India! I dare you to be rich

Category: Science

Yes, one of them is right, but neither theists nor atheists have proved their case

I despise religions, all of which are not only man-made (having nothing whatsoever to do with God), but which generally crush the honest, innocent man and actively take the side of the powerful, the corrupt and the murderers.

From the Christian crusades to the Islamic hordes that butchered innocents throughout history (and continue to do so today), to the RSS – the Hindu terrorists – there is little good that can be attributed to religion. Their overall record (barring a few exceptions) is overwhelmingly negative.

This also means that religions have nothing whatsoever to do with morality, being hubcentres of the most immoral forces that mankind has ever created. Religious leaders are – in most cases – the worst offenders of our widely shared conceptions of morality. Excepting a few cases, there is a very strong correlation between religiosity and evil.

The need to end religion

We must therefore hasten to bring religion to an end. That is the first step towards peace on earth.

Apart from other writings and activities in this regard, I have established this page on Facebook: End Religion, Bring Peace. Do join the page.

The rejection of religion is not the same as the rejection of God

If religion is bad, surely God does not exist? No. It is not quite that simple. The rejection of religion does not amount to the rejection of God.

We must start with a basic and obvious fact. We know this for sure: that the world exists.

We know that there is an enormous amount of energy in this universe. (In addition, there are hypotheses about an infinity of other universes, e.g. the multiverse hypothesis).

Even if we just focus on the current universe, we have two explanations for its existence:

  1. It was created by God
  2. It was always there (or came into existence on its own – same thing, for our current purpose).

Only one of these two hypotheses is right.

Theists are clear: God made it. They can’t prove God, but IF God exists, then they can at least partially explain the existence of this universe (of course, they’ll then have to show who created God – or get God to tell us clearly why He exists in the first place).

Believers have proposed many types of God (as I’ve discussed here). These, however, remain hypotheses. No one has ever provided any robust, scientific proof. Yes, all sorts of claims are made by believers (e.g. this – by a “scientist”) but there is no scientific proof.

So there is no proof of God (or at least of a type of God whose existence we can prove). In science, we call claims without proof, hypotheses, no more. Speculation.

So does this prove that there is no God and that atheists are right? Not really.

Atheists don’t need to disprove the existence of God but they do need to prove their theory of the universe. Since atheists assert that God does not exist, they equivalently assert that the universe must have always existed or came into existence on its own. (Btw, this was also Buddha’s theory of existence). Atheism is a POSITIVE assertion (a rather strong one) – about the universe, about existence.

So they need to not just prove that energy was always there but also show why it was always there. It is crucial to prove why there is something and not nothing.

As far as I know, we are struggling to explain dark matter and dark energy – which comprise 95 per cent of our universe. We can’t see them but we know they exist. So we can’t even explain the current universe, leave alone explain how it came into being, or what was there before it. Any string theory explanations should be rejected, since there are tens of string theories, and NONE has any way of being proven empirically.

The level of proof we need:

The full proof of God will need to be quite comprehensive (I’ve got 100s of questions that will need to be addressed). Similarly, the full proof of atheism will need to be quite comprehensive (similarly, there are 100s of questions to be addressed).

Today, we can’t make up our mind either way. Science has not yet proven God or the spontaneous emergence of the universe. We just don’t know which of these two hypotheses is right.

Under the circumstances, I reject ANY assertion one way or other, and treat both as possibilities. One of them is right. Which one is right I don’t yet know.

Even reputed “scientists” are mired in confusion. Einstein asserts “I am not an Atheist” – and offers a mystic (rather pantheistic/ deistic) view of the world. John D. Barrow asserts (at great length, and with a wide variety of “scientific” proofs), The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Hawking asserts there is no God. So does Richard Dawkins.

But all these are assertions without proof. Such assertions are MEANINGLESS, unless buttressed with rock-solid evidence.

