#like it's not theistic but it's also not NOT theistic and it's not anything verifiable with current science

[lesenbyan]

Sometimes I get the Urge to make a Big explanation about my view and thoughts on the universe, like, metaphysically and then like. Remember it doesn't matter and no one cares.

[confrontingbabble-on]

“Professor : Do you believe in God ?

Student : No, sir.

Professor : So, you are an Atheist ?

Student  : Absolutely, sir.

Professor : Assume you are walking in a park and you happen to find a watch lying on the ground. Can you say that the watch had a creator? As something as complex and orderly as a watch could not have been created by itself? It would definitely require a more complex creator. Right?

Student : I can’t see whats right with that. First of all even if we assume that watch maker argument is valid (which it isn’t), it would just support a claim of the creator, not the claim of a Christian God. Anyways, the first problem with the argument is that you concluded that the universe will require more complex creator because universe itself is complex. So according to your own logic, the creator who is even more complex demands a creator even more so.

Professor : No, God was never created. He existed since the eternity.

Student : You just committed special pleading fallacy. You gave a logic that complexity requires a creator. And the main conclusion that you made (God) itself does not follow your own logic, and so you are assuming your main conclusion to be an exception to your own logic without any justification.

Student : Yet there are many more problems with the argument. The argument is self contradicting. In the argument when person picks up the watch and assumes that it is complex and orderly, unlike natural stuffs surrounding it(soil and grass) which he did not pick up to draw his conclusion, he indirectly concludes that nature is not complicated and orderly. And then while making conclusion the person assumes that nature is complex and orderly so it requires a creator. Hence your argument is giving two incompatible and contradicting qualities to nature. The actual reason why person draws the conclusion why watch has a designer because he knows that watches are made by watchmaker, and there is no example of watch ever created without a creator. He could have not drawn the same conclusion by picking the soil nearby because we have zero example of soil being created by a creator.

Furthermore your argument makes false analogy fallacy. You conclude that since watch and universe have one feature in common (i.e. complexity) they will have another feature in common too (i.e. a conscious creator or designer). By your logic:

-Watch is complex

-Watch has a designer

-Universe is complex

-Therefore universe too has a designer

Using the same faulty logic we can conclude:

-Watch is complex

-Watch was invented in 15th century

-Universe is complex

-Therefore Universe was invented in 15th century

(Few students started chuckling. Professor realized how wrong he was.)

Student: Another problem with your logic, which assumes that complexity cannot come from something simple, is that it completely ignores evolution which is accepted as a fact in scientific community, according to which complex organs like human eye can evolve from simple organs like light sensitive cells over a long period of time with small changes over each generation. And no, human eye is not perfect. It has a blind spot. There are organisms in nature which does not have this fault, like octopus. There is this fault because evolution takes place over millions of year and it cannot go back to the drawing board to correct mistakes like this which will require changing the structure of the human eye. Many birds also have an additional translucent eyelid (which humans don’t) that allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging their retinas. Humans have very poor night vision and we can see only an infinitesimally small range of electromagnetic waves in the entire electromagnetic spectrum. That’s because organs evolve according to the requirement for survival.

And also we do not necessarily need to observe something directly to conclude that it happened. Otherwise any detective would never be able to conclude who committed the crime. But just like when there are tons of evidences like fingerprints, DNA record, motive etc a detective can conclude who committed the crime. Similarly because of tons of evidences like genetic similarity and fossil records we can conclude that evolution is a fact. And by the way we can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short life cycles.

(Professor just cross checked all these facts on google and realized how ignorant he was towards science)

Student : And yes you were right that I don’t know everything but I don’t need to know everything to say that an omnipotent God is highly improbable.

Professor : How so?

Student : Do I need to know everything to say that a square circle does not exist?

Professor : No you just need to know the definitions of square and circle. A square circle is logically impossible !

Student : Exactly. Similarly I just need to know what omnipotence is to say that omnipotence is logically impossible.

Professor : How is omnipotence logically impossible?

Student  : Omnipotent being is the one who can do anything and everything. Can god create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?

Professor : (In a hurry without thinking much) YES! Obviously. He is God. He can do anything.

Student  : Then he just created a stone which he cannot lift. So there is something he cannot do (lifting that stone). So he is not omnipotent.

Professor : What if he lifts that stone?

