Justice Katju in his blog on 25th Feb. 2015 made certain comments against God's existence. Being a self-confessed atheist, he has made similar comments even before. In this particular post, he made five points. Point number 4 has been asked for ages, made famous by Dostoyevsky's novel the Brothers Karamazov. In the novel one of the characters, Ivan, asked something to this effect: If there is a God why all this suffering? Why war, starvation, natural disaster etc that killed millions of people? Is God bad or is God not powerful enough to prevent these things? This particular one Justice Katju raised is different from the other four, which I think are more similar to one another. These four questions are about God and Science, and the reasons for atheism.
He says religion believes in God and Science in matter -- matter which is in motion in accordance with certain laws which can be discovered by scientific research. The apparent point is that religion's God cannot be discovered unlike Science's matter. But does Science really deal with matter alone? How about energy? One may answer 'but you see E=mc2' . Besides, energy's presence can be inferred! Scientific research can't be done without 'inference to the best possible explanation'. One does not have to see the Big Bang, but from the present data you infer to that conclusion... because that conclusion explains best the data being observed. But this way of reasoning is not confined to scientific inquiry alone. This is done in Philosophy and this is done in Theology. You don't have to be able to touch God, taste God or see God. From the observable things, you infer God's existence. This is what cosmological argument for God's existence is about! This is what teleological argument for God's existence is about.
But yes, there is a difference between scientific inquiry and a theological inquiry. But there has to be a difference because the disciplines are different; the questions they deal with are different. The nature of the answer to the question ' What is the meaning of my life?' has to be different from that of 'what all elements constitute water?' Scientific inquiry will not deal with the former kind of question and theological inquiry will not deal with the latter kind of question. Science has been able to cure small pox. Justice Katju thinks that Science will answer more and more of the questions in time... just as it is learning how to harness atomic energy or solar energy in time. Alas, Political Science will not help us in achieve World peace nor will Economics help us get rid of world's poverty. Geography will help us understand more and more about weather and Astronomy will help us understand more and more about the galaxies. But Physics will help us produce more and more powerful Nuclear Bomb and Chemistry Napalm. Science cannot domesticate human heart! This is the reason to look to scientific progress as THE answer to human predicament will be a disappointment.
A person can be a scientist and also a religious believer. Why not? The two are not mutually exclusive. Science and Religion can be complimentary. Science and Religion interact at certain points, but the two also deal with two different kinds of question. True, that scientific inquiry deals with matter. But is human life all about matter, collocation of atoms and their dancing? Is parents love for the child just dancing of atoms and nothing else? This does not mean that material aspect of human life is false. Human being is made up of matter. Yet this explanation of human life is not a complete picture of human life. We need a different layer of explanation to capture the wholeness of human life and the reality of this world.
But regarding the question against God raised in Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky also gives his response in the same novel. Not a straightforward answer, but an answer, nevertheless, to the challenge of Ivan. I think that's the kind of response Dostoyevsky would give to justice Katju... and I wonder the kind justice has not provided a rejoinder to the response of Dostoyevsky!
He says religion believes in God and Science in matter -- matter which is in motion in accordance with certain laws which can be discovered by scientific research. The apparent point is that religion's God cannot be discovered unlike Science's matter. But does Science really deal with matter alone? How about energy? One may answer 'but you see E=mc2' . Besides, energy's presence can be inferred! Scientific research can't be done without 'inference to the best possible explanation'. One does not have to see the Big Bang, but from the present data you infer to that conclusion... because that conclusion explains best the data being observed. But this way of reasoning is not confined to scientific inquiry alone. This is done in Philosophy and this is done in Theology. You don't have to be able to touch God, taste God or see God. From the observable things, you infer God's existence. This is what cosmological argument for God's existence is about! This is what teleological argument for God's existence is about.
But yes, there is a difference between scientific inquiry and a theological inquiry. But there has to be a difference because the disciplines are different; the questions they deal with are different. The nature of the answer to the question ' What is the meaning of my life?' has to be different from that of 'what all elements constitute water?' Scientific inquiry will not deal with the former kind of question and theological inquiry will not deal with the latter kind of question. Science has been able to cure small pox. Justice Katju thinks that Science will answer more and more of the questions in time... just as it is learning how to harness atomic energy or solar energy in time. Alas, Political Science will not help us in achieve World peace nor will Economics help us get rid of world's poverty. Geography will help us understand more and more about weather and Astronomy will help us understand more and more about the galaxies. But Physics will help us produce more and more powerful Nuclear Bomb and Chemistry Napalm. Science cannot domesticate human heart! This is the reason to look to scientific progress as THE answer to human predicament will be a disappointment.
A person can be a scientist and also a religious believer. Why not? The two are not mutually exclusive. Science and Religion can be complimentary. Science and Religion interact at certain points, but the two also deal with two different kinds of question. True, that scientific inquiry deals with matter. But is human life all about matter, collocation of atoms and their dancing? Is parents love for the child just dancing of atoms and nothing else? This does not mean that material aspect of human life is false. Human being is made up of matter. Yet this explanation of human life is not a complete picture of human life. We need a different layer of explanation to capture the wholeness of human life and the reality of this world.
But regarding the question against God raised in Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky also gives his response in the same novel. Not a straightforward answer, but an answer, nevertheless, to the challenge of Ivan. I think that's the kind of response Dostoyevsky would give to justice Katju... and I wonder the kind justice has not provided a rejoinder to the response of Dostoyevsky!
No comments:
Post a Comment