Mysorean

An interesting article that discusses the co-existence of science and God in today's world.

Is God Necessary?
C.S.RAMAKRISHNAN

Voltaire, whose massive scholarship and keen intellect are beyond question, used to say that if God did not exist it will be necessary to invent him. He felt that many things in life and the world cannot be rationally and consistently explained without assuming the presence of God. No doubt, at the time of Voltaire science had not developed as it has subsequently. Today's science is an Aladdin's lamp enables us to perform phenomena, which would have been termed miracles. All manner of indescribable phenomena can be attributed to modern science. So most scientists do not share Voltaire's views.

It will be interesting to see what a reputed scientist like Eric Cornell, the Nobel laureate in Physics in the year 2001, has to say in this regard. He gave a very insightful lecture while getting inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Eric Cornell explained his view by accounting for a familiar pheno menon, the blue sky. He offers two types of solution. The first answer of scientific insight is the Raleigh's law of scattering of light. Light consists of a series of coloured rays starting from red and ending in blue. The rays in the red region are long waves whereas those in the blue region are short. When the light is flowing from the sun to the earth, the rays undergo scattering. The red rays get scattered more readily than the blue ones. Therefore by the time the rays reach the earth only blue rays are left, i.e. the source appears to be blue. The sky therefore is blue. This was the discovery made by Lord Raleigh on which subsequent developments in optics took place.

But Cornell indicates a second solution. May be God wanted the sky to be blue. You cannot question why he wanted like that. The Nobel laureate points out that Raleigh's law of scattering explains `how' blueness came but not why. Science always explains the `how' of things and not the `why' of things. While how is scientifically explained, the why finds explanation only in religion.

Eric Cornell suggests that in a scientific class only scientific questions can be raised. For a religious answer we have to be in a religious class. He suggests that we should not confuse by asking a scientific question in a religious class and a religious question in a scientific class. Not that the two solutions are opposed to each other but each has to be applied in a separate dimension. Suppose we are talking to a friend in English we have to follow the rules of English grammar but if the talk is in Tamil it is the Tamil grammar that has to be applied. Both the grammar rules are valid and not opposed to each other. Again, suppose you have the dream of a tiger chasing you. In the dream the chase is real. But once you wake up, the dream-tiger disappears. In the wakeful state we cannot ask where the tiger has gone, though it is the same mind which is witnessing both. The Ultimate Reality is one; it may manifest itself scientifically or religiously. In what way we wish to perceive the reality, the choice is ours.

Courtesy: Website of Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai, India.