Darwin and Co tell us that we can explain our existence even without Him. Its evolution, they say. Scientists tell us that we can explain all other things that exist, without any reference to Him. Hawking and others say Big Bang is possible without any external assistance! So, its official now, says Hawking: He is not the ‘prime cause’ after all. He did not cause this universe; neither did he cause us! Looks like the jolly fella was being needlessly blamed all these years!
Now, that begs the question: can He exist and still not be the prime cause? Doesn’t what those guys saying mean there is no God? Or, as a newspaper headline screamed while referring to Hawking’s new book: God does not exist! I mean the whole idea is supposedly based on His being the prime cause. Isn’t it? Most religions derive their authority (and His authority) from His being the one who created this whole thing out of nothing. That original trick! Or do they all?
How about this hymn in an ancient hindu text?
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows or maybe even he does not know. (Hymn of Creation, Rig Ved, as translated by A L Basham)
Science disapproves the necessity of an active God. Science does not and cannot go beyond this point. Beyond this is the realm of philosophy. Only philosophy can take a stand on the existence or otherwise of a ‘passive’ God. Only philosophers can be that sure of something!
That, however, leaves us with some very interesting prospects. If He has not caused all this, then He, sure, is not the one to carry the burden of guilt. In other words that puts the onus of one’s action squarely on one’s own shoulders. That brings us back in the centre in the sense that we are the ones who really matter.
What good is such a passive God? And what is the need of such a God? But at the same time it takes the wind out of the strongest argument against the existence of an all powerful and benevolent God. That is, why is the whole thing so messed up, so incomplete and in tatters if it’s His creation? And similar stuff.
As an aside, can we accept some sort of ‘active’ god/s that as the above verse suggests, came subsequently? Nah! I think. That takes all the fun away. This god will always lack authority. He is no different from us simply because he too, being subsequent to creation, is bound by its laws. Who needs such a god?
Thinking of it, doesn’t it present us an opportunity to look for something better? I mean aren’t we stuck with this thing for last 5000 years. Pretty long time I say. Can we now sit together, apply our mind and reach some sort of agreement on what God we need in the present. May not be as durable as the last one but a more reasonable, compatible and reconciliatory one that accompanies us for, say, couple of hundred years! Just a thought.... evolution, you know.
