Sunday 18 January 2015

Part of a email conversation on scientific temper

A part of a email conversation of the Google group Highschoolscience:

1. If I understand Hardy correctly, he is saying that 'there is nothing non-scientific about belief in God'. I do not agree with it. Science as an episteme has no notion, concept, observable, idea, hypothesis or theory called God. This does not mean that practising scientists may not be believers. Of course, till the middle of 20th century, most leading scientists were believers. This also does not mean that science negates the existence of God. The idea of God has nothing to do with science and vice versa. It is an irrelevant question in science.
Obviously the notion of God being what it is, it has occupied the mind of every thinking person, and scientists are no exception. So there are many expositions on science and God. I do not accept them. I am talking about the science I know, that I have learned and that I practise to some extent. Others may have different science(s).

2. Panchu mentioned spirituality as a necessity.

In my article for the newspaper (written in limited space and hence, with limited number of words):

I have mentioned that the masses believe in God. Everything else in religious lifestyle, the rituals or the 'books' and 'kathaas', exists because God exists in their belief-systems. For the ordinary person, all humans are equal in the eyes of God. I speculated that the box office success of the film 'PK' points to this.

I have mentioned that one person's rationality does not mean hurting someone else's sense of believing (one could also read an implied meaning that one's own rationality in some actions or inferences does not mean hurting their own sense of believing, if they do so occasionally).

I speculated that those who explain away conflicts based on religious differences as a matter of faith are wrong. I also mentioned that such commentators have made confusing statements occasionally.

I also speculated that the mention of 'scientific temper' in the constitution of India hurts the vested interests that exploit faith and wish to build a lumpen-society (I am using 'lumpen' with the  commonly perceived meaning, albeit incorrect :  'goonda').

And, Captain Bodas's reading of that junk paper and the science congress allowing him to read it, have contributed to the making of such a lumpen-society, which has been picking up speed since the eighties, and is right now going on at an intense build-speed in North India.
And I have also stated the point about science and technology that Anita mentioned in her mail (about S n T not evolving in parallel necessarily), though not with the examples she cites.

Oh yes, I also speculated that most scientists in India lack scientific temper. That most of them are unable to explain scientific ideas in their own languages  is an indication. This may also mean that their knowledge in science is poor.