God, Science and Proof

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Many people like to speak about the proof of God's existence, or lack there of. There is a tendency to think there is no proof for God's existence, and thus belief in Him is simply a matter of blind faith. Though at this time I will not debate whether or not there is proof of the existence of God, I will mention a few points which are important when speaking about proof and faith.

 

First of all, we should think very deeply as to what is proof. We like to throw this word around, and say there is some of it, or there isn't any of it, but what is it? What constitutes proof or evidence?

 

We think that the world around us is concrete and real, or in other words, it has been proven to us. We speak of famous personalities like Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. Some people here claim their existence has been proven, whereas Lord Krishna's has not. I would have to disagree.

 

What proof is there for the existence of Bill Gates? We have seen an image on a television set. We have read his name in the papers. How do we know we are not just seeing an actor playing the role of a Bill Gates? How do we know the newspapers are not a fabrication to keep society complacent and satisfied?

 

What people claim to be proof is nothing more than a written statement or a visual image, not too different from a book like Mahabharata or Bhagavad Gita. Behind every image and statement there are countless personalities involved in creating that media whom we don't know and don't see. Why do we accept one media as truth and reject another as false? Not because one has been "proven" to us. It is simply that we have faith in the source. I accept the existence of Bill Gates because I have faith in the various medias that present his image to me. Now another media comes out saying there is some guy called the Grinch, and recently he stole Christmas, but I don't believe it. Not because someone has proven to me that it didn't occur. I just don't accept the source as authoritative. I don't have faith in the source.

 

How do you know there are zebras in Africa? How do you even know there is an Africa? The existence of Africa hasn't been proven to me. I see a drawing of it on a map, but then I must have faith in the artist. I see a satelite image on the TV, but I could draw a similar image on this computer without too much difficulty, and say it was a satelite image of Atlantis. Maybe if I was able to show it on CNN with a daily weather report people may actually believe it existed. Even if you flew to Africa, what is the proof that where you landed is related to what we see in maps? There is no proof. It all depends on who you accept as an authority. Should we call our belief in Africa as blind faith?

 

Some fellows claim to have flown to the moon, and we believe them. Has it been proven to us? There are books that say it was a lie. Obviously not everyone accepts that source of history as an authority - yet it is systematically propagated as truth by powerful governments.

 

I personally believe that there is a person named Vajpayee who is the Prime Minister of India, but I have no proof of his existence. There is evidence, but not proof. I believe there is a country called India. I even think I am here. But I have no proof that this place is related to what I see on maps.

 

There is no such thing as proof as we commonly think of it. Nothing is proven, it is all a matter of faith. Even the things we directly perceive rely on faith in our own perceptive ability. Yesterday I met someone named Mr. X. There are various claims surrounding this personality. I saw him face to face... Or did I? What is the proof that this person was who he claimed to be? Could he have been an actor? I believe he was actually Mr. X because my friend introduced me to him and told me he was Mr. X. I had faith in my friend's statements... was it blind faith?

 

Every moment of the day we are acting based on faith - an unproven reality - yet we fool ourselves into thinking it is proven truth. In the school we read "history" books which we some how accept as truth, despite having absolutely no proof at all. I learned the book from my teacher without being given any proof. My teacher was never proven any of the lessons either! He learnt it from his teacher. And that teacher learned it from his teacher. All the way back to Alexander the Great we have been blindly accepting something as truth - despite the fact that absolutely no one ever had it proven to them. That seems pretty blind to me.

 

Why do we accept these histories as truth? Is it because they are logical? Absolutely not! It is just as logical to say that Fred Flintstone was the first president of the United States - why does it have to be George Washington? What makes the name George Washington any more logical than the name Fred Flintstone?

 

Why we accept the history presented to us is not because it is logical. The only reason we accept it as "truth" is due to fear. We are scared that if we believe something else, we will fail the exam. If we fail the exam we will not get admitted into a university. If we aren't admitted to a university we won't get a job. If we don't get a job we won't be materially successful!

