On God Delusion
Hamza Andreas Tzortzis
Hamza Andreas Tzortzis
I was quite disappointed to find out that Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, was devoid of any informativity. Chapter three, Arguments for God’s Existence, is the only major attempt to refute the popular God arguments. This chapter, and this is the same for the whole book, plays upon the ignorance of his readership. What I mean by this is that his language from the very beginning is very emotive and full of appeals to emotion. Dawkins builds up this use of language in such a way as to support the little information he provides for the arguments against God. His brevity and dismissive tone can easily win the hearts of many who are ‘sitting on the fence’. This tactic, as some linguists would describe as a psycholinguistic strategy, is very common amongst those who refuse to have a frank and honest dialogue. The following will show how Dawkins deliberately fails to engage in a serious intellectual discussion as he consciously omits the stronger arguments and counter arguments to his age old sweeping statements that have been emanating from the collective mouth of Atheism.
He starts chapter three by very briefly outlining the cosmological argument. He states that this argument and its conceptual derivatives,
“…rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it.”
This is where Dawkins fails to give the argument any justice.
One form of the cosmological argument is the kalam cosmological argument, and it has the following logical structure:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. The cause of the Universe, by rational necessity, is an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress.
Therefore:
5. An uncaused, unique and totally transcendental entity exists
The kalam cosmological argument, dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al Ghazali and it has recently been restored to popularity by the Philosopher William Lane Craig.
What distinguishes the kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. According to the kalam cosmological argument, however, it is precisely because the universe is thought to have a beginning in time that its existence is thought to stand in need of explanation.
The first premise of the argument is the claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. In order to infer from this that the universe has a cause of its existence the proponent of the kalam cosmological argument must prove that the past is finite, that the universe began to exist at a certain point in time.
The crucial premise of the kalam cosmological argument, then, is the second: “The universe has a beginning of its existence”. How do we know that the universe has a beginning of its existence? Might not the universe stretch back in time into infinity, always having existed? The proponent of the kalam cosmological argument must show that this cannot be the case if his argument is to be successful.
Advocates of the kalam cosmological argument claim that it is impossible that the universe has an infinite past.
So far so good. This argument can be appreciated by anyone who is sane and rational.
Dawkins uses three very common ‘counter arguments’, he states,
“They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress .”
and
“…there is no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design…”
and
“Some regresses do reach a natural terminator…..If you ‘cut’ gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get is not gold.”
To summarise these counter arguments I will put them in plain English:
1. If there is a sole cause for the universe, then who created the sole cause?
2. If there is a sole cause what evidence is there to say what its characteristics are i.e. its essence?
3. The universe and existence can be infinite as this has been proven mathematically and many examples show that you can have a natural terminator.
Dealing with the first counter argument. Dawkins obviously falls into the trap of not understanding the argument. His self imposed philosophical restrictions – hard core empiricism – has restricted his scope for any major mental activity. If we consider, as would Dawkins himself would too, that time and space are part of the universe then if the whole universe had a cause that cause could not be subject to time and space. So rationally, it would not be possible to subject any of these concepts to this cause. Also, the very fact that this cause must be uncaused is a rational necessity. I will illustrate this with an example. If Dawkins is right and every terminator or cause has another cause ad infinitum, that would mean an infinite regress. A simple example destroys this rational fallacy, in the words of my friend Hassan Choudhury:
“This can be thought of like reserving a book from the university library that is in heavy demand (for the sake of argument let us agree this is the only copy available). If there were four people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four to finish before using it for your assignment. Similarly if there were four thousand people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four thousand to finish before using it. If an unlimited, infinite (i.e. endless) number of reservations stood between you and the book you would never receive it as an endless number sequence would never end…..It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of events thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity. The universe has not always existed.”
