When the tall, black haired, Brahmin said "I believe my religion and believe when it says Darwin’s theory is wrong”, I had a conversation within myself. The two people inside me : the atheist and the son of my parents kept talking and will probably never stop. But I guess there’s a winner nonetheless. Till the day the son finds enough belief in the religion to throw the atheist out of me, the atheist will keep winning. But this is an episode where he actually lost!!
Atheist : Hari can’t be serious!! It’s just the heat of the discussion getting to him!!
Son of Brahmins : I half doubt Darwin too. After-all, nothing has ever been certain. So what if they found fossils? Maybe that was also a wrong theory.
Atheist : So, you’re saying if people proved the world to be round and not flat, they will prove humans are humans and not evolved apes?!
Son : Yes, I bet you can’t find a fault with that argument of mine.
Atheist : Religion is based on belief of things. Science is based on observation of facts. And cannot be wrong.
Son : Maybe you haven’t seen or recorded the facts properly. Like they said about Pluto not being a planet.
Atheist : The basic advantage of Science over religion is that it keeps changing itself.
Son : So, you agree that science can be wrong?
Atheist : Of course, but not the proven things.
Son : What makes you think your proofs are rigid? The guy who called earth flat could have placed a meter scale on the ground and said that’s proof. Of course, the naked eye can’t see the microns of gap between the ground and the edges of the scale.
Atheist : But hasn’t technology grown enough to prove that the fossils mean something?
Son : Now, I say, you’re at a point where you’ve just come to see a gap between the scale and the ground. And that seeing that gap, you are assuming the world is not flat, but is a rugby ball like structure.
Atheist : You mean, basketball?
Son : No, I’m saying you guys are wrong, I’m saying you’re assuming it’s a rugby ball. A basket ball is what it more or less actually looks like.
Atheist : Okaaayy?!! What makes you think Darwin’s theory might be wrong?
Son : The fact that whole of science is based on a set of assumptions?
Atheist : WHOA!! You doubt the whole of science?
Son : Strange, huh? You doubt the whole concept of God. And I doubt the whole concept of Science.
Atheist : And what makes you do that?
Son : The fact that science is a chameleon that keeps changing to whatever the most believable explanation at that point in time is.
Atheist : So, you’d rather stick on to a belief that sounds unbelievable to both of us?
Son : Yeah, on an average, both you and I are fooled to the same amount as each other!!
Atheist : Wow! You just might be right!
Son : So, now you doubt Darwin too?
Atheist : Hmmm.. Yeah, I think so. You see, my basic objective is to not be fooled. Wow. Now, I’m the
perfect atheist! A non-believer in religion and SCIENCE!!
Son : Haha! Good, come, let’s play Angry Birds!!
Atheist : Dude, computers are a fruit of science!! How can we doubt science?!
Son : Electrons are god’s gift!! How can you doubt GOD?!
Atheist : HAHA!!! Naaaice!! :D :D
Atheist : Hari can’t be serious!! It’s just the heat of the discussion getting to him!!
Son of Brahmins : I half doubt Darwin too. After-all, nothing has ever been certain. So what if they found fossils? Maybe that was also a wrong theory.
Atheist : So, you’re saying if people proved the world to be round and not flat, they will prove humans are humans and not evolved apes?!
Son : Yes, I bet you can’t find a fault with that argument of mine.
Atheist : Religion is based on belief of things. Science is based on observation of facts. And cannot be wrong.
Son : Maybe you haven’t seen or recorded the facts properly. Like they said about Pluto not being a planet.
Atheist : The basic advantage of Science over religion is that it keeps changing itself.
Son : So, you agree that science can be wrong?
Atheist : Of course, but not the proven things.
Son : What makes you think your proofs are rigid? The guy who called earth flat could have placed a meter scale on the ground and said that’s proof. Of course, the naked eye can’t see the microns of gap between the ground and the edges of the scale.
Atheist : But hasn’t technology grown enough to prove that the fossils mean something?
Son : Now, I say, you’re at a point where you’ve just come to see a gap between the scale and the ground. And that seeing that gap, you are assuming the world is not flat, but is a rugby ball like structure.
Atheist : You mean, basketball?
Son : No, I’m saying you guys are wrong, I’m saying you’re assuming it’s a rugby ball. A basket ball is what it more or less actually looks like.
Atheist : Okaaayy?!! What makes you think Darwin’s theory might be wrong?
Son : The fact that whole of science is based on a set of assumptions?
