God of contradictions Birth of the God and its early childhood: Learned ones say that in the early years of his birth, the man needed an answer to all the mystic questions posed by the nature. Wherever he had no reason he invented a super-reason. He called this super reason - the God. Subsequently this concept of God was coupled with the life, norms of life, moral conduct, social values, rituals and performances. As the consciousness of man developed and he evolved a systematic study of surroundings his this super reason and the mysticism around it started being questioned. The super reason and all related mysticism were then known as religion and this systematic study of surroundings is known as science. The friction between the religion and the science has been the essential part of the human history of civilization. The God and its theory have always been under the attack not from the scientists only, which goes a few hundred years back in time, but also from those members of the society who claimed themselves to be analytics and are as old as is the society and the concept of the God. They claim that they are as old as is the God. History calls them as atheists. A number of arguments were led and countered for the God. A number of battles were fought either as crusade or jihad in the name of God. The human history has never let the God, sit calmly and peacefully. The fiercest attack by the science: Prior to the development of the science the battle between the theistic and atheistic groups were mainly argumentative. These arguments were led with varying sentence structures, different syntax and well developed syllogism. Their refutation was a bit easy. When the science joined the fray it claimed to have changed the scenario in its entirety. The science started dispelling the arguments of God on the basis of facts. The sciences broke the myth that the God is on the seventh sky. Science tracked the interstellar distances and told with factual correctness that there was a vacuum and other celestial bodies and not the layers of the skies. Religious people said that there was heaven and there were angles, enjoyment and many other things of leisurely life were there. The science declared that there is not even a possibility of any life in the universe except on the earth, at least not within a radius of several million light years around our Milky Way galaxy. They said every thing is done by the God in this world. The sciences told that there is a principle of causality. Provide the causes the effect will take place. It is as certain as that. Similarly other beliefs of the religion and the God were dispelled by the science. The theists took a new stand. The said that science has itself proposed a limit of knowledge. Beyond which the science cannot go. They take such instances from the science itself. Heisenberg proposed the uncertainty principle. He said whatever the techniques and methodologies are adopted there is a limit of precision with which the position and velocity of a sub-atomic particle can be calculated. The sciences cannot go beyond that limit of precision. Similarly Einstein said that there was the upper limit of speed which can be attained. It was the speed (precisely it is called the velocity) of light. It shows that the human efforts to explore the nature are constricted by the tools of the nature itself. No man, if continuously remains busy in observing the universe can "look" beyond an area of 70-80 light years of universal existence. This is approximately the life span of that man. Those who have read about the dimensions of universe as billions of light years know that any period less than 100 light years is a very small distance. Is this nature so evolved (or made, as the theists argue) that it is not to reveal itself on the human minds? Theists say yes. They say it is only for God to know every thing and not for the humans who are just one among all the creations in this universe. They argue something like "apple argument" at the time of Edam's expulsion from the heaven. From their arguments it appears that God wants to maintain a gap between his expertise and the human accessibility. Scientists find this argument against the proposition that the God is kind and has mercy and compassion for his creation. If he is compassionate enough then why he wants to keep the secrets of nature inaccessible from the human approach? Whatever be the next argument but mind it here that the arguments have re-entered the pre-scientific era. They are again contending their validity based on the logic, syntax and syllogism. So the sciences are not so designed as to answer all the questions of theists. This is somewhat similar to the religion which is so formulated that it is unable to answer all the questions of atheists. Then would this problem of God's existence be solved again using those pre-scientific tools - arguments, logic, reason, sentences, syntaxes, syllogistic approaches? In the early twentieth century Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in his "Tractatus" that the language is like a tool box. The words have nothing inherent in them; their meaning largely depends on the way and in the manner which they are used in. Later on the philosophers of Vienna circle followed him and put forward their principle that using the ambiguities of languages we pose such questions which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Philosophers of Vienna circle, infact explained that when the question are posed away from the area of existence and only in the intricacies of the language these become pseudo questions. These questions have nothing to do with the problems of existence. This is merely a verbal jugglery. Most of the questions regarding the God, the