 

Even stupider people accept something because it is believed by a large number of people - they are kind of like lemmings. Unfortunately this is the most common way that we get our modern view of reality. It all depends on which opinion has the greater number of followers, the richer followers, and more the powerful followers.

 

Most people just don't want to go against the flow of the crowd. Why stand out when you can simply comply with the majority. Most of these things make no difference in our lives anyway, so why complicate things by thinking independently.

 

It is interesting to note that many country's histories disagree with other countries' histories. The French history says one thing, whereas the English history says something else. Which to believe?

 

Many people like to speak about western history as though it is factual, whereas Indian history is fabricated by primitive people. We even give Indian history a special name - mythology. Of course the very name mythology means that which is not true. Why isn't it true? Maybe because it hasn't been proven? Well, we are all still waiting for western "history" to be proven to us as well. In reality, Indian history is called as mythology because fewer people believe it compared to western history. It is all based on public opinion - that's what makes truth in our society.

 

Such statements as, "the existence of Krishna has not been proven," show the lack of understanding of the individual. I would use the word foolishness, but I wouldn't want to offend anyone, so let's not say it. When someone says Krishna's existence hasn't been proven, he is trying to present the false notion that other existences have been proven. Otherwise, if absolutely no existences have been proven, the statement refering particularly to Krishna is meaningless!

 

If nothing has been proven, then it becomes meaningless to say Krishna's existence hasn't been proven also - He is included in "everything".

 

The only reason to refer to Krishna in particular is to mislead the public into thinking other things _have_ been proven. It may simply be due to ignorance. It's not easy to judge the motive behind such statements. Regardless, such statements are misleading and childish.

 

So what does it mean to ask for proof? This is the question that we should think about - but it requires some sincerity and intelligence to come up with an honest answer. When we ask for proof, we are not actually questioning the existence of the object - we are questioning the source of the information. This is a very key point to understand. When we disbelieve something, it has nothing to do with having seen the object or experienced the object. We are simply doubting the source from where we have received the information.

 

We hear Saddam Hussain's report that he shot down 35 U.S. airplanes in a single night - but we don't believe it. We hear reports from the U.S. military that not a single plane was shot down - and we believe it.

 

We hear reports from Saddam Hussain that the U.S. military bombed a children's hospital - but we don't believe it. We hear reports from the U.S. military that they sent missiles through the heating vent of Saddam Hussains kitchen - and we believe them.

 

Both sides show videotaped "proof". It all depends on who we accept as an authority.

 

Some people choose to accept people such as Lord Krishna, the guru, the saints and the sadhus as authorities. Others choose to accept Mark Twain, Shakespeare and Churchill as authorities.

 

Those who accept the later list like to make their blind belief sound very authoritative and scientific by adding meaningless numbers and figures to their conclusions. "This book was written in 831 A.D... That book was authored over a period of several hundred years by various authors... Those books were later written by one sect to glorify their deity as supreme..." The list of quotes goes on and on. That's quite a leap of faith to believe all their statements - we could use the word blind to qualify it. While they love to question the very existence of a personality like Lord Krishna, they provide such detailed reports of dates and occurences that only Lord Krishna's grandfather could have known. Where did these figures come from? What makes them "true"? Why should we reject the authorship claims written within a book like Bhagavad Gita in favour of some manufactured facts and figures from the mental factory of missionaries?

 

It all just depends on whom you accept as your authority.

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

Why don't we doubt the existence of Bill Gates ?

 

Because there is no reason to do so. He did not lift mountains with a finger, dance on the head of a snake or measure the whole universe with 3 steps. Nobody doubts the existence of a King Ashoka or a Buddha because they had a normal life, with regular events like regular people. Something which we can understand.

 

The books which describe Krishna also say that he was famous all over the world ? From what we are seeing he was not. Archaeology has no proof of Krishna or a Mahabharata war either. Of course, that does not mean that they could not have happened. But there is always the possibility that it is fiction.