This means that if there is always a cause for every cause we would never have had the existence of the universe as each cause will be dependent on its own cause. If that is the case, an infinite number of causes would inevitably mean no existence. Another example is from Hassan:
“The same example is often illustrated by reference to a sniper requiring an instruction from his superior in his chain of command to open fire. Of course his superior has to wait till his own superior directs him and so on up the chain. If the chain of command were only ten minutes long the sniper would have to wait ten minutes for the command to fire. If it were one hundred years long the sniper would take one hundred years for the command to fire. If the chain were unlimited, it would be infinite, endless and the sniper would never receive the order to fire. It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of event thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity.”
So Dawkins first so called counter argument statement is dealt with.
The second counter argument is understandable. I have to admit that I have to commit intellectual blasphemy and agree with Dawkins here. No one can attribute an essence or characteristic to an unknown cause. To do this would be irrational. Take the following example; if someone right now was knocking at the door, assuming that you were not expecting anyone, could you describe the character of the person behind the door? Would you know their gender? Or their name? Of course not. This is the same with the attributes of the cause of the universe. But what I must add here is that there is an intellectual Islamic approach to the counter argument. Muslims would all agree that information is required to explain the characteristics and essence of the cause or creator. Muslims would argue that there is a book, the Qur’an that can be rationally proven to have come from this entity. Therefore the information and knowledge from this book would describe the nature and essence of this creator. This is a slightly more complex argument, so for more information on this please see www.theinimitablequran.com . But Dawkins ‘refutation’ doesn’t refute that a Creator exists, having an explicit assumption on the Creators essence doesn’t nullify its existence. Many of you do not know me but assuming I am a bad person or good doesn’t take away the fact that I exist.
The third counter argument, can be easily dealt with. Hassan Choudhruy states:
“The idea of infinity has always been problematic since there is a distinction between a possible infinite and actual infinite. A figure can increase towards infinity but will never get there (since numbers are limited). We can therefore say this process is indefinite rather than infinite. Students of calculus will recognise this for the example of the function f(x) = 1/x. If one increases x indefinitely, one increases it without limit, and as x becomes very large, the function f(x) becomes very small. The graph of the function (a hyperbola) provides a straight line that is tangential to the curve at infinity, nevertheless, this will never be actualised; it will never be the case….Even David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 20th Century, has similarly argued against actual infinity:
‘…the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea’.(Hilbert, 1964, p139)”
So there are obvious issues with the concept of an actual infinity. Even if we were to assume a mathematical model for an actual infinite, it has never been found in reality. The concept of an actual infinite has no ontological export into the real world, that is, it can’t be found anywhere.
However despite these concerns let us examine the claim in the best traditions of debate and discourse. The following examples should suffice:
If the universe did not have a beginning, then the past would be infinite, i.e. there would be an infinite number of past times. There cannot, however, be an infinite number of anything, and so the past cannot be infinite, and so the universe must have had a beginning.
Why think that there cannot be an infinite number of anything? There are two types of infinites, potential infinites and actual infinites. Potential infinites are purely conceptual, and clearly both can and do exist. Mathematicians employ the concept of infinity to solve equations. We can imagine things being infinite. Actual infinites, though, arguably, cannot exist. For an actual infinite to exist it is not sufficient that we can imagine an infinite number of things; for an actual infinite to exist there must be an infinite number of things. This, however, leads to certain logical problems.
The most famous problem that arises from the existence of an actual infinite is the Hilbert’s Hotel paradox. Hilbert’s Hotel is a (hypothetical) hotel with an infinite number of rooms, each of which is occupied by a guest. As there are an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests, every room is occupied; the hotel cannot accommodate another guest. However, if a new guest arrives, then it is possible to free up a room for them by moving the guest in room number 1 to room number 2, and the guest in room number 2 to room number 3, and so on. As for every room n there is a room n + 1, every guest can be moved into a different room, thus leaving room number 1 vacant. The new guest, then, can be accommodated after all. This is clearly paradoxical; it is not possible that a hotel both can and cannot accommodate a new guest. Hilbert’s Hotel, therefore, is not possible.
A similar paradox arises if the past is infinite. If there exists an infinite past, we would never have the present day. If there was an infinite set of past events and each event requires the previous event to occur, would we ever have the present? Of course not. This is because if today is dependent upon the fact that yesterday happened, and there is an infinite set of these dependencies (i.e. forever) - today will have not occurred. This is similar to the library book example mentioned earlier.