soul, the heavens, the sin, the evil etc. are such pseudo questions. What is the real question? The God, the soul etc. are the state of existence. People whenever refer to the existence they do it with the help of languages which they have developed during the course of their history. In the language of Inuit people the word corresponding to the snow are many more time than the words in other European languages collectively. The words related to the God in Indian languages are several times more than the words in any other language. So when you translate an instance of snow from the Inuit language into some Sahara region language, having almost no word for snow, then you may not find a proper word to describe a particular instance related to snow in that Inuit language. It reflects the limitations of the Sahara language and not the limitation of the snow or that particular instance of snow. Similarly whenever any instance of transcendental experience is told in worldly languages and it does not convey the full meaning to the listener then it shows the limitations of the worldly languages and not that of the transcendental experience. Whenever any description of the God is made and it creates a contradiction in terms then it may be a contradiction or limitation of the language and not that of the God. It must be understood that the languages generally fail to express the existence. These languages are just ad hoc tools to deal with the factual position at the empirical level. "Dasein" in Heidegger's philosophy, "chi" in Chinese tradition, "Braham" in Indian life are some such concepts which cannot be translated in any other language of the world. It shows only a limitation of the other languages of the world and not that of "Dasein" or "chi" or "Braham". It should be understood clearly. There fore when something is told about the God or the existence or the essence and it gives rise to a contradicting situation then prior to making a final statements about the God or the existence or the essence or the absolute, reconsideration must be made to the languages in which it is told. That would help in reformulating the real questions. "Reason" is only a small faculty in the human brain: Human beings have various faculties in their brain. These are emotional, aesthetic, logical, practical, verbal, spatial, temporal, interpersonal, affectional, social, motivational and a hundreds more. Modern psychologists call them multiple intelligences. One loves one's children, one's country and one's values and there is no reason behind it. Some people do not love their children, their country or values. This is always a matter of choice. No argument, applicable to all can be given asking every body to choose the same option. This is one's choice to comprehend one's children, country or values. He has arrived at these conclusions subjectively. No objective intervention is possible for shaping one's internal choice. Arguments are advanced objectively and correspond to only those aspects of life which are equally objective. But this opens a new window for those who argue about the God or no-God. Argument is not everything. A lot of existence lies beyond the domain of this 'argument'. Argument is only to see the harmony between two sentences. Arguments do not survive beyond the words and sentences. Whatever is non verbal is non argumentative. Love, compassion, bliss, blessings and prayer (in the heart) etc. are all examples of non argumentative existence. Either you are in love for someone or you are not. No argument can be forwarded for being or not being in love. The same is true for God. You may realize God or you may not. But it is all about you and nothing about the God. Whenever you realize about the God it is non verbal grasping of things and it cannot be injected into with the syringe of arguments. Those who lead arguments in favour of or against the God, infact tell about their arguments, premises of their arguments. And there is nothing about the God. If the arguments are accepted for or against the God then it will be tantamount to show that the human reason goes beyond and is all-encompassing everything including the existence, validity, cause, effect and purpose of the God. The God, who by definition is all inclusive of the human beings, non human beings, animals, non living beings, celestial bodies, interstellar space, black holes, supernovas and all those things which are not yet known and would be known in future through the discoveries of science etc., is subservient to the human reason which has still to know the whole creation and its amplitude. This then would be an anti-argument to the aforesaid argument that the God can be known through the human reason. Again it would go to the domain of verbal communication. Again Wittgenstein would be referred and again the Vienna circle would come to check the verifiability and falsifiability of the arguments. You would again be back to the point zero and you would be standing trapped in a fallacy of arguments. Arguments of reason about the God will do it again and again. A contradiction is about to be encountered always whenever you proceed to lead arguments for or against the God. Your reason has a limitation as Heisenberg and Einstein proposed the limitations about the scientific research. There is always a limitation on "knowing" the God. You can never know the God. You can never know the God in a manner as you know about your pencil or diary or dating schedule. There is only one way out. If you cannot know the God then the way is to be the God. This will be the subject matter of my next article titled as "The Post Quantum God". This is available at http://www.lightinlife.com

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company