Atheist : WHOA!! You doubt the whole of science?
Son : Strange, huh? You doubt the whole concept of God. And I doubt the whole concept of Science.
Atheist : And what makes you do that?
Son : The fact that science is a chameleon that keeps changing to whatever the most believable explanation at that point in time is.
Atheist : So, you’d rather stick on to a belief that sounds unbelievable to both of us?
Son : Yeah, on an average, both you and I are fooled to the same amount as each other!!
Atheist : Wow! You just might be right!
Son : So, now you doubt Darwin too?
Atheist : Hmmm.. Yeah, I think so. You see, my basic objective is to not be fooled. Wow. Now, I’m the
perfect atheist! A non-believer in religion and SCIENCE!!
Son : Haha! Good, come, let’s play Angry Birds!!
Atheist : Dude, computers are a fruit of science!! How can we doubt science?!
Son : Electrons are god’s gift!! How can you doubt GOD?!
Atheist : HAHA!!! Naaaice!! :D :D
10 comments:
hmmm....the atheist sounds soo familiar....who mite it be......hmmmm...
@Atheist: You cant blindly accept when the son of a gun says "science is based on a set of assumptions"..
Almost all theories need to be backed by some assumptions..doesnt mean the theories are wrong.
Science keep changing coz its growing unlike religion.
@Shandilya : It doesn't mean he theories are entirely correct either. They are correct given that the assumptions made are correct.
For example, PV=nRT holds good for ideal gases, assuming entirely elastic collision between the atoms. Thus, it holds good for all analysis made upon that assumption and is never entirely correct or wrong.
But the catch here is that nobody will ever know if the assumptions you made are correct. Nobody can ever say that the structure of a cell DEFINITELY IS as we know it today, because science always pursues a more clear perspective of things. Thus, science as we know it today, isn't truth. It is like a religion, it is what is widely believed to be the truth.
@deepak: Proper equations have been derived for real gases too and they are close to how real gases behave..which means the assumptions made for real gases are almost correct.
Yes of course, but the point here is that these equations just stand to justify observed phenomenon.
Like I said, if someone finds a better microscope, another field like quantum mechanics might pop up to explain behavior of materials in that level.
Science still can't link macroscopic and quantum physics because it actually doesn't see reality. Science can never see reality, it needs a microscope with infinite resolution and a telescope with infinite focal length to see everything in the universe as it actually is.
Agreed that science is based on a set of assumptions. But this can't be taken as a basis for questioning the theory..
We have a set of physical laws that we know from laboratory experiments, we use these laws to formulate a theory, we use our theory to make our prediction and then we compare these predictions with observations.. The fact that our predictions concur with actual observations is what makes science true..
@SHN : Yes, science is true at every point of time. But whenever the observation becomes different, science becomes false and then tries to correct itself.
We have seen various instances of this, take the evolution of the atomic model for instance.
So, if some day, Ramadasoo looks into a microscope and finds a different model for the atom, you and I would have been fooled for a major part of our lives.
All I'm saying here is that even science requires some sort of a belief in something.
If you look at the history of science, it has always evolved toward perfection. However science changes through the course of time, the explanations are only going to get closer to reality, unlike religion.
I can say the explanations are going to get more and more real because science has been used to predict certain behaviors, and much more often than not, the predictions have come true (like Ramsundar Shandilya has said).
So as science continues to evolve, there will be a time when nothing is unknown.
@dwarak : True, but like I said, that time will come only when science has exhausted all possible points of view with the help of an infintely good microscope and an infinitely good telescope. Until such time, science, like religion will rely on hope that all that we see is seen correctly. Which clearly, need not be true (like the case of a flat earth)
“I believe my religion and believe when it says Darwin’s theory is wrong”. Same here. Religion is vast. Half baked knowledge of our religion is what leads to questioning it. We should either fully learn it, or shut up. And learning it becomes extremely tough unless you’re convinced about the only basic assumption behind religion- that God exists.
Science is vaster, owing to its growth. So the complete satisfaction through science is nearly impossible. But since science is backed by several small assumptions, (let’s say they’re more easily believable compared to the sole controversial assumption of religion) it is easier for most of us to be satisfied by science.
Though science has proved a lot, it still has a lot more to answer.
And some of us ‘believe’ that it will, someday.
And some of us ‘believe’ that God exists, always.
People of both categories (and those who belong to the intersection :D) eventually turn out to be nothing but ‘believers’.
Post a Comment