What is wrong with science?

An imaginary dialogue taking place in the 16th century

Priest: So explain to me why moon revolves around earth and not just drift off into the space?
Scientist: I don't know.
Priest: Ha! But I know! God keeps it revolving. Why don't you scientists accept that there is a God?


An imaginary dialogue taking place in the 19th century

Priest: So explain to me why moon revolves around earth and not just drift off into the space?
Scientist: Because of Earth's gravity.
Priest: Oh, the gravity. So tell me, if larger objects keep pulling the smaller objects, things should keep collapsing. Why hasn't the universe collapsed into a single massive object?
Scientist: I don't know.
Priest: Ha! But I know! God keeps the things apart through the divine force. Why don't you scientists accept that there is a God?

An imaginary dialogue taking place in the 21st century

Priest: If larger objects have more gravity, pulling the smaller objects, things should keep collapsing. Why hasn't the universe collapsed into a single massive object?
Scientist: Because the universe is expanding and this expansion is accelerating due to the Big Bang.
Priest: How did the Big Bang happen?
Scientist: I don't know.
Priest: Ha! But I know! God made it happen. Why don't you scientists accept that there is a God?

What is wrong with science? Why doesn't it accept that there is a God? In the shortest possible answer: God is none of science's problems.

Science is the study of nature, using natural means, understanding natural phenomena and their natural causes. It does not and cannot resort to supra-natural if it fails to find a natural cause of a natural phenomenon. As implied by the three imaginary dialogues above, science has no problem, never had, saying "we don't know" when science cannot find an answer from the natural realm and as implied by those very dialogues, some people keep pushing science to replace God with "we don't know" which will never happen.

Existence or non-existence of God is not something science concerns itself with and yet the demand of science to accept the existence of a supreme creator never relents.  From Galileo to Darwin, scientists have come under criticism and sometimes persecution for just doing science. In none of his books did Charles Darwin say, "there is no creator of life" and yet he is criticized and ridiculed day in and day out by religious folks because his "science" differed from the creation stories of all major religions.

Of all the questions posed to science by people who want science submitted into accepting the idea of a divine creator, the most famous question is  "what was there before Big Bang". I have heard this question hundreds of times and hearing it always leaves me a little bit frustrated because I feel that whoever asks this question should first invest some time to understand the things because this is not a valid question. It has a word before in it which implies backward continuity of time through the Big Bang which is nothing more than a hypotheses. According to all we know, the time was also created as the result of Big Bang. This is just an example, a prime one actually, of getting into a quarrel with science without knowing how science works or what it's conclusions are so far. Most of such questions are based on human intuition which has been shown, time and again, by science to be completely unreliable. Our brains have been evolved to survive and recreate and not to intuitively understand the deep universal realities. If you want to test the reliability of human intuition, go read the theory of special relativity or quantum mechanics and just try to understand them based on nothing but your intuition.

While my basic assertion is that science is not in the business of accepting or denying the existence of a God, it's true that some practicing scientists are and have been very vocal about their atheism. The first names in this regard that come to my mind are Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. Carl Sagan famously said. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and Richard Dawkins, in an interview, said, "I am an atheist for all practical purposes. Meaning I don't claim that there is no God but I don't see evidence of existence of a God". The common thread in both those assertions is evidence. Science deals with measurable, empirical and falsifiable evidence. All these scientists are saying that there may very well be a God and everyone is free to believe in one, or two or a whole army of Gods but there is no measurable, empirical and falsifiable evidence of any. Once again, they art sticking to what's called the scientific method and that method insists on keeping natural in the study of nature.

And by the way, holy books foretelling scientific discoveries cannot be treated as evidence in scientific halls. People coming from all religions claim that their particular scripture foretells scientific discoveries but those claims are usually a matter of interpretations and those interpretations invariably follow the scientific discovery and not the other way round. There are many other problems with that approach, which requires a separate examination which I am not going to do here, due to which almost all leading scholars, very wisely,  have advised there followers of not going that route,

Thanks to science, the amount of things we know today about our universe outnumbers the things we don't know about it. There are only a handful of questions left unanswered. It's true that during the investigation of those unanswered questions, we might discover a whole new set of unanswered questions. Science will keep trying to find the answers and in the meantime it will keep pleading it's ignorance about those answers saying, "we don't know." If you feel the urge to say "Oh but I know and the answer is God", read the top of this article again.

