Wednesday, July 31, 2013

97. God. Part one

I have thought about God for several decades. It has been my obsession in life

Do I have the answers to all my questions about God which had perplexed me for all of my adult life? Yes, almost.

Can I convince others, who don’t believe in God, the presence of God? No, I cannot.

You might think that the reason I cannot convince others, is because there is no objective evidence. That is not the reason. The reason is that the evidence is anecdotal. You know how scientific community hates anecdotal evidence. I, myself, have been involved in bench research on cell biology for 6-7 years; therefore, I understand the limitations of preliminary evidence. This type of data by itself is not definitive but becomes the basis for further research. One tries to get experimental evidence, by designing experiments in a laboratory which prove or disprove the hypothesis. If it is clinical evidence, one may, finally, have to do a randomized clinical trial with at least two almost similar arms in a significant number of humans, in which one arms gets a treatment, while other does not. If the treatment arm derives statistical benefit, then the hypothesis is tentatively right. If multiple observers, away from each other in time and space, repeat the experiment, and have the same results, then science accepts it as a fact. If there is enough circumstantial evidence (facts), one tries to discover the laws of nature, which tie the facts. Once one has discovered the laws, one tries to formulate a theory (or hypothesis) which explains the laws.

What I have described above is the scientific method. Conclusions are reached, based on the facts, wherever facts lead one. One starts with a presumption, but if the experiments prove it wrong, one has to abandon it, and reach a different conclusion, based on the new data.  One does not start with a preconceived conclusion. In contrast, the religion, starts with predetermined conclusions, and finds the facts which support its views, and discards the facts which do not support it. This ‘pick and choose’ method of data-collecting is completely and utterly unacceptable to science. Anecdotal evidence picks and chooses, selecting only those anecdotes which support a particular point of view, instead of picking all anecdotes.

The trouble is that with God, you cannot get evidence by designing experiments. The evidence against God is zero; one cannot prove by science or logic that there is no God. The evidence in support of God is miniscule, like the proverbial needle in the haystack, and indirect.

You might ask that if the evidence supporting God is so little, why do billions of human being (more than half of world population) believe in God. The answer is twofold; faith and the law of inertia. Faith is a fundamental part of all religions, one is told not to question the dictates of religion but accept them on faith. The law of inertia hates and resists change: as Newton said “a body in motion will stay in motion, and a body at rest will stay in rest, for ever, provided a force acts on it…………………………………” We are intellectually lazy people; we tend to follow the religious practices of our parents.

Let us, briefly, state, the case against the existence of God

One has four facts in front of him:

1. Nobody has seen God in, at least, the last two thousand years

2. Nobody has talked to God in, at least, the last two thousand years

3. World is full of miseries, and injustice.

4. Every event that occurs, is the result of the law of cause and effect

Let me expound; I have chosen two thousand years (I could have chosen an earlier date), because we have relatively better recorded history of this period. If God had come in open so that people had seen Him and heard His voice, somebody would have written about it and told it to his children and grand children, who in turn would have passed it on to next generations.

History of the last two thousand years is characterized by wars, famines, hunger, diseases, poverty, and natural catastrophes (floods, hurricanes, epidemics, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc). Furthermore, there is injustice to contend with. Powerful have been oppressing the weak. People do good things and bad things. Cruel or bad persons are not necessarily punished; in fact they may have a great life, and the good are not necessarily rewarded . Where is the omnipotent and justice-loving God? Either there is no God, or He is not all- powerful, or He does not care. Years ago I had read that a thinker had said that only two (any two) of the following three propositions can be correct, not all three:

               God is all good

               God is all powerful

               World is full of suffering.

If first two are correct, then our suffering may not be suffering to the Eternal and Infinite Eye, just as I do not care about the death of dozens of billions of RBC’s every day (blog 95)


To be continued










No comments: