- Whatever we have a been living with becomes normal to us. Whatever violates common sense and experience and seems impossible, becomes a limitation on us. This sense of possible and impossible takes the form of a law.
- All laws of physics and logic of mathematics
are formulations of our own experiences – our possibilities and our limitations, as perceived by us.
- These laws are true so long as we
are bound and unaware of our boundaries. For example, a) 2+2=4, is true so long
as the law of conservation of mass holds, and b) Newton’s law of
gravitation was true, so long we were moving slow.
- These laws are nothing but our own
creation. Down the line we lose the sight of this relationship - we forget that
we are the creators of our laws and start thinking that the laws are supreme
and govern us.
- A belief that this world is a machine
and follows certain fixed laws, is a belief. It is quite possible that someday
these laws may change – who has seen the future?
- A belief that Sun would rise in the
east because it has been doing so for ages, is a belief. Someday earth may
change its rotation - why not?
- Whatever law is working today will
continue to work same tomorrow, is a projection – all projections and inferences are
beliefs.
- Disbelief in God is of our own
creation - there is no law or logic which denies the existence of God. Those
who do not believe in the magic do not believe in God and those who believe in the
magic believe in God. For God is nothing but a ‘Magic’ which transcends all laws
(i.e. our limitations).
- In reality, everything is a wonder
– creation of the world, the evolution of life, the evolution of mind, the law of
gravitation, etc. all are a wonder – there is no reason for them to be there
except by a miracle. There is no law which says gravitation shall
be there; there is no law which says that energy and mass shall be
interconvertible.
- You may believe in science or in
the laws of nature, if that suits you. On the contrary, you may believe in
magic, if it suits you. Either way, it is a belief.
- Science neither denies nor affirms God – it only puts the human experiences in mathematical formulations.
- Finally, whether you believe in God or you do not believe in God, is your Choice. Both are beliefs - there is no science, nor any logic in it. Don't fall into the self-gratifying illusion that being an atheist is being rational.
Note: If you wish, you can follow my blog by sharing your email at the appropriate box at top right or at the bottom. Once you have subscribed to this blog, you will get automatic notifications as an when a new article is posted in this blog.
October 30, 2020. Excerpts of the discussion on this issue, between 'X' and 'I' elsewhere:
X: I am an atheist based on arguments for or against the existence of God.
I: As if arguments are complete in themselves. If you look dispassionately, all arguments are based on faith.
X: Based on evidence and logic, neither is faith.
I: 2+2=4 is faith. I hope this makes sense.
X: No it doesn't. How is mathematical logic, faith?
I: Wrote the above Blog.
X: Fair enough. There is no scientific proof of non-existence of God. But this is similar to Bertrand Russell's teapot, small invisible in orbit between Earth and Mars around the Sun. If you do not believe it is there, the burden of non-existence proof is on you.
I prefer the scale formulated by Richard Dawkins 1 being a believer and 7 being an atheist. I am about 6. There is an utter lack of evidence. Hence, it is not faith, but a lack of evidence that suggests that the probability of God's existence is very low. I rest my case.
I: "If you do not believe it is there, the burden of non-existence proof is on you." No, it is your problem - if you want to prove God is not there - it is your problem; if nobody has been able to prove the non-existence of God, you must prove it, because you want proof. But if you want to believe God is not there, it is perfectly fine, - you are free to believe whatever you want to.
X: Fair enough. There is no scientific proof of non-existence of God. But this is similar to Bertrand Russell's teapot, small invisible in orbit between Earth and Mars around the Sun. If you do not believe it is there, the burden of non-existence proof is on you.
I prefer the scale formulated by Richard Dawkins 1 being a believer and 7 being an atheist. I am about 6. There is an utter lack of evidence. Hence, it is not faith, but a lack of evidence that suggests that the probability of God's existence is very low. I rest my case.
I: "If you do not believe it is there, the burden of non-existence proof is on you." No, it is your problem - if you want to prove God is not there - it is your problem; if nobody has been able to prove the non-existence of God, you must prove it, because you want proof. But if you want to believe God is not there, it is perfectly fine, - you are free to believe whatever you want to.
"Richard Dawkins 1 being a believer and 7 being an atheist. I am about 6." Wherever you are on this scale - it is your belief. What I am saying that you can't escape believing - even science is a belief.
I am not arguing for or against the existence of God, I am simply saying wherever you place yourself, it is a belief. so both believer and non-believer are on the same footing.
No comments:
Post a Comment