. Because he too is driven by a law
which we happen to call Newton’s third law. And that
states: every man gets what he puts in.
It is a common phrase our elders use when blessing
us: “May God bless you.” Sorry to say, but that
doesn’t serve any purpose. That means nothing more
than “Son, I do care for you, and hope for your good.
But then it is all still in your hands, and in your
hands ALONE.”
Why then do we pray, if that is not what pleases God?
We might say, “Ah, that is for me to get peace of mind
and the strength to tread the right path.” To put it
the harsh way, I should say that it is the inherent
anxiety in us, about the uncertainty on what the
future might hold for us which forces us to pray.
Is it all that simple? How then do we explain the
uncertainties that keep happening around us?
The answer to this, I would put it as: There still
remain ‘unexplained phenomena’ doesn’t mean that they
lack solution. May be time separates its solution from
us.
And about all the natural phenomena, about all
creations, and about the harmony in which they exist -
Are we not better suited today to explain them than we
were when the so-called “religious experts” ascribed
it all to one omnipotent? Shall we not try to put them
into pages of mathematics rather than gaze at them
with “profound stupidity.” We may fail miserably, but
then moving forward with this eternal optimism, with a
tool called “reasoning” in hand is better than a meek
surrender to the “unknown omnipotent.”, so at least I
believe.
Here again, I intend to write nothing new. I just
remind you in time, and I need only remind you; See
how inefficient we are by lack of Mathematics. There
still is an “unexplained” phenomenon, and that forces
us into a state of “lawlessness” where any person, in
the “absence” of established phenomenon called God,
can write whatever he wants to . Had it been a
well-proven theorem in science, could I have dared to
put my stupid thoughts on print?
The sooner Man strives to prove the Z-factor,
the better; much better than surrendering to the
so-called omnipotent.