That such a paradox results from the assumption that the past is infinite, it is claimed, demonstrates that it is not possible that that assumption is correct. The past, it seems, cannot be infinite, because it is not possible that there be an infinite number of past moments. If the past cannot be infinite, then the universe must have a beginning.
Additionally if one begins with a number, and repeatedly adds one to it, one will never arrive at infinity. If one has a heap of sand, and repeatedly adds more sand to it, the heap will never become infinitely large. Taking something finite and repeatedly adding finite quantities to it will never make it infinite. Actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition.
The past has been created by successive addition. The past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present and then into the past. Every moment that is now past was once in the future, but was added to the past by the passage of time.
If actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the past was created by successive addition, then the past cannot be an actual infinite. The past must be finite, and the universe must therefore have had a beginning.
Finally if I were to set out on a journey to an infinitely distant point in space, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been walking for, a part of the journey would still remain. I would never arrive at my destination. Infinite space cannot be traversed.
Similarly, if I were to start counting to infinity, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been counting for, I would still only have counted to a finite number. It is impossible to traverse the infinite set of numbers between zero and infinity. This also applies to the past. If the past were infinite, then it would not just take a long time to the present to arrive; rather, the present would never arrive. No matter how much time had passed, we would still be working through the infinite past. It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time.
Clearly, though, the present has arrived, the past has been traversed. The past, therefore, cannot be infinite, but must rather be finite. The universe has a beginning.
In conclusion it can be understood that Dawkins fails to give the major arguments any justice, and he consciously ignores the counter refutations to his age old swiping statements. Maybe he felt they were intellectually convincing, so he decided to protect his ‘dogma’ and brush the truth under his swelling carpet.
Dawkins and Empiricism
He starts chapter three by very briefly outlining the cosmological argument. He states that this argument and its conceptual derivatives,
“…rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it.”
This is where Dawkins fails to give the argument any justice.
One form of the cosmological argument is the kalam cosmological argument, and it has the following logical structure:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. The cause of the Universe, by rational necessity, is an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress.
Therefore:
5. An uncaused, unique and totally transcendental entity exists
The kalam cosmological argument, dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al Ghazali and it has recently been restored to popularity by the Philosopher William Lane Craig.
What distinguishes the kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. According to the kalam cosmological argument, however, it is precisely because the universe is thought to have a beginning in time that its existence is thought to stand in need of explanation.
The first premise of the argument is the claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. In order to infer from this that the universe has a cause of its existence the proponent of the kalam cosmological argument must prove that the past is finite, that the universe began to exist at a certain point in time.
The crucial premise of the kalam cosmological argument, then, is the second: “The universe has a beginning of its existence”. How do we know that the universe has a beginning of its existence? Might not the universe stretch back in time into infinity, always having existed? The proponent of the kalam cosmological argument must show that this cannot be the case if his argument is to be successful.
Advocates of the kalam cosmological argument claim that it is impossible that the universe has an infinite past.
So far so good. This argument can be appreciated by anyone who is sane and rational.
Dawkins uses three very common ‘counter arguments’, he states,
“They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress .”
and
“…there is no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design…”
and
“Some regresses do reach a natural terminator…..If you ‘cut’ gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get is not gold.”
To summarise these counter arguments I will put them in plain English:
1. If there is a sole cause for the universe, then who created the sole cause?
2. If there is a sole cause what evidence is there to say what its characteristics are i.e. its essence?
3. The universe and existence can be infinite as this has been proven mathematically and many examples show that you can have a natural terminator.