 

If it is foolish to keep all possiblities open, then I wonder what the term would be to describe the westerner who decisively calls it all as false ,and also the Indian who believes it all to be true. The westerner thinks it is impossible, because he has seen nothing like it, and the Indian cannnot imagine thinking that his holy books may be fiction. Simply put, if someone does not think the way we do, then that person is foolish and is a rascal.

 

Some may say that Chinalogy and Indoensiology have no proof of our own existence. But if you check out Brazilology, Romanology, Greekology, etc, you will find in depth proof of our existence.

 

Perhaps now it is clear why we don't question Bill Gates, Africa and Japan, while one should question Amaravathi, Rama and Krishna.

 

Just to clarify, to question someone's existence is not to deny his existence, as some people may have misunderstood.

 

Cheers

[Gauracandra 1]

History is written by the winners. If Hitler had won World War II we'd all be goosestepping to work each day. Right now Western civilization has won - atleast materially it is the wealthiest in the world. As such, history is judged from a Eurocentric point of view. Even the accomplishments of India are no longer the accomplishments of India. Sanskrit, the arts, literature, philosophy of India were all written by white european men - that is, if you believe the Aryan Invasion theory (which I don't). Under this system, India has been stripped of its glory, but even worse is that someone else is taking the credit for that glory. The Aryan Invasion theory postulates that Europeans came into India and brought civilization to it. Never mind that Indian history books (Mahabharat, Ramayan, Vedic scriptures) never mention such an invasion. As Europeans started studying India in the late 1800's they came to many startling revelation such as the linguistic similarities between Sanskrit and European languages. Now they couldn't accept that perhaps Indian civilization travelled upwards to Europe (after all white people were the bringers of civilization not the recipients) and so they postulated the "Aryan Invasion Theory". But as they started to read Indian history books they found timelines that conflicted with their own. After all from a Christian perspective the world is only 5000 years old. So they began to scrunch bits and pieces of Indian history into this 5000 year time frame. As such there has been a distorted view of Indian civilization, its contributions to the world, its art, language, and philosophy. But we should remember that while history is written by the winners, the winners often don't stay up too long. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Egypt, England - all of these countries once ruled the world. Where are they today? Certainly not the world powers they once were. Now history is being written by the U.S.A., and once we get lazy and decadent we'll fall also.

 

Gauracandra

[animesh 0]

As Sri jndas ji has mentioned, we believe in something and don't believe in something else because we have faith in one source and not in another. But this is not the only reason. Most of the times, we do not want to believe in something because it is very unlikely (though not necessarily false). As an example, if my neighbour tells me that yesterday he saw one cat sitting on his roof, then I will believe him. But if he says that yesterday he saw a lion sitting on his roof, then I won't. Since in both cases, the person giving the news is the same, my belief or disbelief has nothing to do with my faith on the source on the information. But it is because I consider it very unlikely that a lion could be sitting on his roof. It is not that our faith on source of information has nothing to do with our belief. Many times, our belief or disbelief is affected by that. But that is not always the case. Likelihood of a news is also important.

I must repeat what Dear Shvu has mentioned: Calling something as unlikely is not the same as calling it as impossible. If a box contains ten thousand balls out of which 1 is black and rest are red and if I draw one ball at random, then it is very unlikely (probability = 0.0001) that the ball will be black. But it is always possible that it will be black.

[animesh 0]

Wow Gauracandra ji,

I started typing my comment before I saw yours. But your comment is before mine. Hmmm. So, we both are here.:-)

 

Now I will read your post.

[animesh 0]

Dear Gauracandra ji,

You are very correct about history. It is very unfortunate that many (though not all) historians are very biased when publishing papers on history. It is also true that we are not given credit most of the times when we deserve it. But, to some extent, we Indians are ourselves responsible for it. Consider vedic mathematics. Now a days, many people all over the world are getting interested into it. This is good. But the problem is that Indians have started finding it interesting because Europeans and Americans have done most of research on Vedic mathematics. Why is it that before that we did not find it that much interesting? Why is it that we ourselves can not do research on our ancient knowledge? Many times, we hear statements like "Scientists in USA have proved it, so it must be true". Why does something become true just because researchers in developed countries have said that? If there is some scientist who is known to be very knowledgeable in some subject, then I can understand if he says something regarding that subject. But why should it become true simply because they belong to Europe or USA? Even with regards to our own scriptures, the history of our own country, we wait till some European historian publishes some paper. Then we start believing the same thing which we used to disbelieve earlier.