Student : If he lifts that stone then he failed in the task of creating a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift. Which still makes him NOT omnipotent. Omnipotence is logically impossible. Yet I’ll not claim to know that an omnipotent god does not exists. I am humble enough to have an open mind and will accept the existence of God when an indisputable evidence is provided in support of it. Till then I cannot accept the claim that God exists. Which is what atheism is. It just rejects theistic claims about existence of God because of lack of evidence. It is a lack of belief in existence of God. Atheism does not itself makes a claim that “God does not exists”. It just REJECTS the claim that “God exists”. For now when I am faced with difficult questions like “where did the universe come from? Why there is something instead of nothing ?” I will just say I don’t know which is humbling ,honest and true. And claiming to know the answers to these difficult questions is intellectual dishonesty, as it is quite evident that for now nobody knows answer to these questions.

(Now the professor was just waiting for the class to get over as he never had such a comeback from a student in his entire life. While the student felt a little playful. )

Student : Sir, do you Believe in Santa Claus ?

Professor : Absolutely Not !

Student : Can you prove that Santa Claus does not exist?

Professor : No

Student  : You can’t prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist and at the same time we have all these evidences for the existence of Santa Claus, like the books: “The Santa Claus Book” and “The Polar Express”. Yet you choose to not believe in Santa Claus.

You know what… You just hate Santa Claus. Maybe because you never received gifts from Santa Claus and you lost faith in him. There is still time. Accept Santa Claus and you’ll Receive Gifts. Even if you don’t think there is enough evidence, just have faith in Santa Claus as all this is a test and one day you’ll receive amazing gifts.

(The entire class bursts into laughter)

Student : Psalm 14:1, “the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”*. If even the fool gets it, then what’s your problem?

(The professor smiled accepting his defeat and humbly replied)

Professor : I learned a lot today…. And I realized I have lot to learn.

Student : To understand the actual world as it is, not as we should wish it to be, is the beginning of wisdom. And the link between the objective truth of the universe and what we know about it is science (not faith). That is what leads to the development of mankind.”

From...https://scientificatheists.wordpress.com/2018/07/09/christian-professor-vs-atheist-student/

* The reasonable person says that there is no verifiable evidence for any specific god...yours or anyone else’s...and no correlation between nature existing, and your sectarian god beliefs...!

The moral person says to the religious...stop making unverifiable claims...and pretending unverifiable claims are “facts”...That’s just dishonest, and intended to confuse the naive...and defraud them by deceitful assertions/unprovable pretenses...!

[tvdas]

Navina Shyama Dasa was a valedictorian in law school at Temple University, in Philadelphia. He is now an assistant Attorney General for the U.S. government. He explains in this article how an investigation of God can really be scientific. God: The Evidence; The God Delusion; God: The Failed Hypothesis; The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Apparently, writing about God is the latest rage among scientists, both theistic and atheistic. Many of these authors have also been invited to speak to college crowds, and they are causing quite a stir. But is this really the best way to approach the question of God’s existence? Conventional science, particularly in its “hard” forms such as physics and biology, doesn’t seem to offer the right tools and techniques with which to come up with a definitive answer. 

Yet many religious approaches seem to preclude the rigorous application of reason and the opportunity for individual experimentation. Between these two less than satisfactory alternatives, the Vedic literature of ancient India offers what could be a promising third option. To satisfy ourselves that this is so, we’ll first have to look at why conventional science can’t get the job done, and then move on to understand how Vedic spiritual science succeeds in this task without compromising what modern people like about science. 

Two cardinal doctrines present major obstacles to conventional science as a way to know God. First is the doctrine of naturalism, the assumption that all natural phenomena have natural causes. (Natural in this context means empirically observable, or perceivable through the five senses.) This is a foundational assumption of scientific research, and its acceptance in effect rules out any reality beyond the reach of the senses. 

That being said, there are somewhat softer interpretations of this doctrine. Some scientists distinguish between metaphysical and methodological naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is the view, mentioned above, that behind everything in the world is an empirical cause. According to this view, the sun rises because of the rotation of the earth, and certainly not because it is pulled along by an imperceptible entity riding a golden chariot. Methodological naturalism, however, merely limits how we study the world to empirical observations (things we can touch, see, feel, and so on), while not necessarily ruling out supernatural explanations for these observations. According to this view, a chariot could possibly pull the sun, but the only acceptable way to test this proposition would be to use telescopes and similar instruments. Thus, supernatural phenomena may exist, but supernatural means are not permitted as a way to verify them. Although this perspective is more accommodating, we’ll see that it is still unnecessarily restrictive for one serious about investigating the existence of God.