Dealing with the first counter argument. Dawkins obviously falls into the trap of not understanding the argument. His self imposed philosophical restrictions – hard core empiricism – has restricted his scope for any major mental activity. If we consider, as would Dawkins himself would too, that time and space are part of the universe then if the whole universe had a cause that cause could not be subject to time and space. So rationally, it would not be possible to subject any of these concepts to this cause. Also, the very fact that this cause must be uncaused is a rational necessity. I will illustrate this with an example. If Dawkins is right and every terminator or cause has another cause ad infinitum, that would mean an infinite regress. A simple example destroys this rational fallacy, in the words of my friend Hassan Choudhury:
“This can be thought of like reserving a book from the university library that is in heavy demand (for the sake of argument let us agree this is the only copy available). If there were four people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four to finish before using it for your assignment. Similarly if there were four thousand people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four thousand to finish before using it. If an unlimited, infinite (i.e. endless) number of reservations stood between you and the book you would never receive it as an endless number sequence would never end…..It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of events thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity. The universe has not always existed.”
This means that if there is always a cause for every cause we would never have had the existence of the universe as each cause will be dependent on its own cause. If that is the case, an infinite number of causes would inevitably mean no existence. Another example is from Hassan:
“The same example is often illustrated by reference to a sniper requiring an instruction from his superior in his chain of command to open fire. Of course his superior has to wait till his own superior directs him and so on up the chain. If the chain of command were only ten minutes long the sniper would have to wait ten minutes for the command to fire. If it were one hundred years long the sniper would take one hundred years for the command to fire. If the chain were unlimited, it would be infinite, endless and the sniper would never receive the order to fire. It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of event thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity.”
So Dawkins first so called counter argument statement is dealt with.
The second counter argument is understandable. I have to admit that I have to commit intellectual blasphemy and agree with Dawkins here. No one can attribute an essence or characteristic to an unknown cause. To do this would be irrational. Take the following example; if someone right now was knocking at the door, assuming that you were not expecting anyone, could you describe the character of the person behind the door? Would you know their gender? Or their name? Of course not. This is the same with the attributes of the cause of the universe. But what I must add here is that there is an intellectual Islamic approach to the counter argument. Muslims would all agree that information is required to explain the characteristics and essence of the cause or creator. Muslims would argue that there is a book, the Qur’an that can be rationally proven to have come from this entity. Therefore the information and knowledge from this book would describe the nature and essence of this creator. This is a slightly more complex argument, so for more information on this please see www.theinimitablequran.com . But Dawkins ‘refutation’ doesn’t refute that a Creator exists, having an explicit assumption on the Creators essence doesn’t nullify its existence. Many of you do not know me but assuming I am a bad person or good doesn’t take away the fact that I exist.
The third counter argument, can be easily dealt with. Hassan Choudhruy states:
“The idea of infinity has always been problematic since there is a distinction between a possible infinite and actual infinite. A figure can increase towards infinity but will never get there (since numbers are limited). We can therefore say this process is indefinite rather than infinite. Students of calculus will recognise this for the example of the function f(x) = 1/x. If one increases x indefinitely, one increases it without limit, and as x becomes very large, the function f(x) becomes very small. The graph of the function (a hyperbola) provides a straight line that is tangential to the curve at infinity, nevertheless, this will never be actualised; it will never be the case….Even David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 20th Century, has similarly argued against actual infinity:
‘…the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea’.(Hilbert, 1964, p139)”
So there are obvious issues with the concept of an actual infinity. Even if we were to assume a mathematical model for an actual infinite, it has never been found in reality. The concept of an actual infinite has no ontological export into the real world, that is, it can’t be found anywhere.
However despite these concerns let us examine the claim in the best traditions of debate and discourse. The following examples should suffice:
If the universe did not have a beginning, then the past would be infinite, i.e. there would be an infinite number of past times. There cannot, however, be an infinite number of anything, and so the past cannot be infinite, and so the universe must have had a beginning.
Why think that there cannot be an infinite number of anything? There are two types of infinites, potential infinites and actual infinites. Potential infinites are purely conceptual, and clearly both can and do exist. Mathematicians employ the concept of infinity to solve equations. We can imagine things being infinite. Actual infinites, though, arguably, cannot exist. For an actual infinite to exist it is not sufficient that we can imagine an infinite number of things; for an actual infinite to exist there must be an infinite number of things. This, however, leads to certain logical problems.
