Simple science and Complex Religion
Why science looks logical and has only few and common theories (read disputes) whereas behavioral science, management, religions, The God and knowledge about humans is too complex and so many? The very intelligent scientist and author of modern time Mr Richard Dawkin asks ‘ Why we have lots of religion and theories on God’?
The answer is very simple if you want it simply and complex if you want to understand it with complexity but there is an answer.
It can be very simple to understand, if you are a parent or a teacher of primary school. The best example is a teacher who is trying to teach alphabets to toddlers. He may teach “A for an Apple” and tomorrow when same teacher is on a holiday (or in other school), a new teacher may teach “A for an Ant” and if the teacher is bit modern than he may even teach “A for Antenna”
Think of a very simple case, a student (Mr Richard Dawkin?) who after few days, stands up and ask to a teacher, “Why is ‘A’ for an apple, Ant or Antenna”? Why can’t be it just ‘A’ for an Apple”? This will surely come from very intelligent student.
Now, try to imagine yourself in a place of teacher and try to explain to this to student.
We may have few answers
- It is very simple, it depends on teacher the only objective is to learn alphabets
- No you have to call it “A for an Apple’ because this is what written in a book
- No you have to call it ONLY ‘A for an Apple’ because this is what I am teaching you.
- No you have to call it “A for an Apple” because our principal says so.
- Does not matter if you understand A, you can call anything
- This depends on culture and tradition, everyone has their own way of understanding
- It also depends on ‘you’ (student) what you want to call, logically does not make any difference.
- You don’t need to learn this, just simply say an apple, antenna or ant.
- I don’t believe in ‘A’ it does not exists and you also don’t believe, it is all illusion.
There can be many more answers but I think the only objective is to learn ‘A’
Now, expand this hypothetical sample size of 15-30 students to all humanity of few billion people and try to explain everyone ‘A’, how much definition and explanation we need?
The complexity and diversity arise when you go in detail and when you increase your sample size as and parameters, it naturally (or even scientifically) brings more ‘chaos’.
The literatures other than science while trying to explain everyone (all available audience to them, at the given time) they may have used many terms to define same thing, many definition and explanation. The definition given to one audience might look absolute illogical to other audience but I think the objective was same like learning an ‘Alphabet’.
Whereas in science which has ‘limited’ pre-defined terms and audience is powered by well-defined nomenclature so majority of terms are ‘common’ and also when science deals with highly complex system they ‘assume’ lot, universal constant, constants, ideal conditions, in given parameters/conditions etc. Interestingly the biology (of which Mr Dawkin is a master) has more definitions and classifications than explanations and theories.
Basically science clearly defines its range, assumptions and limitations before it makes any statement. The majority of sciences depend on one constant (speed of light) and one dynamic or relative variable (Time), who knows that these both are perpetual fact? On the day when any of this two is ‘challenged’ majority of science book will also change.
The power of science is ‘change’ and it keeps changing these parameters over a time and new theory is born. So, if you believe that science is ‘consistent’ then you are wrong, no it is not, it cannot be.
If audience is smart enough perhaps there is no need to learn ‘A’ or even there is no need of even ‘learning’. As we say ‘The Devil is in the details’ so the devil lies in detailing and it can be detailing of anything science, religion, philosophy, Management or even in humans. It all depends on at what ‘Complexity level’ of the nature, humans or system we look at!