The second hindrance is the doctrine of falsification. Popularized by the philosopher of science Karl Popper, this doctrine holds that for a statement to be considered scientific, one must be able to prove it false. In other words, if scientist A makes some claim but there is no way for scientist B to show that it is wrong, then the claim is considered unscientific. It can’t be tested, so it’s disregarded. An interesting consequence of accepting such a criterion for science, and one we’ll explore, is that it becomes impossible to prove anything. One is only able to disprove.

Nevertheless, such is the functioning of science under the doctrine of falsification. Science accepts a theory if it can be used to reliably explain and predict natural phenomena and if no data contradict it. If it is refuted at some point, then another theory is accepted, and so the cycle continues. While the mercurial knowledge produced from such an approach might be acceptable for other purposes, it is not a proper basis for understanding God.

Double Blinders

Why do these twin doctrines of conventional science, naturalism and falsification, become so problematic when applied to the study of the divine? Because they’re unwarranted blinders. Let’s perform a thought experiment to find out how. Suppose vehement and gifted theists, peerless in their execution of conventional scientific investigation and consummate in their dedication to an omnipotent divine being, suddenly took over all the great research universities and institutes. Given decades of time, what is the farthest such God-fearing geniuses could take us? They could surely discredit every scientific theory ever proposed that did not include a rigorous conception of God. They could also propose elaborate models of their own that both centered on God and perfectly accorded with every piece of empirical data ever observed. But the million-dollar question is, Would they have proven the existence of God? 

The answer is no. They would certainly have turned atheism into an unreasonable stance that no intelligent person could hope to justify. And they would have elaborated a comprehensive picture of the world as dependent on God in every way. But they would not have proven that God exists. Naturalism would prevent them from introducing data and evidence that transcend the five senses, and falsification would prevent them from establishing any kind of conclusive truth. Shackled by these ideological handcuffs of conventional science that limit it to disproving theories using natural data, they would never be able to produce positive evidence of a supernatural entity. 

So where does that leave us, the spiritually inquisitive rationalists? If even in such an ideal scenario, conventional science could not give us the satisfaction of knowing that God exists, are we left with only blind faith in what the authorities tell us? Is there no way to employ rational methods of observation and experimentation to understand the Supreme? As it happens, the Vedic scriptures provide us with such an alternative. 

Enlightenment Roots

To appreciate the value of what the Vedic literature offers, we must first understand that the scientific establishment cherishes naturalism and falsification because these help distinguish science from pseudoscience. Today’s researchers are intellectual descendants of the Enlightenment, a movement in eighteenth-century Europe that shifted the gaze of humanity from the heavens to the earth and whose proponents esteemed reason and progress over dogma and tradition. As such, members of the scientific community constantly seek to delimit science as a way to explore the world with reason and the intellect, a way that is open to individual endeavor and initiative. In contrast, they vigilantly expel to the realm of pseudoscience any approaches they see as dependent on subjective emotion or passive reception, which for them usually includes religion of any kind. Both naturalism and falsification aid such a separation, and hence mainstream researchers have come to accept them as doctrines. 

Granting that the motive underlying their acceptance is bona fide—distinguishing disciplined inquiry from whimsical allegation—a critical question is whether these doctrines are the only means to achieve this end. Not if we engage the Vedic wisdom. While avoiding the pitfalls that naturalism and falsification present, the Vedic literature gives a way to get knowledge that is nevertheless rigorous, systematic, and verifiable. Indeed, the traditional Vedic method of knowing God (as presented in scriptures like Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam) is a model of good science, albeit a science adapted in unavoidable ways to the study of spirit. 

Methods of the Soft Sciences

The first (rather unremarkable) adaptation is the realization that God is a person who must be dealt with accordingly, not an inert substratum of the universe that that we can dig up and put on a microscope slide. Therefore if we are to look to science as a model, we must look to the social rather than the natural sciences.