The most famous problem that arises from the existence of an actual infinite is the Hilbert’s Hotel paradox. Hilbert’s Hotel is a (hypothetical) hotel with an infinite number of rooms, each of which is occupied by a guest. As there are an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests, every room is occupied; the hotel cannot accommodate another guest. However, if a new guest arrives, then it is possible to free up a room for them by moving the guest in room number 1 to room number 2, and the guest in room number 2 to room number 3, and so on. As for every room n there is a room n + 1, every guest can be moved into a different room, thus leaving room number 1 vacant. The new guest, then, can be accommodated after all. This is clearly paradoxical; it is not possible that a hotel both can and cannot accommodate a new guest. Hilbert’s Hotel, therefore, is not possible.
A similar paradox arises if the past is infinite. If there exists an infinite past, we would never have the present day. If there was an infinite set of past events and each event requires the previous event to occur, would we ever have the present? Of course not. This is because if today is dependent upon the fact that yesterday happened, and there is an infinite set of these dependencies (i.e. forever) - today will have not occurred. This is similar to the library book example mentioned earlier.
That such a paradox results from the assumption that the past is infinite, it is claimed, demonstrates that it is not possible that that assumption is correct. The past, it seems, cannot be infinite, because it is not possible that there be an infinite number of past moments. If the past cannot be infinite, then the universe must have a beginning.
Additionally if one begins with a number, and repeatedly adds one to it, one will never arrive at infinity. If one has a heap of sand, and repeatedly adds more sand to it, the heap will never become infinitely large. Taking something finite and repeatedly adding finite quantities to it will never make it infinite. Actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition.
The past has been created by successive addition. The past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present and then into the past. Every moment that is now past was once in the future, but was added to the past by the passage of time.
If actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the past was created by successive addition, then the past cannot be an actual infinite. The past must be finite, and the universe must therefore have had a beginning.
Finally if I were to set out on a journey to an infinitely distant point in space, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been walking for, a part of the journey would still remain. I would never arrive at my destination. Infinite space cannot be traversed.
Similarly, if I were to start counting to infinity, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been counting for, I would still only have counted to a finite number. It is impossible to traverse the infinite set of numbers between zero and infinity. This also applies to the past. If the past were infinite, then it would not just take a long time to the present to arrive; rather, the present would never arrive. No matter how much time had passed, we would still be working through the infinite past. It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time.
Clearly, though, the present has arrived, the past has been traversed. The past, therefore, cannot be infinite, but must rather be finite. The universe has a beginning.
In conclusion it can be understood that Dawkins fails to give the major arguments any justice, and he consciously ignores the counter refutations to his age old swiping statements. Maybe he felt they were intellectually convincing, so he decided to protect his ‘dogma’ and brush the truth under his swelling carpet.
Dawkins and Empiricism
I am in the process of reading 'The God Delusion' by the famous Richard Dawkins. It is a very interesting read. I will post a book review and a refutation of his main concepts in the near future. In the meantime please read below an interesting case against empiricism. Reading this will contextualise Dawkins' arguments, as most of his arguments are based upon empiricism. In my opinion Dawkins is someone who is restricted within the limited scope of his own 'faith' - empricism. I think it's time he and many others started to think out of their self-imposed 'box'.
Empirical Thought
Discussion arose as to whether thought originated before matter or whether matter was the source of thought. The rationalists, and we should distinguish here between the ‘rationalists’ and what is meant by ‘rational thought’, stated that humans were born with innate thoughts.
One such exponent was Emannuel Kant, the German philosopher. In response to this, the empiricists stated that such conclusion wasn't based upon any evidences and was merely an assumption. Further, in their zeal to remove the creator from the equation, the empiricists (such as the communists) stated that thought resulted from matter itself. Thus, they stated that the first step in the process of acquiring knowledge is the primary contact with the external environment - this is the stage of sensory perception. The second stage is the accumulation and the organisation of the information which is gathered from the sensory perception. This description of empirical thought was succinctly put by Mao Tse tung. In essence the thinking process according to them is produced by the sensation of the environment around them. Thus thought was a mere reflection of the matter onto the brain. This, they said, was the basis of thinking; that no thought could exist except if a reality exists for it.
