In
so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable;
and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
The cause-and-effect notion is
well-entrenched in the human psyche. Since an effect always follows a
cause, and does not precede it, one can go on working backwards, in
search of the chain of causes. But this process may never end. There are people
who get tired of doing this, and say that ultimately you must postulate or create this thing
called God, which must be 'causeless' because we humans do not know how to
carry on this quest for causes endlessly.
This amounts to admitting defeat, and
not trying hard enough. Modern science is so advanced and sophisticated by now
that it can try hard enough, and has an answer; at least a tentative
answer (I shall come to this in a future blog).
But the God hypothesis has an emotional
angle also, which suits many people. For them, God plays the role of a father
figure. A child in trouble looks up to the father (and/or the mother) for
solace and support. The world presents a hostile environment, and fearful
individuals tend to behave like children, convincing themselves that God will
take care of their problems. This is self-delusion, nothing more.
Where is the evidence that there is a
God, who has nothing better to do than to take care of the wishes and prayers
of all the 'sinners'? There is NO evidence for all this if you investigate
things the proper way, namely by following the scientific method. I shall
mention two books that explain this:
1. John Allen Paulos (2008): Irreligion:A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up.
2. Victor J. Stenger (2007): God, the Failed Hypothesis.
The God hypothesis is not a good one.
It 'explains' away everything, but we end up learning nothing. When asked by a student if he believed in God, James D. Watson answered, 'Oh,
no. Absolutely not... The biggest advantage to believing in God is you
don't have to understand anything, no physics, no biology. I wanted to
understand'.
In science there is place only for statements which can be either proved or disproved. Karl Popper coined the term FALSIFIABLE STATEMENTS for them. Pick up any book on religion, and you will inevitably come across statements which are unfalsifiable. How do you carry on a discussion with a person who makes unfalsifiable statements?
In science there is place only for statements which can be either proved or disproved. Karl Popper coined the term FALSIFIABLE STATEMENTS for them. Pick up any book on religion, and you will inevitably come across statements which are unfalsifiable. How do you carry on a discussion with a person who makes unfalsifiable statements?
Reminds me of a story by H. G. Wells,
in which there is a character who is prone to saying 'That's what YOU think!'
so frequently in any argument that the other person gives up, in sheer
exasperation. My advice is: If a person makes an unfalsifiable statement in your presence,
tell him/her: 'That's what YOU think!' Do it a sufficient number of times to get the desired results.
When a statement is falsifiable, it
does not matter what you think and what I think. Science is all about
falsifiable statements only.
In science there is already a
plausible model for our universe which is self-consistent and GODLESS, and
which makes only falsifiable statements. Watch this space for more!
No comments:
Post a Comment