‘God Vs. Science’
A Critique of David Van Biem’s Thesis*
Prof Devinder Singh Chahal, PhD#
‘We revere faith and scientific progress, hunger for miracles and for MRIs.
But are the world views compatible ?’ - David Van Biema
A Critique of David Van Biem’s Thesis*
Prof Devinder Singh Chahal, PhD#
‘We revere faith and scientific progress, hunger for miracles and for MRIs.
But are the world views compatible ?’ - David Van Biema
* Institute for Understanding Sikhism, 4418 Martin-Plouffe, Laval, Quebec, Canada H7W 5L9
Email: sikhism@iuscanada.com
* It appeared in UNDERSTANDING SIKHISM – The Research Journal. 9 (1): 15-19, 2007. It is published here for readers of The Sikh Review, Calcutta.
In recent times David Van Biema [16] held a debate: ‘GOD VS. SCIENCE’ between Richard Dawkins, a confessed athiest Biologist, who occupies the Charles Simonyi Professorship for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, and a Christian Geneticist, Fracis Collins, the ‘Genome’ poineer and Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993. The cover of the Time [16] shows a rosary starting with cross and the beads ending in a double helix DNA (the thread of life) indicating its basic unit as beads. Inside the magazine is shown a figure of man with wings (may be representing God) and a man with heavy white beard (may be representing Darwin) facing each other argueing.
The discussion is based on the best seller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, of Fracis Collins (Free Press).
Some of the points, related to the topic of discussion, reported by Biema are as follows:
l A Yale Psychologist , Paul Bloom has written bluntly, “ Religion and Science will always clash.” The market seems flooded with books by scientists describing a caged death match between science and God – with science winning, or at least chipping away at faith’s underlying verities.
l Brain imaging (MRIs – Magnetic resonance Imaging ) illustrates – in color- the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalance that account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus.
l Most Americans occupy the middle ground, wanting it all: to cheer on science’s strides and still humble the self on the Sabbath; access to both MRIs and miracles: debates about issues like stem cells without conceding that the positions are so intrinsically inimical as to make discussion fruitless. And to balance formidable standard bearers like Dawkins, most Americans seek those who possess religious conviction but also scientific achievements to credibly argue the widespread hope that science and God are in harmony – that, indeed, science is of God.
l In recent years, creationism took on a new currency as the spiritual progenitor of “Intelligent Design: (ID), a scientifically worded attempt to show blanks in evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality. The Federal Judge declared Intelligent Design as pseudoscience unsuitable for teaching in Pennsylvania schools during December 2005.
I have argued for the last 20 years that for authentic understanding of Sikhism it is necessary to interpret Gurbani as is, keeping the mind away from old prevailing myths, and keeping in view the present knowledge of science and use of logic. But many learned theologians and scholars failed to understand my views and refused to publish my articles in the proceedings of their conferences. It was until 1992 when S Saran Singh , the Editor of The Sikh Review accepted my first article for publication [2]. The second article [3] was published in the following year in 1993 in response to the criticism of my first article by Col. Mehar Singh Grewal in The Sikh Review of July 1993 with editorial remarks by S. Saran Singh as follow: “ … Few would question Dr Chahal’s sincerity in expoloring Gurbani with the tools of science. His argument is appealing, his logic compelling. But in case of Col. Mehar Singh Grewal, as we knew him, neither reproach nor anger is justified, much less the imputation of Brahministic or other obsecurantist tendencies…”
It is not difficult to understand that if religion is about God then Science is also about God. Therefore, there can be no clash provided religion is taught in its proper perspective [2-9]. I know little about other religions but I can vouch for that Sikhism, based on Nanakian Philosophy [6], has no clash with science. In fact Sikhism is truly a religion of logic and science.
It can be easily asserted that the following arguments about God by both the scientists are very similar to that proclaimed by Guru Nanak (1469-1539).
Richard Dawkins says: “Close reading of the physical evidence should lead towards atheism.” And Francis Collins says: “Material signs point to God but that God also exists out side of space and time.”