However, they misunderstood the reality of thinking as we clearly know. A simple example of a doctor undertaking tests proves that such tests do not establish the disease of his patient unless he has previous information as to what the tests are meant to yield. To further clarify this, a doctor must know the average blood sugar level in the body for a normal healthy patient, and then when subsequent tests are made and it is found that the patients blood sugar level is higher than the average for a normal patient, one can say he has hyperglycemia i.e. diabetes. So this simple analogy throws doubt on the empirical method of thinking as the sole basis of thought; as this example clearly shows that previous information is required as well as sensory perception.
Further, while conducting experiments at school we are told, in order to put into practice the empirical approach - we first formulate a hypothesis then a method to test the hypothesis. Then we record the results obtained from tests, finally concluding whether the tests substantiates the hypothesis or not. The very fact that we had a hypothesis clearly demonstrates that there was previous information upon which the experimentation was built. Therefore, simply stating that thought arises from purely sensing the environment or the reality is completely false when practically employing the empirical method. In fact due to the presence of previous information i.e. the hypothesis, we understand that the empirical method is a branch of rational thought not its source.
To further clarify this point in order to establish a conclusion based upon experimentation we need to use the rational method of thinking. That is to say we link the experimental data to the previous knowledge we have to extrapolate a conclusion based on the least amount of doubt. So as an example, we have a patient who shows weight loss and urinates frequently. The doctor hypothesises that the patient may have diabetes, as weight loss and urinating a lot are signs of that disease. The doctor then tests the patients blood sugar level after which he establishes whether his original hypothesis is substantiated by his tests. So here he has linked the results from the tests to previous information of the normal blood sugar levels assessing whether this proves his initial hypothesis or not.
Finally, due to the fact that the empiricists state that thought is directly built upon reality, meaning that each thought is a reflection of a specific reality; then thoughts that do not have a representation in reality are not true thoughts. The empiricists firmly state that belief in God is an incorrect thought because such thought is not a reflection on reality as there is no sensation of the creator. However, they have failed to appreciate and understand the thinking process because if they are correct in stating that thinking is a direct reflection on reality, i.e. no reality no thought. Then one would ask where did such a thought come from with regards to the belief in a God? This sufficiently disproves their concept of the thought process.
In addition, causal relationships cannot be directly sensed, does that mean causal relations do not exist? If that is the case then the whole process of empirical thought wouldn’t exist as this depends on the necessary causal relationship. Thus, the claim that empirical thought is the source of thought stating that thought results in reflection of matter onto the brain, has glaring contradictions.
Discussion arose as to whether thought originated before matter or whether matter was the source of thought. The rationalists, and we should distinguish here between the ‘rationalists’ and what is meant by ‘rational thought’, stated that humans were born with innate thoughts.
One such exponent was Emannuel Kant, the German philosopher. In response to this, the empiricists stated that such conclusion wasn't based upon any evidences and was merely an assumption. Further, in their zeal to remove the creator from the equation, the empiricists (such as the communists) stated that thought resulted from matter itself. Thus, they stated that the first step in the process of acquiring knowledge is the primary contact with the external environment - this is the stage of sensory perception. The second stage is the accumulation and the organisation of the information which is gathered from the sensory perception. This description of empirical thought was succinctly put by Mao Tse tung. In essence the thinking process according to them is produced by the sensation of the environment around them. Thus thought was a mere reflection of the matter onto the brain. This, they said, was the basis of thinking; that no thought could exist except if a reality exists for it.
