Sunday, October 1, 2017

Science vs. miracle


A vast majority of people in this world believes that god created universe and everything in it. A small minority of us are of the opinion that everything can be explained by science, which has already has made tremendous stride in uncovering nature’s deep secrets, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Then there are those in the middle who believe that we need to go beyond science to explain many aspects of our universe and our experience of living in it. Here are some examples of items they put forth in support of their belief.

1.     There is a soul that resides in the body and leaves when a person dies. If you believe that to be true, many things can be explained. For example, soul can be the entity that makes a collection of chemicals “alive.” Soul is also the “thinker of the thought” or what gives us self-awareness. If you believe in rebirth, soul provides the way a person can be reborn, by going from a person who has died to the one who is about to be born. However, people like me would say that there is no evidence that a soul exists* and there is high likelihood that emergence of “life” from self-replicating chemicals would be explained by science someday not far in the future. Self-awareness, or consciousness, could be just a function of brain that has not yet been explored or explained, but that does not mean it will not be. According to a well-known author Yuval Harari (Sapiens, Homo Deus), conscious brains is probably a byproduct of nature making intelligence that can reason about itself and its environment. Finally, the concept of rebirth serves to provide a soothing message to those bereaved by the passing of a loved one, that he/she has not gone forever, but born elsewhere. However, as far as science is concerned, it just does not make any sense.

2.     There has to be purpose in life, some deep meaning why we exist. There could be, but what if there isn’t? What if nature just does its own things, following the rules of physics, with no plan, no “meaning”? Why isn’t that an acceptable way of looking at things? Why do we need everything to have a meaning? Indeed, there is a school of philosophy behind this assertion…existential nihilism.

3.     There is a mysterious energy or force that directs what goes on. There are mysterious entities such as dark matter and dark energy in universe that science is investigating. However, I don’t think this is what the folks who believe in the mysterious force/energy refer to. They believe in a mysterious force that is directing how and where life should exists and that remains an active participant in our lives. On the surface, this sound very much like the concept of “Intelligence Designer,” often mentioned in place of god by folks who are of scientific bent but do not think science can explain everything. True, we don’t know for sure what is reality. However, if there is an Intelligent Designer, then who created him/her/it? A super Intelligent Designer? Who created him/her/it? Wouldn’t we get into an endless loop trying to reason out of that one?

4.     “It can’t be a coincidence that I got help exactly when I needed it.” My response would be---why can’t it be?

5.     Wouldn’t the creation of an organism violate the second law of thermodynamics---by reducing entropy? If you are not a student of science, this refers to the fact that universe goes from order to disorder; low entropy to high entropy, and an organism represents order and so low entropy. However, a deeper dive illustrates that entropy can reduce if the system is not isolated. An increase in entropy somewhere else more than compensates for that reduction, thereby keeping the second law intact. So, this argument does not apply.

6.     Can universe emerge from nothing? Yes, it can. As explained by a theory called Quantum gravity, universe can and always will appear from nothing. Such universe can have matter and energy as long as the total energy, including the negative energy associated with gravity, is zero (from “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss). Could this universe include an Intelligent Designer? I believe that it does include a designer, in the form of laws of physics. To make it intelligent would need an intelligence maker and we will be back in the conundrum expressed under point 3.

7.     How can such complexity in life be created without some intervention? Given enough time---billions of years in this case--- and a process that incorporates variations in living organisms, coupled with natural selection (Darwin’s Theory), living things of enormous complexity, including humans, can evolve. The key here is “given enough time.” A very readable book in this area is “Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin.

In summary, as Steven Weinberg, a physicist, says (ref. the above book by by Lawrence Krauss), “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, but rather makes it possible not to believe in God. Without science, everything is a miracle. With science, there remains the possibility that nothing is.”

I agree with him.

-----------------------------


 *  Note: When I say this, I am presented with “scientific” evidence that shows that soul exists. Much like climate change, there are people who work on alternate science. So, once you are convinced of any of the items above, including the existence of soul, to be true, it is always possible to find someone to back you up. This is a clear manifestation of confirmation bias, in that you selectively look for evidence that confirms what you believe in and discard the rest.

11 comments:

  1. Ashok: you're truly a renaissance man
    I learned a lot on this slow Sunday morning instead of listening to talking heads on TV
    Keep writing your mind enhancing essays

    ReplyDelete
  2. Defnitely a controversial topic, Ashok. But just as you are sure that life can and will be explained by science (or chance, some day), I am equally sure it never will, and with equal "proof".
    I am in the camp that the source of life is unknowable -and that the probablity of it evolving to such fineness and complexity, as in the evolution of man, is so infinitely small that it must be by "design"...i.e. god does not play dice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Vijay, it is a controversial subject and I appreciate your view point. Time shall tell (or not tell)! Looking forward to seeing you in a few days.

      Delete
  3. From Ranganath Nayak:
    I have a friend named Owen Gingerich. There three things to know about him. 1. At one time, he was Chair of the Astronomy Department at Harvard. In other words, a fine scientist. 2. He founded and chaired the History of Science Department at Harvard. In other words, a student of the evolution of scientific thinking. 3. He is a deeply religious man, belonging to the Mennonite order. He sees no conflict between science and religion. In a talk, one of the things he said was, “Science can explain HOW the universe works. But it cannot explain WHY it works that way.” In other words, there are different domains of inquiry for science and religion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ashok: Very good topic. According to me Darwin's theories of evolution have been debunked and new theories of epigenetic by Bruce Lipton and others have gone beyond Darwin. Bruce has a very nice book - Biology of Belief, new 10th anniversary edition. Similarly there is book by NIH scientist named Candance Pert -Molecules of emotions. These books may shed some light. I have read the first one and 1/2 way thru the second one. Additionally, I have over the time period developed philosophy of Buddhism and Bhante Punnaji from Maha vira center in Malaysia has gone back to Theravada traditions' original sutras and have reinterpreted them explains them in more scientific basis. His lectures on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01NM0WMD0ws&t=3738s might interest some of you. Buddhism does not believe in soul either, but what we all are observing are the activities of the mind. There are no entities what we call self including "I". What we know in science today is very small compared to what we don't know yet. I am still trying to resolve some of these ideas & concepts in my own mind! But, I hope what I am eluding to interests some of you. -Jitu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jitu. I will follow up. This is a topic for which there is no one right answer. We all build our own "rational models" based on our thinking, beliefs and observations.

      Delete
  5. Given how little we know of the functioning of the brain, it would seem premature to me to decide now that the scientific method cannot, some time in the distant future, explain how we have such a variety of souls. Given the number of neurons and synapses in one brain, there seems plenty of scope for variety and uniqueness. What puzzles me are the strong negative reactions to the idea that science could provide answers that faith now provides. This has been going on a long time (science providing answers) - I expect it to continue. Most of the rest of religion involves establishing male supremacy over females. However, despite my disbelief in the concept of a soul divorced from the body, my 3 year-old granddaughter gaily informed me, as I pushed her on the swing, that after I was dead (the concept of death has been of great interest to her recently) I would come back as a baby. If I came back quickly I would be a boy, but if I delayed my return, I would be a girl. Is this how a religion starts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am with you, Colin. Love the reaction of your granddaughter.

      Delete