arun’s blog

Couple days back, a friend of mine gave me a link to a talk by Richard Dawkins, a well known ethologist, evolutionary biologist and the author of the book “The God Delusion”. I found his talk extremely amusing, in particular the limpid style of argument. I consider myself to be a (relatively-ok) deipnosophist, at least an observation made by some from the heated discussions I have had so far. Over the multitude of discussions I have had, I have come to know it’s essential to have patience and open state of mind to other’s thoughts and arguments. I am not even remotely related to patience otherwise!

So, it was the day after seeing the video. Just as any other night, we had our dinner, which is usually followed by discussions on science, technology, philosophy, current events: name it!! More often than always, there would be a confrontation or conflict of opinion, turning into a heated discussion and finally concluding with a referral to our online enchiridion: Wikipedia!! That night, I was telling my friends about this talk and how interesting it was. Out of us three, one of them is an atheist (Ranjan), the other has faith in God (Ashutosh) and I don’t have a straight answer to the question and prefer to postpone it for later. For argument sake, I could favor either of them with equal ease.

Richard Dawkins gave a wonderful definition of “atheism”. A Scientist seeks “evidence” – a signature of proof, before he could conclude any experiment or finding. I honestly don’t know the reason as to why they should be frowned upon. Around last Christmas, we had more or less the same discussion. When we asked Ashutosh as to why or how he believes in the existence of God, he answered

I can feel. It’s a feeling. I can’t help it if you have not felt it yet.

As much as it seems to me as a dysfunctional ideology of explaining, I could not help but wondering if it’s what it is. Now in the last discussion, when we asked Ranjan regarding his opinion, he replied

I am an atheist. I really have not had even a single convincing explanation regarding the existence of God. I have asked many people. They either could not answer or it was never even close to convincing.

Now, this seemed totally reasonable to me too. I would say, “This is how he FEELS”. My father has unshaken faith in God too!! When I had an argument with my mom regarding this long back, her argument was something like this.

Tell me one thing that man has CREATED that cannot be destroyed. If WE cannot do it, it’s pretty obvious to conclude that there is something more powerful than us.

I could not retaliate. I asked the same question to Ranjan. To gist it, he explained the technology where Man has implemented cloning, created mutants of bacteria (which will continue to increase in population – relatively non-destroyable). Even though it can be discredited owing to the difference between creation and invention, this made me think “Are we playing God?”

Because, Nature has thrived without us for millions of years and evolution theory claims we have been here only for about 100,000 years. So, how can we explain our extraordinary indulgence in trying to “save Nature”, say, by trying to protect the to-be-extinct species? I read in Scientific American that the animals which are expected to be extinct in the next 10 years include Camel and Crocodiles (amidst a few others). Is it really our job to preserve them? Are we underestimating Nature? Would the outcome be debilitating? Does Science really help oneself in understanding his purpose, limitations and boundaries, for we already have done passel of damages to the environment?!!

Only more questions arise. This particular topic has numerous ramifications that are intertwined. It is therefore highly impossible to stick to one particular aspect. I hope not I have swayed too much to make it appeal as a “rambling” literally! I would like to write on “Are we playing God?” in a pellucid way sooner.

because now i am confused.