Ruby Amatulla
In this modern world with enormous scientific advances compared to the past we are dazzled by all kinds of sophisticated and intricate explanations of scientists about reality that often are beyond common people’s comprehension. We are confident of the explanation by scientists like Steven Hawkins as to how the reality works the way it works but fail to ask why it works the way it does. Science can never address that dimension because that involves the exercise of common sense and reason –and not only narrow logical-mathematical analysis and theories -- that demands a bigger view of things.
Steven Hawkins may think that there is no need for the Creator because the way the physical laws work the universe could be self-created. In the process of searching truth it is not enough to ask scientists like him ‘Who created the laws’ but also to ask why these laws synchronize and interact with each other the way they do to effect matter and energy to help produce this reality? Billions of factors and things synchronize with billions of others –often unrelated factors and matters -- to produce this reality. To think all these countless and endless synchronizations taking place are all product of self-created Mindless physical laws or coincidences is the most unreasonable and irrational thought.
The mind-boggling delicate balance among huge numbers of factors and forces is not only indicating a Supreme Presence but also the indispensability of such Presence. The perplexing magnitudes, complexities, balance, beauty and synchronizations that are part of the narrative of this realty cannot fail to indicate the Supreme Being.
The most advanced frontier of science is the ‘string theory’ today that is indicating one root physical cause of all causes in the universe. The ‘Big Bank’ on the other hand is indicating one origin of energies and matters in the universe. It is a consensus of scientists that all the physical laws were established at that time. In every direction we turn to the whole reality is indicating emanating from one origin in one point of time. If all these observations and understanding fail to convince human mind of the One Creator and the One Cause then the mind itself is failing humans: it is being irrational and lost in the complexities of scientific explanations.
The scientists who are focusing on the narrow explanations of exactly HOW things work are failing to see WHY things work the way they do. That is the essence of the questions that could help us lead to closer to truth than anything else.
There seems to be a fallacy existing in human mind. When arrogance and obstinacy exist – sometime in the most insidious but dangerous façade of knowledge and limited human comprehension – a human would be allowed to find all kinds of explanations and narratives of this reality that is devoid of wisdom and true understanding. It is the true failure.
The scientists are conceding that ‘the string theory’ can never be proved, in spite this acceptance this theory is most widely accepted and vigorously pursued by the most advanced physicists of our time on grounds that it provides the most comprehensive and convincing explanation of this amazing reality. If the string theory can be accepted on grounds of its comprehensiveness then why it is so difficult to accept the most comprehensive explanations of all: One Supreme Being creating and sustaining this most perplexing and incomprehensible reality?
If many things are accepted in science on grounds of their effects only without seeing or sensing them then why the effects that are taking place all the time in terms of balance and synchronization fail to convince about the Cause of causes?
I totally disagree with the implication by Kant and Roger Scruton that faith should prevail where reason fails or that there should be separate place for faith and reason. True faith cannot be based without reason. Reason is the vehicle on which fait is delivered. The process that convinces a person about the Cause of all causes is reason.
If faith is the reservoir from where ethics and actions find its source then this reservoir must be contained by reason. It is reason that convinces mind as to the causes and consequences. If there is no cause and consequence then there is no reason for faith. The narrative of the cause and consequence must make sense to a mind before it could be a valid faith.
A stagnant and blind acceptance of a set of ideas merely because one is born in it or lives by it because of blind following of others or dictated by others is not faith. It could be a tradition.
The process of reasoning is a little different in science than in faith. Science stops unless and until it finds all the necessary evidence to support a narrative whereas faith does not stop there. If one finds sufficient reason to believe in something one believes. Beyond that point if there are things that do not make sense or make sense or things that are not known or knowable are accepted and now allowed to contradict the base of faith that is formed on the ground of sufficient evidence. Therefore faith does not require all the questions to be answered before faith it only requires sufficient proof or evidence or reason to believe. Where as science require all the questions to be answered before taking a position. In science therefore there are continuous evaluation assessment and validation or invalidation process going on. Whereas faith does not take that route.
This point can be further explained. Faith is a process in which if there are points in a graph of truth it connects the dots and construct a picture from those connections. Whereas science cannot generally figure out such pictures from connecting dots. It relies all the points to be fully clarified and connected and the picture is self-evident. This is where there is a difference of the path of reasoning and its final destination between the faith and science.
beyond that or not known or knowable Faith does not need even though if there are other facts and figures that either does not support or and looks the other way where and when it cannot explain or prove. Science is generally based on 100% evidence to truth. Whereas faith takes a different route: it bases its conclusion on the basis of sufficient evidence. If a mind is convinced that there are sufficient evidence to believe one believes. After this point if there are events or things that does not make sense or
A tradition could be right or wrong or could make sense or not as long as it is complied with to help uphold the social and/or family norms. The faith on the other hand is a deliberate choice based on the ideas of right and wrong and what makes sense as to the Cause of all causes.
how this standard could be used to serve God or the things people worship. based on the ideas that makes sense. And this process of making sense essentially involve reason. A faith must be based on the sense of right or wrong and values from where all actions could emanate from. Without reason these actions are meaningless traditions and blind followings and not faith. That is how human minds work and human nature is designed.
Faith is based on the narrative of reality that makes sense applying reason that takes a wider vision and deeper grounds. A blind following on grounds of ignorance, obstinacy or hero-worshipping is not a faith it belong to the realm of tradition. A faith however should be a deliberate choice. A religious in essence is a matter of a deliberate choice of one. And if this choice takes place because of precondition and pretexts such as the family of birth, the society or one’s blind following due to ignorance then that is not faith that is simply blind following.
If this narrative is within the parameters of tranditon and family accepted blind folded following others However the reason that does not set its parameters as the Box of narrow scientific theories and understandings but on the broader all inclusive vision of the reality we live in. This ‘out of box’ thinking is the most rational pursuit of truth.
Some people think that if the working of the universe can be explained well and if it appears that the laws that govern are sufficient enough for creating and sustaining the universe – as Steven Hawkins put it -- then there is no room for the creator. how unrealistic and how irrational that thinking is? Besides the essential question that Rpger Scruton posed : who created the laws, the other essential fact is that the synchronization tuat takes place: billions of factors syncronize with billions of other unrelated factors to help sustain the realtiy, To think that these endless and countless cyncronixations as mere chances and coincidents is in itelsef most irrational thought, The Big Bang reveals that thee were a period that when we do not know how the laws and matter behaved, This unknown factor poses a humilty for humans that some thingts are beyond human perception and does not mean it does not exist. Fist of all the laws of the physical universe were non existent before the matter which are governed by these laws. There was a period after the big bang when the laws themselves were how it works then there perhaps is no need for would believe in God is not that science can explain how things work