Let us first discuss the following statement of Dawkins, the protagonist of atheism:
“My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable – but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don’t see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”
I appreciate Dawkins’ comprehension about God: “I don’t see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the cross as worthy of that grandeur.”, since that is very cogent to that proclaimed by Guru Nanak in the Commencing Verse of the Aad Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS) [1] that God isAjUnI (Ajuni) - does not take birth or die. And jnim mrix nhI DMDw DYru ] SGGS, M 1, p 931 [1 & 8]. (Birth and death are not the God’s attributes: God is free from birth and death cycle.). It means exactly the same when Einstein proclaimed that: “God does not come to this earth in anthropomorphic form.” [8].
Again I feel proud to compare Dawkins’ other statement, “If there is God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.” with that of Guru Nanak, who had declared it consistently in his Bani that God is whole lot bigger and whole lot incomprehensible more than 500 years before Dawkins could realize these attributes of God. A typical verse of Guru Nanak in this respect is cited as follows:
koit kotI myrI Awrjw, pvxu pIAxu AipAwau ]
cMdu sUrju duie guPY n dyKw, supnY saux n Qwau ]
BI qyrI kImiq nw pvY hau kyvfu AwKw nwau ]1]
swcw inrMkwru inj Qwie ]
suix suix AwKxu AwKxw jy BwvY kry qmwie ]1]rhwau]
kusw ktIAw vwr vwr, pIsix pIsw pwie ]
AgI syqI jwlIAw, Bsm syqI ril jwau ]
BI qyrI kImiq nw pvY, hau kyvfu AwKw nwau ]2]
pMKI hoie kY jy Bvw sY AsmwnI jwau ]
ndrI iksY n AwvaU nw ikCu pIAw n Kwau ]
BI qyrI kImiq nw pvY hau kyvfu AwKw nwau ]3]
nwnk kwgd lK mxw piV piV kIcY Bwau ]
msU qoit n AwveI lyKix pauxu clwau ]
BI qyrI kImiq nw pvY hau kyvfu AwKw nwayu ]4]2]
[SGGS: m 1, p-14-15]
If my life is millions of millions years and air is my food and drink; If by living in cave and not seeing moon or sun to know whether it is day or night and never slept even in dream; still I cannot evaluate that how great you are and how could I say (repeat) God’s Name?
God is Formless and is of Its own. People hear again and again to repeat God’s name, if God is pleased with this system I will instill so in my mind. Pause.
If I slash my body and cut it into pieces and then put it into the grinding mill to grind it into paste (flour); if I burn myself into ashes even then I could not evaluate your greatness and could not figure out how to say (repeat) your name. 2.
If I were a bird soaring (flying) through hundreds of skies without drinking and eating and go far away to become invisible; even then I could not evaluate your greatness and how to say (repeat) your name.3.
Finally Guru Nanak says:
If I read and try to comprehend already written about God’s greatness on hundreds of kilograms of paper; if I have thousands of kilograms of paper to write with infinite quantity of ink and my pen writes at the speed of wind even then I would not be able to write your greatness and would not know how to say (repeat) God’s Name. 4. 2.
- SGGS, M 1, 14-15 [1].
Handler [10] reports his comments on ‘God vs. Science’ on CBC on October 28, 2006 that God recently made the cover of Time Magazine once again, proving He is not yet dead. God wouldn’t be God if He couldn’t make it into the headlines, once in a while. Handler [10] while commenting ridiculed Dr Hawkins but praised Dr Collins. Besides he supported Collins with following quotes about God:
“The British physicist and Christian Sir John Houghton told interviewer Bill Meyers something very similar on PBS. For the longest time we saw the universe as having only three dimensions. Then Einstein added time, a fourth, actually called space-time. And God is the fifth dimension, in Houghton’s view, though the more esoteric string theorists are starting to come up with a bunch more.”
http://www.sikhreview.org/august2007/philosophy.htm
More...