Often, I take part in debates on the existence of God, Heaven and Hell. It also extends to spirituality, group-singing (Bhajans), benefits of fasting or meditation etc. Often these discussions ends up ridiculing one's beliefs, or imposing one's belies on another, I have observed.
Does God exist? Are there any benefits in discussing my remaining years in spirituality etc.? And more importantly, should I engage in this debate any more to advance my knowledge, I wonder?
Knowledge seeking is defined as an inquiry into nature of things based on logical reasoning. A school of thought suggest that it is through falsifying a ‘statement’ or theory, knowledge is derived. Statements can be classified into (a) untrue and falsifiable, (b) true but falsifiable and (c) not falsifiable.
Examples of ‘untrue and falsifiable’ statements are (1) It never rains on Wednesdays; or (2) All substances expand when heated. Both these statements are untrue and easily falsifiable. It has rained on Wednesdays and it will probably rain on Wednesdays in future, and ice, while melting reduces in volume. A ‘true but falsifiable’ statements is “Heavy objects when released from a height will fall straight downwards”. This is largely true, except when the object was released in space where gravitational pull does not exist. A statement that is ‘not falsifiable’ is “It may or may not rain”. Statements, which are untrue and falsifiable and not falsifiable, do not tell us anything. Therefore they do not form a part of scientific knowledge. Only those statements, laws or theories, which are true but falsifiable, can improve our knowledge.
To me, the existence of God is “not falsifiable”, i.e., "'God may or may not exist", and therefore the debate on this topic can hardly advance my knowledge. So, I will avoid this debate in future.
I will settle for what my parents, grandparents and teachers taught me. I will also take comfort from a famous Tamil poet, Kannadasan, who said, if it’s there it is, if not, No!
Yes, there’s God, I believe, and I am not getting into this debate hereafter!
Does God exist? Are there any benefits in discussing my remaining years in spirituality etc.? And more importantly, should I engage in this debate any more to advance my knowledge, I wonder?
Knowledge seeking is defined as an inquiry into nature of things based on logical reasoning. A school of thought suggest that it is through falsifying a ‘statement’ or theory, knowledge is derived. Statements can be classified into (a) untrue and falsifiable, (b) true but falsifiable and (c) not falsifiable.
Examples of ‘untrue and falsifiable’ statements are (1) It never rains on Wednesdays; or (2) All substances expand when heated. Both these statements are untrue and easily falsifiable. It has rained on Wednesdays and it will probably rain on Wednesdays in future, and ice, while melting reduces in volume. A ‘true but falsifiable’ statements is “Heavy objects when released from a height will fall straight downwards”. This is largely true, except when the object was released in space where gravitational pull does not exist. A statement that is ‘not falsifiable’ is “It may or may not rain”. Statements, which are untrue and falsifiable and not falsifiable, do not tell us anything. Therefore they do not form a part of scientific knowledge. Only those statements, laws or theories, which are true but falsifiable, can improve our knowledge.
To me, the existence of God is “not falsifiable”, i.e., "'God may or may not exist", and therefore the debate on this topic can hardly advance my knowledge. So, I will avoid this debate in future.
I will settle for what my parents, grandparents and teachers taught me. I will also take comfort from a famous Tamil poet, Kannadasan, who said, if it’s there it is, if not, No!
Yes, there’s God, I believe, and I am not getting into this debate hereafter!
No comments:
Post a Comment