Faith and Fact

Here's a story I wrote a long time ago. The premise seemed to impress the panel who interviewed me for XLRI earlier this year. Hope you have a nice time reading it. Patience is the key! It does get a little heavy midway...

Faith and Fact

“Of god and man, all I can say for sure is that one of them has created the other.”       - Jay Puranik

   “Excuse me, is this seat vacant?”

   “Yes.”

   “Thank god! I thought I was going to have to travel while standing again.”

   “It’s merely a matter of timing. This seat was unavailable moments before you boarded. Then the passenger left and you arrived at the most favourable time. Had you been a few minutes late, it would have probably been occupied by someone else.”

   “True. I have to stand almost daily. I’ve been lucky today. I mean, there are quite a few half-empty bogies yet several people enter overfull ones in haste. It was undoubtedly god’s doing that made me choose this one.”

   “You didn’t get me. What does god have to do with it? There are laws governing all of this. There is no ‘luck’ factor. Science today can talk in mathematical terms about the probability of one getting a vacant seat at a given station at a given time on a given day. The uncertainty or ‘luck’, as you call it, is what you say is in the hands of god. We as humans have so far only been able to conclude superficially that some bogies are crowded, others are not. Yet I firmly believe that we can do more. By studying all the so-called luck factors it should be theoretically possible to predict with absolute certainty whether one will get an empty seat. Just plain mathematics and advanced interpolation of statistical data. I imagine that one day it will be possible for every commuter like you and me to have a station-specific chart, very much like a railway timetable that most of us carry, with indisputable chartings of the bogie number that will have an empty seat for him or her at the desired time. Obviously, this is under the assumption that there are enough seats to match the number of travellers.”

   “That’s insane! With due respect to math and science, I still say that there are certain phenomena that humans can only see and feel, yet never fathom the laws behind them. It is this realm of the unexplainable that we call god.”

   “Centuries ago natural calamities like volcanoes, earthquakes, avalanches and blizzards were supposed to be god’s rage. Today geothermal and meteorological studies embarrass such beliefs. Even a few centuries ago, flying above the earth’s surface or staying underwater for days could be possible only for god, but today aircrafts and submarines make it possible for mere mortals. Anything that has been unexplained for us till date has been given the status of god. As things get unravelled and we put our findings down as mathematical equations, science blossoms and rationality prevails. You laugh at my mathematical prediction chart today, maybe in a few decades your grandchildren will actually be implementing them. And then I will laugh at your god.”

   “Okay, I get it. You’re saying that all happenings around us are plain science. That there are ‘rational’ explanations to anything that happens, right?”

   “Undoubtedly.”

   “Well then please illustrate with an example. I’m a layman, you see.”

   “With pleasure. Just give me a moment.”

   “Certainly.”

   “Well, when a bomb explodes, the force causes the shrapnel to fly in all directions, seemingly at random and without any law binding the motion of the pieces of varying shapes, sizes and weights. Do you follow?”

   “Yes, please continue.”

   “So god alone knows where a given piece is going to fly, right?”

   “Quite so.”

   “Not quite. The truth is that with a study of mechanics and ample measurements, it is humanly possible to predict the path of any piece under consideration. Applying an uncomplicated principle that the momentum of the entire bomb as a whole before the explosion must be equal to the vector sum of momentum of all individual flying pieces after the blast, as no external force is applied on the stationary bomb. The blast is initiated by a chemical reaction within the system itself and hence is an internal force that will not contribute to any net, unbalanced force and consequently momentum. Now, the exact direction, velocity at a given instant, acceleration just after the blast and mass of any piece can be accurately calculated by studying the vector sum of the momentum of all the other pieces. Then a simple calculation yields the resultant momentum, in magnitude and direction, of all the other pieces which must be balanced by the piece in question. This directly gives its momentum in terms of magnitude and direction, from which the mass and velocity can be further calculated. Though laborious, it can be done. So your seemingly random happening isn’t so indeterminate after all and has a very fundamental principle of Physics behind it.”

   “I don’t understand.”

   “Never mind. My point is that what we can put down as an expression on paper is fully fathomable and has no divine hand behind it.”

   “Don’t be cross with me! You’d be just as confused as I am right now if I began talking about the message of god. Fine, some such cases might be explained by your equations and calculations. But what do you say about the things that we can’t put down on paper?”

   “We must study more about such occurrences with the belief that all is analytical. After all, what was a mystery at some point of time is simple Physics today.”

   “I’m amused, I must say. All that you just explained about the bomb and the momentum and what not, how do you put that on paper?”

   “Elementary. There are equations based on Newtonian mechanics and directly relate force with acceleration and also the rate of change of momentum. For your fancy, I write them on this tissue paper.”

   “Let me see.”

