Faith can be disproved, but not blind faith C R Krishnan
I am afraid that we are putting ourselves on the back foot by claiming God as the infinite, the math as finite, and about how we cannot put the infinite in finite terms. Why do we need to have any pre-conceived notions? What is our basis in holding up God as the infinite? And even otherwise, why can’t math handle the infinite? We know the power of math. How can we ever place ‘an unknown’ above the ‘science of all unknowns’, namely mathematics?
Mathematics is precision and I don’t think I can agree if you point out any glitch in that.
Quite simply, mathematics works, and more importantly, Mathematics works when we want it to; how can we ever question Math’s potency, for see what it has done-
You press the key before you, and the pathfinder picks up a stone in Mars. Can the precision and harmony get any better than that? How can we ever remain passive in acknowledging its potency?
I don’t want to limit math to this. But just that this is one amazing feat of science, the science that works WHEN we want it to, NOT like the ‘omni-potent’ who works when he chooses to.
Now for the harmony of Nature. One question that I am always fascinated at is - How can we explain all the uncertainties happening around us? I was so excited to read the ‘The theory of randomness’, from the point of how it got studied in Brownian motion to the point of how high ‘the uncertainty principle’ stands today - in cracking the secret behind randomness. That essay lent me a great perusal.
There is science behind everything; a science that we can comprehend. And I would like to repeat what they say - we don’t have something solved, something not yet comprehended, doesn’t mean that it lacks solution. Time, and time alone is what separates the solution from us. Man’s knowledge of science may be limited, but then, there is a science behind everything, a science that is comprehensible.
Should we believe there is the omnipotent behind the science, behind the science that is behind everything? Is that ‘omnipotent’ potent enough to alter the science? Has he ever done that? Or will he? Or if he can’t, why ever talk about him at all?
From whatever little I have read, I could muster that we have come to a point where we can ascribe just two things to God – spawning life and annihilating life. We are able to cut the Gordian knot or not, the point I am trying to make is that we would never have reached this point if we had thought that this is incomprehensible. talking about.
Again, there is no need to bring in ‘the all-powerful’ into human relations. Reasoning is all that we need to guide us; to guide our conscience. And this is the reasoning that I think science as well bases itself upon.
Let me get back to some basic questions.
Can God alter anything at all, as he wishes? Is he not driven by any law? Is he incomprehensible?
If he too is driven by a law, and if he acts only as the law dictates, then there is science behind God as well. A comprehensible science.
If he is not driven by any law, and can do what he wants to - then…. Then God bless us.
Or is that we should just believe that HE exists – why? Because, just like that; with nothing to base itself upon. Hmmm… Blind faith is inaccessible to the light of disproof, and so…. God bless us.
I know that we cannot conclude it all so easily. But somehow, I maintain a feeling that we should never be binary in our thoughts. He does exist or he doesn’t. The indecision associated with “may be Yes, may be No.” is not a convincing view, I believe. And if yes, then speak out, but with the evidence, and here are two anxious ears lent to you.