Introduction:
Can you prove the existence of God with logic / argument?
No! In Vedic tradition "logic / argument" cannot prove the existence of God.
Ok; can sensory perception prove the existence of God?
No, once again.
Hence, Vedic tradition suggests a “subjective & experiential enquiry” to find God. On the other hand, Abrahamic religions stressed on "belief / faith" in messengers / messiahs and gave very little room for “subjective & experiential enquiry”.
Due to development of science and especially cosmology, the "belief and faith" lost ground. For example, in Islam, the universe started 3 lakh years ago and in Christianity 6000 years ago. However, scientific observation suggests the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old.
Consequently, modern scholars in Abrahamic religions accepted science and began interpreting their books in the light of scientific discovery. For example, cosmology predicts that the universe will eventually undergo "heat death", but modern Abrahamic scholars predict that a "divine intervention" will prevent it. These "after-thoughts" of Abrahamic scholars are not respected in academe.
As a result, some of the said scholars have turned to target some unanswered questions in science. They heavily rely on logic and argue that these unanswered questions indicate the existence of God. For example, they argue that the universe is so intelligently designed and hence there must be an "intelligent designer". These arguments are considered "weak arguments", because they have to be revised every time there is new science discovery.
The Vedic tradition, on the other hand, doesn't have these problems. The very idea of logic / argument is reserved to understand the "world" but not to explore God. For example, nirishwara sankhya, ancient nyaya, vaisheshika, poorva-mimamsa etc explored physical reality and not God. On the other hand, yoga, vedanta, tantra, bhagavata…etc schools rejected logic / argument as an independent source of knowledge to find God and stressed on “subjective & experiential enquiry”.
Vedic tribe is happy to bring you this interdictory series on six chosen weak arguments for proving the existence of God and also to submit before you - how Vedic tradition stands out as a torch bearer for the spiritual seekers.
In the next write up, we will discuss the first weak argument ie., "observer God"
Madhwesh K
Vedic Tribe
—
1. Observer God
Who is an observer?
In Sankhya philosophy, the observer (experiencer) of nature / prakriti is called “Purusha”. In Yoga Philosophy, Sage Patanjali calls God as “Vishesha-purusha” (supreme observer) and in Vedic terminology it is “Parabrahma”.
In western philosophy, a similar proposition can be seen in the “matter vs consciousness” argument.
In quantum physics, at subatomic level, everything is made-up of wave-function (a state of probabilities) and when it is measured, wave-function collapses & appears as “matter”.
There is a big debate in western philosophy as to what is this “measurement” and whether a conscious being is required for such measurement.
Western theologians argue that the measurement is done by an observer / consciousness / supreme being/ God and the universe functions due to this divine action.
However, in academe, this argument is not respected.
Because, the word “measurement” is wrongly interpreted as an act of a conscious being. Instead, “measurement” is just particles interacting with each other with or without exchanging energy. There is no need to assume the existence of an observer / consciousness / supreme being / God.
Moreover, a non-theistic theory called panpsychism even argues that there is a natural-consciousness that pervades the cosmos. This argument eliminates the need for a supreme being / God.
Nonetheless, if there is a change in interpretation in quantum physics, then all these arguments also need to change. Hence, these arguments are considered weak arguments for God. Despite this shortcoming, some neo-vedantins also borrow these arguments.
However, Vedic tradition does not depend on quantum physics. Instead, it guides us to conduct a “subjective & experiential enquiry” which occurs inside us rather than outside. It also records the experiences of those who walked the path of subjective “enquiry” so that it can act as a guidepost to all of us seekers.
In the next write-up, we shall discuss the second weak argument ie., “God of gaps”
Madhwesh K
Vedic Tribe
—
2. God of gaps
Has science provided answers to every question?
No. There are still many unanswered questions in science.
Though Isaac Newton formulated laws of motion & universal gravitation, he believed that God actively intervened to prevent the stars falling in on each other. This was due to huge gaps in scientific understanding of the cosmos during his time.
There are still many such gaps in today’s scientific knowledge too. Theory of relativity & quantum physics are not yet reconciled. Only 5% of known “matter” is discerned in science and the rest 95% is not (i.e., dark matter plus dark energy). There is no established theory of consciousness. And the list grows.
Western theologians attack these gaps and argue that these unanswered questions of science prove the existence of God. For example, lack of a final scientific theory of consciousness, is relied upon in the argument for existence of God.
However, in academe, this argument is not respected.
Because, as science progresses, these gaps will be reduced and the theological argument for the God in these gaps will inevitably retreat. For example, the gap in the “standard model of particle physics” was argued to be a “God particle”. But recent detection of the “higgs boson” completed this standard model without the need for God. Despite this shortcoming, some neo-vedantins also borrow these arguments.
However, vedic tradition does not depend on gaps in scientific understanding of the world. Instead, it guides us to conduct a “subjective & experiential enquiry” into the nature of our own consciousness. It also records the experiences of those who walked the path of subjective “enquiry” so that it can act as a guidepost to all of us seekers.
In the next write-up, we shall discuss the third weak argument ie., “Intelligent Designer God”
Madhwesh K
Vedic Tribe
—
3. Intelligent Designer God
Have we found intelligent life forms beyond earth?
No.
Then how is this enormous cosmos designed?
Materialists hold that “laws of nature” is enough to describe the design of the cosmos and there is no need for a cosmic level intelligent designer God.
Theists argue that “laws of nature” are caused by an intelligent designer God. This argument is based on scientific discoveries and is presented as a “scientific theory”. However, this argument does not meet basic criteria of a proper scientific theory.