However, they misunderstood the reality of thinking as we clearly know. A simple example of a doctor undertaking tests proves that such tests do not establish the disease of his patient unless he has previous information as to what the tests are meant to yield. To further clarify this, a doctor must know the average blood sugar level in the body for a normal healthy patient, and then when subsequent tests are made and it is found that the patients blood sugar level is higher than the average for a normal patient, one can say he has hyperglycemia i.e. diabetes. So this simple analogy throws doubt on the empirical method of thinking as the sole basis of thought; as this example clearly shows that previous information is required as well as sensory perception.
Further, while conducting experiments at school we are told, in order to put into practice the empirical approach - we first formulate a hypothesis then a method to test the hypothesis. Then we record the results obtained from tests, finally concluding whether the tests substantiates the hypothesis or not. The very fact that we had a hypothesis clearly demonstrates that there was previous information upon which the experimentation was built. Therefore, simply stating that thought arises from purely sensing the environment or the reality is completely false when practically employing the empirical method. In fact due to the presence of previous information i.e. the hypothesis, we understand that the empirical method is a branch of rational thought not its source.
To further clarify this point in order to establish a conclusion based upon experimentation we need to use the rational method of thinking. That is to say we link the experimental data to the previous knowledge we have to extrapolate a conclusion based on the least amount of doubt. So as an example, we have a patient who shows weight loss and urinates frequently. The doctor hypothesises that the patient may have diabetes, as weight loss and urinating a lot are signs of that disease. The doctor then tests the patients blood sugar level after which he establishes whether his original hypothesis is substantiated by his tests. So here he has linked the results from the tests to previous information of the normal blood sugar levels assessing whether this proves his initial hypothesis or not.
Finally, due to the fact that the empiricists state that thought is directly built upon reality, meaning that each thought is a reflection of a specific reality; then thoughts that do not have a representation in reality are not true thoughts. The empiricists firmly state that belief in God is an incorrect thought because such thought is not a reflection on reality as there is no sensation of the creator. However, they have failed to appreciate and understand the thinking process because if they are correct in stating that thinking is a direct reflection on reality, i.e. no reality no thought. Then one would ask where did such a thought come from with regards to the belief in a God? This sufficiently disproves their concept of the thought process.
In addition, causal relationships cannot be directly sensed, does that mean causal relations do not exist? If that is the case then the whole process of empirical thought wouldn’t exist as this depends on the necessary causal relationship. Thus, the claim that empirical thought is the source of thought stating that thought results in reflection of matter onto the brain, has glaring contradictions.
COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF SCIENCE OF RELIGION (THEOLOGY)
ReplyDeleteI have written following two papers which may lead to the realization for a higher theory of everything:
(i) Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator,
(1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, Lonavla Yoga Institute, Lonavla, January, 2006)
(ii) In Scientific Terminology, Source of Gravitational Wave is God
(2nd World Congress on Vedic Science, BHU, Varanasi, Feb 2007)
I have presented these two papers at the two different International Conferences. I am now submitting some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory
From Scriptures: (Prem Patra by His Holiness Huzur Maharaj)
The Current which manifested in the beginning of the creation is the Current of Sabda (Sound) and of Chaitanya (Consciousness). From whom that Current issued forth is known as Soami (Supreme Being). This Current, by turning back can merge again in the Holy Feet of Supreme Being. The entire creation manifested from this current and is sustained with its energy and when the Current of the Holy Feet is withdrawn, the creation ceases to exist.This Current of the Holy Feet is the Reservoir of all energy, tastes and pleasures, knowledge, skill, shapes, forces and light etc. etc. and of the entire creation, is also the Creator of all of them.
From Science:
Gravitation Force is the cause of manifestation of the creation (birth of planets, stars), its sustenance and when it is withdrawn towards centre or source the entire creation ceases to exist. Photons have originated from gravitons. In black holes photons merge into gravitons. In Black Holes, Gravitational Force is so high that it does not allow even light to escape. What does it mean then? It simply means that the gravitational force at black-holes attracts light towards it with much greater velocity than the speed of light. In fact, all forces including electromagnetic force, material force (strong and weak nuclear force) all merge into gravitational force in black-holes and becomes one force there and when the creational process starts again from a Black-Hole all the forces appear (manifest) again and descends downwards to create billions of stars, planets, satellite, asteroids and various life forms.