   “Here you go. The first equation relates force with mass and acceleration. The second is a differential equation that is basically a rewritten form of the first by replacing acceleration with the time derivative of velocity. Obviously, the product of mass and the derivative of velocity is nothing but the derivative of momentum-”

   “One moment. All this is very much beyond my comprehension.”

   “So you attribute it all to god.”

   “Trust me, you don’t know what you’re talking about any more than I what I have understood.”

   “Please! You say this randomness, this unpredictability, is god’s handiwork. I know for sure that any phenomena–any at all–that occurs can be explained logically. The ‘miracles’ we cannot explain with science do not imply that there is a power beyond our scope. They merely mean that science hasn’t gotten to understand them yet. I have fully understood the laws that govern the motion of the fragments of the bomb.”

   “My dear friend, you have seen the law in action. You have experimentally proven the existence of such a law. You have felt the results and applied this law to your calculations. You haven’t understood the law.”

   “What do you mean?”

   “Why is force equal to mass into acceleration?”

   “Um… because Newton’s second law of motion states that the rate of change of momentum is directly proportional to the impressed force and-”

   “Stop! I’m not asking you to quote law, which I know is undoubtedly true. I’m asking you why this is so!”

   “What do you mean ‘why’? If I push you away, wouldn’t you move behind by the force? The law only relates the amount of push; I mean force, to the acceleration it would impart to you. And it states that the resultant direction is the same as that of the applied force.”

   “Yes, your law relates this perfectly. But I’m asking you explain why this happens. Today you’ll say that it’s absurd for me to be pulled towards you if you push me away because the laws of Physics say so. Suppose god had made it the other way round, by that I mean to say that if every push resulted in a pulling action; wouldn’t you find it natural for me to be pulled towards you when you pushed me back? Your reasoning is not so obvious, come to think of it. I mean, we know that the like poles of a magnet repel each other. True. Agreed. I’m asking you to rationally explain why this happens.”

   “Simple. The magnetic lines of force have an inherent property of originating at the South pole and terminating at the North pole within the body of a magnet and outside the body, it’s just the opposite. Consequently, one magnet’s North pole is attracted to another’s South because the lines of force get their desired path to follow from the north to the south po-”

   “And you have no reason why the magnetic lines have such a property?”

   “Well, some things are just fundamental.”

   “You’d say the same thing even if god had inverted the properties of magnetic lines of force. Suppose the unseen almighty that I talk of as god had made the like poles of a magnet attract each other, all you guys could do is to verify this practically and pass it off as a fundamental law. My question still remains unanswered! Why? Who decides these things? You people only formulate your laws based on what you see. But who shows you these things? Whose laws are you discovering? Who makes these laws? You say matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then I ask you, who creates and implements these laws? Who stops you from creating or destroying matter? You say mass already exists as an entity made up of fundamental particles, your atoms and molecules. I ask you this, what is fundamental? You explain all of semiconductor theory based on the behaviour of an electron. How can your basic electron even come into existence without a creator?”

   “You stimulate my thinking a step beyond I thought you were capable of.”

   “That may be an insult or a compliment, but it assures me that you agree with me that there is something divine and supreme which is beyond every mortal’s intellect.”

   “I never said that it makes me believe in the supernatural. At the same time, I don’t deny your god for the simple reason that I cannot prove god’s absence via experiments or ground facts. Just as I cannot believe in god without solid proof, I cannot deny god’s existence without a logical argument. All I can say is that even if god, according to your definition, exists, then god exists in a form that conforms to science.”

   “When was the last time an invention was made which made its creator conform to it?”

   “What?”

   “Just answer me. When did an invention come up that changed humans to suit it?”

   “Never. It’s always the inventor who decides what his invention is going to be like. The invention cannot alter the inventor!”

   “Yet you say that god must conform to science. God has created your science. So science must conform to god and it isn’t the other way around. What on earth could you possibly mean by saying that god must conform to science?”

   “By this I mean that there must be a perfect set of mathematical functions and variables which govern god’s working. Perhaps mathematics of such high level may be involved that the human brain might be incapable of formulating a logical model of god and the laws obeyed by this phenomenon of god. Science has never opposed god. Science just uses facts available to us to make theories that explain occurrences.”

   “And what do you say about religion?”

   “Religion conceals, misinterprets and often twists facts to suit theories written hundreds of years ago by so-called wise men.”

   “Religion is based on faith.”

   “Faith cannot move mountains.”

   “If a mountain is a hindrance, religion teaches you to go around the mountain peacefully or better still, to live on it. Science would blast a tunnel through it.”

   “It’s a matter of opinion as to which solution is better. Science makes life comfortable, enriched and enlightened; something your religions only claim to offer. That is a fact.”

   “You believe a fact to be so because you have faith in it.”

   “You put faith in anything and call it a fact.”