One of such criteria is that a scientific theory should be “empirically testable & falsifiable”. I.e., With our sensory perception or with our logical deduction we should be able to observe or reject its experiments.
However , existence of an intelligent designer God - is neither empirically testable nor falsifiable. Hence, it is not a “scientific theory” and consequently, it does not improve our knowledge in any way. Despite this shortcoming, some neo-vedantins also borrow these arguments.
However, Vedic tradition does not depend on scientific discoveries. It does not present its propositions as scientific theories. Instead, it guides us to conduct a “subjective & experiential enquiry” into our own body & mind which are a representation of the cosmos itself (“pindanda-brahmanda”). It also records the experiences of those who walked the path of subjective “enquiry” so that it can act as a guidepost to all of us seekers.
In the next write-up, we shall discuss the fourth weak argument ie., “Simulator God”
Madhwesh K
Vedic Tribe
—
4. Simulator God
Are we living in a simulation?
We don't know.
Whether the characters we create, in a computer simulation - know that they are inside a simulation?
No. Currently, these characters are just algorithms which do not have self-awareness. These characters cannot be called conscious beings. But with the progress of AI, the algorithms may become self-aware and turn into conscious beings. Then, we become their creators & they will live in the world that we create.
Then, a question arises - are we not living in a simulated universe already and is there not a simulator outside this simulated universe?
Theologians argue that this simulator is God and we are his subjects. However, in academe, this argument is not respected.
First of all, "simulation hypothesis" itself is based on anthropic thinking. Ie , this thinking, takes human life as the starting point to derive expected properties of the universe. Universe is at least 13.8 billion years old and the human race is only 0.2 million years old. Human existence is just a blip on cosmic timelines. Universe's properties are hardly affected by human existence.
Secondly, arguing God as a simulator is an after-thought and if the simulation hypothesis is proven wrong, then this argument also will have to change.
Despite this shortcoming, some neo-vedantins heavily borrow these arguments and they equate simulation to "maya".
But the Vedic tradition doesn't depend on simulation hypothesis, because properties of the world are of least concern. Instead, Vedic tradition guides us to explore "consciousness" (not "matter"). It is a “subjective & experiential enquiry” and it records the experiences of those who walked this path, so that it can act as a guidepost to all of us seekers.
In the next write-up, we shall discuss the fifth weak argument ie., “Spinoza’s God”
Madhwesh K
Vedic Tribe
—
5. Spinoza’s God
Is the world itself God or whether God transcends the world?
Baruch Spinoza argued that there is only one thing “substance” (i.e., nature / physical matter) which itself is God. In other words, the natural universe itself is God because it is infinite, self causing, self sustaining…etc. His arguments developed into “pantheism” (i.e., all of everything is God).
This metaphysical argument gained traction when Albert Einstein said “I believe in spinoza’s God…” (however, his take on spinoza was different from classical pantheism and many mis-interprete his statement)
Theologians extend this argument and try to reconcile the Abrahamic-personal-God with spinoza’s God. They argue that pantheism is complementary to Abrahamic religions and Christianity (specially) contains many elements of pantheism. However, in academe, this argument is not respected.
In classical theology, God is not only infinite, but is also intelligent, has will, is a sentient being (with emotions…etc), is a transcendent being (beyond the natural world)...etc. However, none of these attributes are accepted in Spinoza’s God and consequently he was considered atheist by classical theologians. Only the modern theologians appropriated spinoza’s ideas, due to advancement of science (especially cosmology).
Despite this shortcoming, some neo-vedantins heavily borrow these arguments and they equate pantheism to “parinama-vada” (i.e., God becaming the world OR the world is God).
But the Vedic tradition holds that nature (“prakriti”) & consciousness (“purusha”) are separate entities and consciousness exists at different levels - the highest being God (“parama-purusha” / “vishesha-purusha”). Vedic tradition guides us to explore "consciousness" (not "nature"). It is a “subjective & experiential enquiry” and it records the experiences of those who walked this path, so that it can act as a guidepost to all of us seekers.
In the next write-up, we shall discuss the sixth weak argument ie., “Panpsychist God”
Madhwesh K
Vedic Tribe
—
6. Panpsychist God
Whether all “matter” has “mind” in them?
Why not; says panpsychist.
Panpsychist argue that, if our body is made of “matter” & has “mind” in it, then why not all other “matter” have their own version of “mind” running in their background? This logic brings us to the proposition that the entire universe has “mind” or “mind-like-substance” running in the background.
Theologians have extended this argument to progress “animism”. In animism, all natural objects contain supernatural spirits. However, in academe, this argument is not respected.
In panpsychism, “mind” or “mind-like-substance” is part of the natural world. There is no supernatural or transcendent mind or God. Moreover, the very idea of “mind” here is based on “experience”; i.e., if our body has experiences, then everything else should have experience.
Panpsychism runs into trouble, in explaining why we have a "unitary experience" while our body is made up of trillions of different “matter”. Moreover, the idea of “experience” doesn't progress our understanding of the natural world. Despite these shortcomings, some neo-vedantins also borrow these arguments.
Vedic tradition accepts that “mind” / “antahkarana” is indeed part of the natural world. Vedic tradition also accepts animism (presence of "jeeva" in "matter").
However, instead of presenting a meta-physical argument, Vedic tradition guides us to conduct a “subjective & experiential enquiry” into our own consciousness. It also records the experiences of those who walked this path so that it can act as a guidepost to all of us seekers.
Vedic Tribe is happy to have brought this introductory series on "six weak arguments for God". Our intention is to create enough curiosity in you so that you can study the Vedic tradition and progress in your spiritual journey.
All the best.
Madhwesh K
Vedic Tribe
—
No comments:
Post a Comment