[shvu 1]

 

Dear Animesh,

 

You bring up an interesting point. Although it is not an intelligent thing to generalise, it appears that we Indians lack the drive and spirit of acheivement that the white man has. Perhaps it is all the vegetarian food . Or maybe it is genetical.

 

They had to climb the mount everest first, they had to write our history for us, they had to do contribute technology to us. It would be a safe statement to say that all the good things in India today have come from the west.

 

It is surprising that when Max Muller and team came up with the Aryan Invasion theory, no one bothered to oppose that. However our people were very enthusiastic about retaining the Sati System, which Raja Ram Mohan Roy was opposing. All the important Indians of his time called him a traitor for going against the great Hindu tradition. Again it was Governor general Bentley who stepped in and put an end to the inhuman Sati system.

 

History shows that Indians have been very weak compared to people from other countries which again brings back the question of Vegetarian food or genetics or both ? Or just a plain attitude problem and a IC probelm of of feeling inferior to the whites ?

 

Interestingly the Aryan Invasion theory although opposed by several recent scholars, has still not been discarded. Even Indian History text books continue to teach Aryan Invasion theory. Perhaps our people are waiting for some British/American scholars to take the initiative and discard the theory as false, lacking the courage to do so themselves.

 

Cheers

[dubeyrakesh 0]

Hi all,

Shvu is correct when he says that Indians -or more correctly the entire Orient/East - has some sort of Inferiority Complex over Europians/Americans. I rememer ever since my childhood I 'dreamt' of coming to States. And now that I am here, I ponder why did I have such a longing desire of coming here? The most plausible reason that comes to my mind is money/wealth. Since I could not afford to come to Stated on my own expenses, I thought its a big deal if I could make it. The case is entirely different when it comes to a European/American coming to East. Its not a big deal for them. So the inferiority complex stems from 'what do we think as big or great or outstanding'. But still I wonder where from and why does the complex begin. May be its become genetic now. I remeber once during my college days, I had gone to a grocery store and there was a lady there with 2 of her children also buying some stuff. As she was leaving, the two children opened their chewing-gums and one of them immediately pointed to the other - tere pass to India ka flag hai, mere pass Australia ka hai! - and I wondered who/what must've gotten this into their minds. It could be their parents/elders but that definately wasn't the case for me. Then where did that come in me? Finally, I concluded that by this time may be its become genetic.

Thanks,

Rakesh.

[animesh 0]

Hi Shvu,

Just now I read your comments. I agree with you. As you can see in my comments, I have written that we Indians are ourselves to blame to some extent. Whatever you have written about our history textbooks is exactly what I myself wanted to write, but I had to leave to help my younger brother with preparation for his exams.

 

But I do not think that the reason could be vegetarian food. :-)

The reason, as you have pointed out in the last part of your comment is that the history books that are taught to Indian students teach things which are written by Europians. Even if those books are written by Indian authors, these authors in turn rely completely on the research done by Europeans.

[viji_53 0]

Just because we do not see sugar in sugar solution it does not mean that sugar is not present. The presense of sugar is felt by another sense (taste). When we accept abstract theories in our sciences can't we accept the presence of God?. The power of maya is so great even divine people like Narada could not overcome it sometimes. God is not a concept to explain about HIm. He is beyond everything. Unless we have strong faith it is not possible to understand HIM. we should not have any prejudice also. We can critise but should not hate anybody. First let us cultivate the habit of seeing good in everything & optimism. Let us Shed of our ego that we know everything . God is easily approached by simple devotees. First let us become good, simple, polite & kind hearted, then let us start questioning about the presence of God.

Hari Bhol!