We are logical, rational beings. At least most among us are. We crave structure. We crave for ideas that satisfy our intuitions. We test all ideas against the touchstones of our reasoning abilities. We do not like being told that something just is. We invented the scientific method because we wanted a systematic, formalized, watertight system of knowing things . Science has made commendable progress in solving significant puzzles of this universe, in eradicating big problems of humankind. In making human life far more comfortable and safe than ever before. Science seems to be the best good thing.
Could that be because there is no other good thing at all?
Maybe science just does not have any competition, not because it provides all answers, but because there is no strong contender to take on the challenge.
Science does not, and might not be able to answer all of life’s fundamental questions. Heck, it might not be able to answer even the universe’s fundamental questions, as the current state of affairs demonstrates to us. The more and more sophisticated technology gets, the answers to important questions being posed becomes, “ We dont know!”. However, even the slightly rational among us takes refuge in its wide, safe arcades for all conundrums of life. Even for questions about morals, death or God, only because there is no other reasonable alternative. There is no other intellectually and intuitively satisfying model. None. Zilch. When the rational among us rush to knock on the massive doors of the scientific institution for answers to life’s fundamental queries, it gives the institution incredible power and influence. Incredible enough for it to wax eloquent on matters it might not have the slightest inkling of. Incredible confidence for it to deliver unabashed verdicts on issues it never studied, never experimented with, in fact never even considered.
That is power. The power of ideological imperialism.
This power feeds its narcissism and makes it unashamedly play favourites! Scientists disparage ideas like ‘life after death’ because they don’t detect particles which could carry on life function after the disintegration of the body. Oh really? Can’t they see the blind-spot in their own argument? They claim that dark matter or even neutrinos are so weakly interacting that they defy detection, despite existing all around us. Don’t they? This is not to say that life after death has anything to do with dark matter, but to shine a light on the brutal dismissiveness of one unknown phenomena, while humbly admitting to the ‘occult’ property of another unknown one. This is more a case of partiality and less of scientific validity. They named what they cannot comprehend as ‘dark matter’. They might as well have called it ‘life after death’ or ‘magic’, it would not have mattered!
The majority of rational individuals think rather simply; Science is the best, so what it declares must be right. Period.
The scientific institution says that any other approach to define fundamental reality is utterly unconvincing. True. There is no contender strong enough, at least in common imagination. Modern religion fails miserably on this front. It is ill- defined, has no valid ontological and well laid out epistemological framework, no formal system. i.e. No satisfying first principles, no system of experimentation or validation and most importantly no connecting logic. That is the demand of the science and religion fares poorly. This is the demand of logical, rational minds, and religion fails miserably.
Utterly dissatisfying. Agreed. Wholeheartedly .
However, there are some glaring questions which plague us all; the scientist, the non-scientist rational person, the atheist, the rational believer and even the uneducated believer. Everybody. Questions which science dismisses authoritatively. Condescends. Trivialises. Gives flippant, poorly thought-out answers to. But you see, trivializing these questions won’t make them trivial in billions of lives. Trivializing them won’t make lives better, happier, more meaningful.
This list comprises a sample of such questions, questions which beleaguer all of us, irrespective of our intelligences, beliefs, inclinations or professions .
a) Why is there evil in the world?
b) Is there a God, and if there is, why does he/she let mindless suffering happen?
c) Why are there so many religions?
d) Does this universe have a purpose for existing, do I have a purpose for existing?
e) What is the meaning of my life?
f) How and when will I be truly happy?
g) Do I have free will?
h) Does object morality exist?
Consider hypothetically, that you are presented with an alternate philosophy, one which uses the scientific mode enquiry to answer these fundamental questions of human existence. Would the rational among you consider it? If it employed satisfying first principles, had a system of experimentation and validation and an underlying logic? An end goal. Would you consider?
What if the ‘aesthetic’ questions of morals, meaning, creativity, death and God could be tackled in this system?
Is that possible?
Maybe.
Maybe science needs to lose some of its hubris and join hands with a newer, different philosophical framework, a novel model for understanding reality. Maybe, I urge you to listen with an open mind, there is an such an alternate philosophy which could resolve the impasse’ of science.
Maybe.