To the extent they make such assertions, all these people: Einstein, Barrow, Francis Collins, Hawking, Dawkins and many others like them, are NOT scientists.

Science does not have anything both ways. There is only ONE truth. Always, and without exception.

Agnosticism the only valid scientific position today

I need PROOFS. Rock solid proofs.

This issue cannot be settled through arguments on Facebook or on this blog. It will only be settled through scientific journals with 100 per cent clear evidence and proofs, either way.

Till the whole of the scientific community (including me) has firmly come to a single view – after reviewing all the relevant evidence, I prefer to sit on the fence.

That’s the only tenable scientific position on this subject, today.

Charles Darwin and many other genuine scientists veered towards this position. I question the critical thinking capacity of anyone who asserts otherwise – today.

I don’t care if your name is Einstein or Hawking. You are NOT a scientist, in my view, to the extent you make assertions not supported by rock solid proof.


KEYWORDS (to help me search this post later, in a hurry)

I am an agnostic. I reject theism. I reject atheism.


Continue Reading

English came out from nowhere to become so important, because of its enormous absorptive power

While browsing around for things related to Indo-European language, I came across a fascinating BBC documentary (of 2003) regarding the English language. I’ve seen much of it (not all) and must say I’ve been enormously benefited by this knowledge. [DVDs available on Amazon, but only a few copies left; on Netflix]

English is the biggest hodge-podge one can imagine – and hence its great success. It has had the greatest absorptive power of any language in human history. And a lot of that was just random chance.

But expansion of language DOES require conquest and/or migration. And a fair bit of power of the king. This has significant implications for the Sanskrit language’s growth in India. I’m less and less inclined to discount the arguments of one or more “invasions”, given the history of a widely known language. Kingly power MUST have been pivotal to the development of Sanskrit.

Continue Reading

The Language of God by Francis Collins – an unscientific attempt that shows Collins doesn’t understand science

I suggested on FB the following:

If I come across a “scientist” who believes in religion, I know that he knows NOTHING. The first test of someone’s knowledge of science (medical/ engineering/ physical/ biological) is whether he/she has discarded religion.

The moment Darwin started understanding the basics of biology, he discarded religion (he started his life as a preacher). Science and religion are polar opposites.

If someone “believes” then he/she has not understood the basics of science. Science is PURELY about doubt. Ever doubtful, ever sceptical, it is impervious to belief of any sort: even in “scientific laws”.

We asymptotically approach the truth. We know that we will never reach it.

A commentator suggested that there is a “scientist”, Francis Collins (head of the genome project), who thinks religion and science are compatible. Indeed, his Wikipedia page says that he is not just a believer but an “Evangelical Christian”.

I’ve chanced upon his book earlier, but never bothered to waste time on it. Today I decided to have a quick look.

Here are a few extracts from this book, and also the point when I stopped reading further.

for me the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.

Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science.

science is powerless to answer questions such as “Why did the universe come into being?” “What is the meaning of human existence?” “What happens after we die?”

a scientist who studies genetics came to be a believer in a God who is unlimited by time and space, and who takes personal interest in human beings.

I went to visit a Methodist minister who lived down the street to ask him whether faith made any logical sense. He listened patiently to my confused (and probably blasphemous) ramblings, and then took a small book off his shelf and suggested I read it. The book was Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.

The argument that most caught my attention, and most rocked my ideas about science and spirit down to their founda­tion, was right there in the title of Book One: “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe.”

If the case in favor of belief in God were utterly airtight, then the world would be full of confident practitioners of a single faith. But imagine such a world, where the opportunity to make a free choice about belief was taken away by the certainty of the evidence. How interesting would that be?

The great Marxist experiments in the Soviet Union and in Mao’s China, aiming to establish societies explicitly based upon athe­ism, proved capable of committing at least as much, and probably more, human slaughter and raw abuse of power than the worst of all regimes in recent times.