Certainly many “hard” scientists scoff at the idea of disciplines like psychology, sociology, and economics being considered science at all, but that has not stopped legions of thoughtful people from trying to apply the scientific method to the study of human beings and their societies. These social scientists are simply forced to take into account qualities in their subjects, such as self-awareness and self-determination, that natural scientists, who research inert matter or sub-human species, generally take the liberty of ignoring. Since even the study of humans as conscious agents is a matter for social science, why would we use the methods of the natural sciences to study God? If anything, He is superhuman.

How then might we define the spiritual social science of the Vedic literature? We can define conventional science, social or otherwise, as “the objective observation of the natural realm by the senses and their extensions.” But given that God is known in the Vedic literature as Adhokshaja (“beyond the reach of the senses”) and Achintya (“inconceivable”), the need to adapt this definition to the study of transcendence becomes obvious. A definition of spiritual science that takes God’s transcendental nature into account might be “the subjective experience of the transcendental realm by the consciousness, in accordance with the direction of revealed scripture.” 

Is this new definition no longer scientific? Srila Prabhupada apparently didn’t think so. He referred to the practice of spiritual life as the science of self-realization. Let’s review the components of this “science of self-realization” and see whether such a perspective is justified. 

To begin with, our new definition of science involves subjectivity rather than objectivity. But then, modern science (through the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and quantum mechanics) has brought the observer into the equations of physics and prevented him or her from remaining safely on the sidelines. Thus, the presence and perceptions of the person doing the measuring color every act of measurement, and there is no such thing as knowledge independent of the knower. 

Yes, these truths operate on the infinitesimal quantum scale, but the point is that conventional science has essentially shown objectivity to be illusory, so we can hardly be criticized for talking about a science based on subjective experience. The next component of our definition of spiritual science is the use of consciousness, rather than our physical senses, as our primary research instrument. This obviously violates the doctrine of methodological naturalism, which restricts measurements to instruments that extend the senses. But is our definition still scientific in meaningful ways?

Isomorphism

Consider the principle of isomorphism, which dictates that the instrument used to measure a certain phenomenon should be appropriately matched to that phenomenon. To depend solely on the five senses (and their mechanical extensions) in our search for God violates this principle; they can only perceive matter, whereas our subject is spiritual. Considering this limitation, it is only reasonable to replace them with a more appropriate measuring tool. To dogmatically cling to only those instruments with which one is comfortable or familiar—in the face of their obvious inappropriateness—is the sign of an irrational researcher, not a good scientist. As the famous chemist John Platt wrote several decades ago in the journal Science: “Beware of the man of one method or one instrument, either experimental or theoretical. He tends to become method-oriented rather than problem-oriented. The method-oriented man is shackled; the problem-oriented man is at least reaching freely toward what is most important.”

If we are to successfully research the existence of God, as good scientists we must use whatever method is best suited to the problem at hand. The Vedic literature informs us that to understand the supreme spirit, the supreme consciousness, the supreme self, the only suitable instrument is our own spirit, our own consciousness, our own self. Indeed, only in our capacity as portions of His divinity can we connect with God.

Using Consciousness to Investigate God

Having sagaciously chosen consciousness as our instrument, how should we employ it? This is where the guidance of revealed scripture becomes crucial. Following scripture essentially means studying God on His own terms, for He is the ultimate source of scripture. 

Adapting to the needs and demands of a subject is not alien to conventional social science research. Consent and access are of paramount importance, because human beings cannot be manipulated against their will as if they were mere vials of chemicals or laboratory chimpanzees. If these considerations are critical in studying ordinary people, we should not be surprised to find they are important in studying God. If we are to succeed, we need Him to consent to our study and grant us access to Him. We might find this subordinate status unpalatable, but we must accept that we are trying to meet with the busiest, richest, most powerful, and most famous person in existence. 

Social science researchers often speak of critically positioned persons who can help them make important contacts as “gatekeepers.” As it turns out, God has his own gatekeepers, and we need to work through them to gain an audience with God, just as we would work through a corporate hierarchy to arrange a meeting with a CEO.

Fortunately for us, in the Bhagavad-gita God has elaborately presented the procedures by which we can gain access to Him. Among these the most foundational is the need to accept a guru. Is such a move unscientific? Not at all. Just as any doctoral student learns the art of research from an advisor, so too the spiritual aspirant must take instruction from an expert. Seasoned researchers, of either spirit or matter, can pass on finer points of technique and practice. 

