Deep Thoughts on The Big Question

Namit and Usha are vacationing in exotic locales, as they are wont to do, and I am left to man the ramparts. Namit has craftily dropped hints that I am not pulling my weight as a contributor. His most recent post was designed to get a rise out of me, as I have strong opinions about what history is and what history-writing has become. More of that later though. For now, let us focus on a Big Question, always fascinating for those of us who have not gotten over it since our college days:

                    Does science make belief in God obsolete?

My attention to this question was drawn by a full-page advertisement in the Financial Times by the Templeton Foundation. The placement of the advertisement and the extracts from the thoughts the distinguished panelists piqued my curiosity.  The Templeton Foundation website has the full text of the thoughts of the panelists.

Among the panelists are some popular names such as Steven Pinker and Stuart Kauffman. Christopher Hitchens, that sozzled polemicist, is featured as well. He stays true to form with his usual provocative stances, but adds more heat than light to the debate.

The headlined responses themselves show how a seemingly straightforward question can be sliced and diced in different ways. In addition to the simple "yes" or "no"  there were the responses: "no but it should" , "it depends",  "Yes, if by ..", "No but only if..".

When I read the essays by the panel, I found myself evaluating the essays on several fronts:

* On the background of the contributor
* On how convincing the argument was
* On the rhetorical devices employed
* On the coherence and internal logic of the essay.

Based on these criteria, I found the arguments of the two physicists the most interesting, but that clearly reflects my personal prejudices. One atheistic biologist and one believer biologist wrote what I thought were thought-provoking essays. I also thought that some of the essays were seriously diminished by the adoption of purely Judeo-Christian or Western frames of reference.

The most quotable of the lot, for various reasons, was the essay by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist. Here is an excerpt:

But you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God. First, try the pantheon of available Creators. Inspect thoroughly. If none fits the bill, invent one.

The God of your choice must be a stickler for divine principles. Science does not take kindly to a deity who, if piqued or euphoric, sets aside seismological or cosmological principles and causes the moon to shiver, the earth to split asunder, or the universe to suddenly reverse its expansion. This God must, among other things, be stoically indifferent to supplications for changing local meteorological conditions, the task having already been assigned to the discipline of fluid dynamics. Therefore, indigenous peoples, even if they dance with great energy around totem poles, shall not cause even a drop of rain to fall on parched soil. Your rule-abiding and science-respecting God equally well dispenses with tearful Christians singing the Book of Job, pious Hindus feverishly reciting the havan yajna, or earnest Muslims performing the salat-i-istisqa as they face the Holy Ka'aba. The equations of fluid flow, not the number of earnest supplicants or quality of their prayers, determine weather outcomes. This is slightly unfortunate because one could imagine joining the faithful of all religions in a huge simultaneous global prayer that wipes away the pernicious effects of anthropogenic global climate change.

Comments

[Namit]

VP, we're back from what proved to be a worthwhile, mind-expanding trip. It amuses me to read that you imagined crafty hints in my words, but hey, if they keep provoking deep thoughts (including any on history that might be forthcoming) I won't protest too much.

As for the big question, I found notable the wide range of responses from the scientists. It seems fitting that this debate is so completely American (and not continental European or Asian)—an evangelical conception of science in America is now trying to replace its evangelical conception of the Abrahamic God. This culture war has exposed to me the dangerous oversimplification and gross misunderstanding of both science and metaphysics—and ultimately, the rational deficit—in a few too many self-proclaimed votaries of the "reason camp".

I too liked two physicists (Phillips and Hoodbhoy; there is a third one as well: Stenger. Correct me if your choice was different). Groopman, Miller, and Midgley also resonated with me.

[Desh]

"Does science make belief in God obsolete?"

This is so Western religion based a question!

In my MBA school in India we had a special course.. where we were asked to think on something esoteric or out of ordinary and write on it. My term paper was the difference in genesis of Vedic Science and Modern Science as a thinking.

My conclusion then is still valid in my mind. Here is the major difference:

Modern Science started as a reaction to Dark Ages religious/superstitious thinking. So, Science was always anti-thetical to God... Science basically started on a journey to "recreate" what came naturally.. and that has lead to more pollution. It is the thinking construct that I am more interested in.

Vedic or Eastern Science started as a way to understand God. Think of it like this - Modern scientists started to think that if I could understand how Lightning is created I can prove its not created by God. Vedic thinker went the other way - he thought that since lightning is a manifestation of God, so if I could understand how it is created, I can probably understand God better. That is why most practices were in sync with nature (from Yoga to Ayurved).. again it is the scientific thinking/construct and NOT the accomplishments that I am talking about.

-desh
drishtikone.com