This is what’s happened in Collins’s case:

A man first becomes an atheist without thinking things through. Then he finds dying people with strong faith, that gives them strength in the face of much pain and suffering. He is now primed for change. He goes to a priest who gives him a book. That book “changes” this man.

Well, the problem is clear: the man did not think through issues before becoming an agnostic first (as he says); then atheist.

I am NOT an atheist since it is logically impossible to be one. Until I can rule out God’s existence, I can’t be an atheist. No scientist can be an atheist without publishing his proof of the absence of God in a peer reviewed science journal. Richard Dawkins is therefore wrong – for he has nowhere published in a peer-reviewed journal his proof of the non-existence of God. Yes, he has shown how religions are bad and wrong, but where is the scientific proof of the absence of God?

Agnosticism is the only position compatible with science.

But leaving this aside, what happened in Collins’s case is that this man – totally untutored in philosophy and in the logical arguments in favour of God (there are plenty of them!) – got “taken in” by the first such set of arguments that were provided to him.

I had a quick scan of his book and found nothing new there. All boring, routine stuff that doesn’t even REMOTELY meet the test of evidence. Waste of my time.

What put me off – and that’s the end of my “proofs” against this book – was Collins’s claim that Marxism is driven by atheism. That’s sheer drivel.

Yes, it is true that a few of the major Marxists were aggressive atheists. But Marxism is NOT about atheism. It is a COLLECTIVIST ideology about an economic system without property rights. It has NOTHING to do – in its essence – with God/absence of God/ religion.

Collins is a scientific minion who (like a clerk) followed the rules of science and did some good work on the genome project. But that’s about it. He never outgrew his status as a c clerk/ minion. He never grew up into a scientist.

I challenge anyone to scientifically prove God. (Or that “He” doesn’t exist).

Then let’s talk.

Till that time I hope not to waste time on this issue.

Continue Reading

An ayurvedic doctor says ayurveda is a crime against humanity and is KILLING THE POOR. Wake up!!

Dr Pawan Kumar Aryan has raised an important point today in a comment.

Due to reservation in admission to MBBS courses and high capitation fee for medical education in private medical shops/institutes, I decided to study ayurveda.

After finishing five-year course from a government ayurveda College, I found myself nowhere in the medical field. I wrote several complaints and letters regarding no effect or toxic effect of Vedic medicine to Central drug laboratory Calcutta and also to Central and State governments. None of my RTI application got response.

However the ayurveda medicines are covered under drug and cosmetic act, but there is a clause regarding preparation of either with a medicine and as per the legislative pronouncement regarding efficacy or toxic effect of ayurveda medicine their is no specific provision for the authorities to regulate.

Taking advantage of the above mentioned legislative infirmity dons of black market like Baba Ram Dev etc are fattening upon the concept that ayurveda medicines are holy cow.

For rich of India or even of US and other Western countries ayurveda is a luxury vocation with a lot of pomp and show. But for the poor suffering from deadly infections, infestations, vector diseases and several other communicable noncommunicable diseases which can be managed, mitigated, cured and treated using modern medicine, ayurveda is a liability costing them their lives.

I have found in my practice that not even a single drug of ayurveda is effective as per its claim. Placebo effect and Hinduistic religious hype is the sole basis of crime against humanity in the garb of ayurveda.

Sanjeev has raised very scientific and serious questions about ayurveda, but no one responded to the issues raised.

I think this is as strong a comment as one can get. Already I’ve commented on a massive demolition of ayurveda by two ayurvedic doctors. This is now a third such doctor making direct and strong comments.

And we have the Modi establishment determined to impose ENTIRELY UNPROVEN remedies on hundreds of millions of people.

I have no sympathy for rabid Hindutvas who may die as a result of consuming ayurvedic poison. My concern is regarding the innocent poor.

But which party (Congress/BJP) EVER cared for the poor?

Expect purveyors of snake oil (and poison) to flourish even as millions of Indians die like flies.

Continue Reading