Hence it can be assumed that the Current of Chaitanya (Consciousness) and Gravitational Wave are the two names of the same Supreme Essence (Seed) which has brought forth the entire creation.
All cosmological researches should be conducted keeping in view of the following philosophical facts:
It has been stated in Bible (John I-1) “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”
Mohammedans hold that God uttered ‘Kun’ (i.e. ‘Came into being’) and the creation came into being (Holy Quran, Sur. Bakr (II.117).
In Chhandogya Upanishad it is written “Tadaikshat bahu syam prajayeyeti” (VI-2-iii) i.e. “It thought (desired) Would that I were many! Let me procreate myself!” The Aitareya Upanishad says,”Sa ikshat ‘lokannusrija’ iti (I-1-i) i.e. “He bethought himself (desired) – ‘Let me create worlds’, etc. etc.
It is written in Chapter VII of Srimad Bhagavadgita : Sri Bhagwan said, “Arjun, now listen how with the mind attached to Me and practicing Yoga with absolute dependence on Me, you will know Me in entirety and without any shadow of doubt” (1). I shall unfold to you in its entirety this wisdom alongwith the Knowledge of the qualified aspect of God, having known which nothing else remains yet to be known in this world (2). Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, reason and also ego; these constitute My nature eightfold divided. This indeed is My lower (material) nature : the other than this, by which the whole universe is sustained, know it to be My higher nature in the form of Jiva, O Arjuna. (4-5). Arjuna, know that all beings have evolved from this twofold Prakriti, and that I am the source of the entire creation, and into Me again it disappears.(6)
The Radhasoami Religion also tells that, the ‘Word’ mentioned above is in fact Current of Sound or Current of Consciousness or Prime Current of Spirituality which was issued forth from its Source, or Creator or God. This Current has later on produced light and other forces. The scientists are discussing these days about dark energy which constitute about 96% of the entire universe which is not known to us. Only 4% part of the universe is known to us by all scientific means. In fact this 96% invisible portion of the universe is the vast expanse of spirituality which can be designated as field of gravitational waves in scientific terms. Visible portion of the universe (4%) consists of consciousness (gravitational force), mental force (electromagnetic waves) and material force (strong and weak nuclear force).
Body = Nuclear Force (weak as well as strong)
Mind = Electromagnetic Force.
Consciousness = Gravitation Force.
According to Radhasoami Religion the whole Universe can be sub-divided into three grand divisions viz.
1. Region of Pure Spirituality
2. Region of Subtle Maya
3. Region of Gross Maya
Nuclear forces dominate Region of Gross Maya (Gross Material Region), Electro-magnetic forces dominate Region of Subtle Maya (Subtle Material Region) and Gravitational Force dominates Pure Spiritual Region.
This is the only Truth which can be verified scientifically and can be termed as ‘higher theory for everything’. This also supports the statement of Sir Sahabji Maharaj that ‘the goal of science – Truth; the goal of philosophy – Ultimate Reality; and the goal of religion – God’ are the three names of same supreme essence.
Many things are common between Current of Consciousness and Gravitational Wave.
1. Current of consciousness can not be seen by any means and gravitational wave can also not be seen.
2. Current of consciousness is the weakest force on earth. Its strength goes on increasing on higher regions. Gravitational force is also very weak on earth and strong on Sun and even more stronger on black holes.
3 Tendency of both current of consciousness and gravitational waves are towards their source or centre.
4. Current of consciousness and gravitational force are both regarded as the creater of all the celestial and terrestrial bodies of the whole universe. They are also sustainer of these and when they turn back towards their source or centre the whole universe will collapse.
Hence it can be assumed that the source of current of consciousness and gravitational wave is the same i.e. God or ultimate creator.
This theory is based on scientific deduction. In scientific terms it can be said that the ‘gravitons’ are the elementaryparticle which was issued forth in the beginning of the creation accompanying with sound ‘Radha’
Thank you very much for your comment. We hope to receive more from you.
ReplyDelete