Note: However unneeded this maybe, I must say that I am not trying to prove any religion wrong. All I am asking is to keep the faith and science in different realms.

The great Pashtun spirit

The history of Pashtuns is a history of constant struggle of a people for their rights. Post-partition, this struggle, in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (formerly NWFP) region of Pakistan was mostly spearheaded by leftist political elements. In fact, the leftist elements in KPK pre-date the creation of Pakistan People’s Party which later became the torch-bearer of the Left in Pakistani politics. Today, it seems hard to imagine that once this region was the bastion of non-violent liberal politics.

In past two decades, KPK has been a source of a stream of bad news, news of religious extremists taking over parts of it imposing inhumane conditions on the populace, news of hard-hitting reaction by the armed forces of Pakistan resulting in millions of people getting displaced in the conflict, news some of which I just don’t find the heart to mention here. Every bit of such news has been very hard for me to take since, hailing from Punjab, I always considered KPK my second home; a place that was, for many Punjabis like myself, a scenic refuge away from the mundane life.

Alas, today’s generation is probably deprived of the experience KPK had to offer prior to the onslaught of extremists (and nothing will make me happier to know that I am wrong and the things are still exactly the same). I have been to almost every part of Pakistan but I was surprised to find out the liberal attitudes in the KPK region. Despite all their overtly religious outlook, in my personal experience, there were no one in Pakistan more liberal than Pashtuns. I am proud to say that some of the people who initiated me on the path of liberalism by way of showing and teaching me the true values of liberalism were Pashtuns.

To some non-Pashtuns, especially my Punjabi fellows, this may come as a surprise because out there in Punjab the image of a Pashtun we had was of an extremely conservative religious person. Half of that image, according to my own experience, is true but not all of it. A vast majority of Pashtuns I have encountered in my life are practicing religious folks who hardly ever miss a prayer in a day. But what I also experienced was total lack of any desire to impose their religious values on strangers. I would love to share two of my many memories of the generosity of the Pashtun spirit.

On a journalistic assignment, I was once visiting the town of Takht Bhai in the company of an Ahmadi colleague. We were having lunch at a chappal kabab place. It was almost time for the noon prayer. We were sharing the table with an elderly Pashtun. I asked him if he could tell me where the nearest mosque was. He turned out to be the Imam of the local mosque and offered to escort us to the mosque after he finished his meal. When he did we got out of the restaurant and while I kept walking with the Imam, my Ahmadi friend stopped right outside the restaurant. I whispered to the Imam that my friend won’t be joining us because he was Ahmadi. That stopped the Imam short in his tracks. He turned around and shouted to my friend, “you worship the same Allah, right? So, come along!” Which he did with a wide grin on his face.

At another time, while I was a college student, a bunch of us were travelling through the valley of Swat in the middle of the month of Ramadan. None of us were fasting and it was the Zia era. There was no food available to be bought. Starving, we saw an apple orchard right by the road so we stopped the car and went into the orchard. There was not a soul around. We started pocketing the apples that had fallen off the trees when we saw a Pashtun, probably the owner of the orchard, rushing to us yelling in Pashto something which must have translated something like “thieves”. When he reached us, he asked the obvious question; what did we think we were doing? We told him we were hungry and there was no food available. When he hinted at the fact that this was the month of Ramadan and we were supposed to be fasting, I offered him the Shara’i excuse of travelers not being obligated to fast. He asked us to wait and came back with a paper bag. He started picking apples from the trees, bagging them while delivering a mini lecture to us on a mix of why you can’t just enter an orchard and pick fruit off the ground most of which is rotten anyway and travelers travelling in air-conditioned cars should not resort to quoting Shari’a exemptions on fasting. He handed the bag to us when it was full of apples. When we offered him money for the apples, he said, “oh now you want me take money for helping you commit a sin? Go on your way! You are a bunch of thieves but still my guests.” Those were the sweetest apples I have ever had, made sweeter by the kindness of a great man.

Such was the kind and generous Pashtun spirit that I kept encountering on my numerous trips to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. I hope that despite all the stabs taken at it by so many, that spirit is still alive and someday I will, once again, enjoy the great Pashtun hospitality.