The Vedic approach to knowing God thus violates the doctrine of naturalism in its reliance on supernatural methods, yet it is surprisingly consistent with the spirit of science, and even many of its essential principles. It is an improved science, however, in that it allows access to an entirely different dimension of reality, systematically and with repeatability. 

What of the other impediment to conventional scientific knowledge of God, the doctrine of falsification? How does the science of the Vedic literature address this limitation? 

Two Perspectives on Knowledge 

Once again a bit of background discussion is needed before we can answer such questions. Conventional science and Vedic science have dramatically divergent perspectives on knowledge. The former holds that human beings can’t know anything positively or independently. Rather, based on the empirical data we gather by observing and interacting with the physical world, we constantly refine what we consider truth. Our knowledge base is thus relative and ever changing. 

Ultimately, such a state of affairs really means we don’t know anything. I may say I know that the sun will rise tomorrow or that there is a country called China halfway around the world from the U.S., but my so-called knowledge is based only on my experience. If tomorrow the sun doesn’t rise or I fly to China only to find out it doesn’t exist, I would simply revise what I considered truth. Today’s dependable knowledge would become tomorrow’s mythology. In light of such an understanding of knowledge, the doctrine of falsification makes sense. We can’t really know what is true, so let’s just spend our time showing what is definitely not true, and take what’s left over as good enough for now.

The Vedic scriptures present a different view of knowledge. They claim that we can know things for certain, intrinsically and independently. This absolute knowledge is not subject to the fluxes of our ever-changing world. Not surprisingly, this principle applies most powerfully and most gloriously to the one question we should most want to answer: Is there a God? Sounds wonderful, we may say, but is this purportedly absolute knowledge scientific? It certainly seems so. Although presented in revealed scripture, one need not accept it blindly, based solely on someone else’s word or experience. True to the spirit of scientific inquiry, it can be verified by individual endeavor. 

More Scientific than Science

In fact, one could argue that this process is even more scientific than conventional science. After all, why do many people choose science, rather than, say, religion, as a means to acquire knowledge? I assume it is because if they are going to have to rely on information from some outside source, over some sort of authority figure, they prefer their own senses (which are an outside source in that I am different from my eyes, which can and do deceive me). At least then they are involved in the process and not merely passive recipients. But the Vedic literature boldly declares that you don’t have to rely on any outside source—you can know for yourself. Knowledge does not have to stay externally dependent, on either an authority figure or our own senses, but can become something genuinely internal. What could be more satisfying to people who want to see for themselves? 

In this way the Vedic method allows us to transcend the restrictions of falsification and acquire true positive knowledge, but in a way harmonious with scientific ideals like independent observation and verification. 

Of course, we begin by accepting the version of scripture on faith, but again, is that really so unscientific? Every conventional research investigation begins with a hypothesis, a formulation of what the researcher expects to find. This hunch can come from theory, observation, previous research, life experience, intuition—just about anywhere. As long as the methods used in investigating the hypothesis are rigorous, its source is irrelevant. So why not start from scripture?

Indeed, even before we begin our investigation, scripture plays an important role. Lest we have trouble imagining what it feels like to have such positive knowledge, the Vedic scriptures use analogies to inspire us. Lord Krishna explains in the opening of the most confidential chapter of the Bhagavad-gita (Chapter 9) that the knowledge He is about to describe is understood by “direct perception”—it gives “direct experience” (pratyaksha). Although the subject being discussed is clearly spiritual, the Sanskrit word used is the same as that used in physical sensation. And if that doesn’t give us enough of an idea, the Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.2.42) assures us: “Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment, and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.”

By faithfully following the procedures God has given in the Vedic literature, we can expect to experience Him in as tangible a way as we experience a meal. And it doesn’t stop at the internal. Rather, both the Gita (6.30) and the Bhagavatam (11.2.45) inform us that at a certain stage of advancement, we’ll see God in everything and everyone. 

At this point it should be clear that what the Vedic literature offers is a genuinely scientific way to know God. Rather than invoking mere sentimentality or blind faith, it sets forth a coherent process that incorporates both reason and individual endeavor, and then invites willing souls to make their own investigation. So, for those of us who truly want to research the existence of God, the predicament is clear: Running on the two rails of naturalism and falsification, the locomotive of conventional science can take us some distance in the right direction. But sooner or later we have to board the airplane of Vedic science to reach our desired destination. So why wait until the end of the line?