   “Faith gives us back what material benefits of science steal.”

   “You mean?”

   “That inner solace and spiritual satisfaction which lightens up believers each time they enter a temple, church or mosque.”

   “Does it give them their life when in critically ill or injured? More lives have been saved in a hospital than any of the places you talk of.”

   “Science can extend your miserable, atheistic lives; religion can make the shortest of lives worth living.”

   “Atheistic? Miserable? Well excuse me, I must advise you not to confuse a believer of science with an atheist. More so to say that such a person is miserable. I know many doctors who say their prayers before performing surgeries. Quiet prayers are said even at NASA before a rocket is launched. I do not represent the entire class of science supporters. I am a subset. The fact is that I am a person of science and also an atheist. The former does not imply the latter.”

   “At least I was right about the miserable part.”

   “Why makes you think that I’m miserable?”

   “Your own principles are the cause of your misery. You only believe what you can see, hear, touch, smell, taste and analyse. Your study’s success only expands your worries because initially it strengthens your belief in science’s might each time you explain a phenomenon. The more you learn, the more hassled you will eventually get because you will always be a step away from explaining the unexplainable. The best part is that the unexplainable is prevalent everywhere. You will never answer any of the questions I asked you a while ago.”

   “There’s a saying that a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.”

   “But only a greater fool seeks answers when no questions were asked.”

   “What?”

   “I’m talking about most research work that is failing miserably in feeding the teeming poor all over the world, reducing crime and making the world a better place to live in.”

   “All research intends to be a boon for humans.”

   “What about firearms and nuclear weapons?”

   “Oh come on! That’s indispensable for national security. Besides, we also have non-destructive devices like NLP technology that are fast replacing their more violent forms, at least for riot control.”

   “What about futile expenses for inconsequential research like The Hadron Collider?”

   “How can you call it futile?”

   “It’s only going to give you newer laws. You will never know how we were all created. We cannot study the direct doings of god like an experimental sample. That’s as absurd as a bacteria culture studying the iris of the researcher as he or she looks at them through the microscope lens!”

   “Hey, even you spiritual folks keep pondering about the origin of the universe, okay? We’re just doing something sensible about it by simulating the post-Big Bang conditions.”

   “And how can you be so sure that there was indeed a Big Bang?”

   “Look, there’s enough evidence to accept it as the most feasible theory to explain the origin of the universe. This experiment will answer what is unexplainable right now.”

   “So before conducting any experiment to prove your theory right, you must have faith in it, correct? You place faith, without proof, in your theory, right?”

   “But every theory is based on initial assumptions that are not contradictory to other proven principles of science. Everything is rational, including the assumptions. Besides, the assumptions are verified to see whether they were valid after analysing the results of the experiment.”

   “And you just presume that the other principles of science used in making the assumptions are absolutely correct?”

   “It’s not just an assumption that the proven principles are undisputed. Proven scientific principles are, as you would put it, the gospel truth. We have experiments to prove anything that we claim to be true. And mind you, if you can experimentally prove under practical conditions the existence of a divine being, we will accept it without any issues. Then a sensible theory will show up and god as an entity will be a scientific truth. Perhaps it will be the most fundamental truth of all.”

   “I beg your pardon, but I must repeat my question. What is fundamental? Even if you show me mathematically how god works, my question still remains. I will ask you who created this scientifically-viable god which you can explain on paper in your equations.”

   “Then I believe there is no point in talking further.”

   “Then let’s talk a step backward. You say all previous proven principles are absolutely true. Didn’t this claim dissolve when Einstein spoke of relativity and quantum mechanics contradicted several apostles of Newtonian mechanics?”

   “Relativity and quantum mechanics, you say! Has this conversation educated the layman within you already? Look, if science beats science, the winner is still science.”

   “So is the loser.”

   “And both parties are enriched by the new knowledge discovered. Unlike a conflict between two religions where the loser is vanquished and the winner exposes its barbarism. Religion that talks of love and compassion is itself responsible for so many riots, assassinations, terrorist activities and wars around the world today. Isn’t this contradicting god’s purpose, questioning god’s supremacy and the very existence of god?”

   “It’s my turn to advise you. Do not confuse religion with god. Religion is just a way of life, a code of conduct imposed upon followers under the name of humanity. God and religion don’t always go hand in hand. Jainism, for one, is a religion that doesn’t believe in the existence of god.”

   “Point taken.”

   “You know, this chat has been quite interesting.”

   “Absolutely. To think that arguing with a stranger could be so much fun!”

   “Really sorry that this must end so abruptly; my station is coming up next. Have to get off and catch the other train now. It’s so much more crowded than this one!”

   “Well, I hope you get a seat.”

   “I must admit it; it’d be very convenient if I had one of those charts you spoke of!”

   “For now, may god help you!”